SPE/IADC 92565
Tortuosity Factors for Highly Tortuous Wells: A Practical Approach
G. Robello Samuel and Kaiwan Bharucha, Landmark Graphics; Yuejin Luo, BP
Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Tortuosity is one of the critical factors to be considered for
complex directional well trajectories, complicated build rates,
precise steering in thin reservoirs and extended reach wells.
When planning a well, wellpath modeling commonly
generates smooth curves, whereas an actual well contains
severe doglegs and other irregularities. Determining the
tortuosity factors to apply in the well path is always a
challenge during the planning phase. Presently no
quantification method is available and field tests have shown
that the present calculations gravely underestimate the
drillstring torque and drag values for highly deviated, tortuous
deep wells. Problems mostly occur when the drillstring lies in
a strongly curved wellpath. In the long transitional region that
covers most of the operational range in field applications, the
conventional equations used for torque and drag calculation
results in underprediction. Due to increased extended and
steered wells the torque and drag calculations need correction
to take care of the tortuous effects of the wellbore. This paper
addresses the adverse impact of the torque and drag
calculations in highly tortuous wells and presents an approach
to calibrate the tortuosity factors whereby the accuracy of the
calculations is enhanced. The methodology uses actual survey
data and known surface hook loads for different operating
conditions, such as tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off
bottom, to arrive at appropriate friction factor values that can
be used further in torque and drag calculations. Once the
friction factors for both cased hole and open hole are
determined, sensitivity analyses can be done on the planned
survey. Appropriate tortuosity values are derived at by
comparing predicted results with the field driller’s data. This
paper also describes four methods, Sine Wave, Random-
Azimuth, Random-Inclination-Azimuth and helix used to
calibrate the tortuosity factors that better represent the actual
curved wellbore. The simple guidelines are presented along
with two field examples from Gulf of Mexico. The simple,
pragmatic approach provides a comprehensive framework for
calibrating tortuosity values for complicated tortuous
wellpaths.
Introduction
Drilling operations in deep and ultra-deep water are increasing
around the world. The development of these substantial
prospects is very challenging and requires the integration of
knowledge with prudent designs at different stages of the well
development. However, the cost premium imposed by deep
and ultra deepwater wells is very high and many of the
discoveries are marginal in terms of the commercial viability.
With the increase of developing and operating costs, there is a
growing need to reduce the cost of drilling and other allied
operations. Also, more wells are drilled in rotary steerable
mode. Alternating between the sliding and rotary modes
results in hole spiraling and wellbore oscillation becomes
more pronounced due to frequent slide drilling. This paper
presents a study on how to adapt to the new wellbore hole
spiraling effects encountered in ultra deep wells. This paper
examines some of these effects, while asserting that it is
necessary to integrate this new approach, as a result more
accurate solutions can be predicted. This new hydraulic design
encapsulating hole spiraling effects provides a simple,
practical way to view the severity of the wellbore oscillation.
Qualitative assessment and quantitative characterization of
the torque and drag are critically important in many phases of
the well construction. They not only allow subsequent
adjustments to the wellplan when combined with payzone geo
steering tools, but also successful completion of extended
reach and complex wells. Increasingly more difficult wells are
being drilled that requires an accurate estimation of torque and
drag calculations. Operating outside the safety limits may lead
to costly complications. This paper describes a method to
calculate tortuosity factors that better represent the actual
curved wellbore.
Hole Spiraling and Wellbore Oscillation
The occurrence of borehole spiraling or oscillation of wellbore
path has been known for many years in the drilling industry.
Characterization of this behavior and the effects are
increasingly discussed and analyzed with improved borehole
imaging techniques and logging tools. Increased evidence of
hole spiraling have been reported (1, 2, 3, 4). The hole spiraling or
threading will have deep impact on the well construction and
completion process. During the planning phase, the hole
spiraling or oscillation of the wellbore can effectively be
2 SPE/IADC 92565
described by applying tortuosity to the wellbore with the
desired tortuosity factor. Tortuosity is one of the critical
factors to consider for complex directional well trajectories,
accurate build rates, precise steering in thin reservoirs and
extended reach wells. Presently, the industry uses different
generations of rotary steerable systems and adjustable
downhole tools to reduce wellbore tortuosity. When planning
a well, wellpath modeling commonly generates smooth
curves, whereas an actual well contains severe doglegs and
other irregularities. The difference between the planned
smooth well profile and the actual well drilled can have a
major impact on the torque and drag losses for the well.
Models apply different "rippling" or "roughness" techniques to
a planned wellpath to simulate the variations found in actual
wellpath surveys. This option renders planned (smooth) well
profiles in a form that more realistically predict loads. Note
that tortuosity is usually applied only when the surveys
represent an unrealistically smooth path.
The industry has no standard for quantifying tortuosity.
Tortuosity is usually expressed in degrees/100 ft, similar to the
expression of dogleg severity. The calculation of “running
tortuosity” is the station-to-station summation of the total
curvature normalized to a standard wellbore course length
between survey stations. In general, tortuosity is defined as the
ratio of the summation of the total curvature, including build
and walk, to the survey stations length. The rippling or
undulation can be applied based on the different methods that
modify the inclination and azimuth of the survey points.
Furthermore, "micro-tortuosity(5)" caused by hole spiraling
results in a spiraled hole axis instead of a straight line. This
can be planned during the planning phase by applying
tortuosity over and above the wellpath that has been already
tortured with the desired magnitude and amplitude or
superimposing a helix with desired pitch and magnitude.
Tortuosity Methods
There are different methods used to apply "roughness" to a
planned well path to simulate the variations found in actual
well path surveys. These options render planned (smooth) well
profiles in a form that gives rise to more realistic prediction
for the analysis. It is expressed as the difference between the
actual and planned curvatures divided by the respective
distance between the survey stations and can be written as
n m

DL a −
DL p
j=1 i =1
T= and is expressed in deg/100 ft.
MD j − MD i
Rippling or undulation is applied based on the following four
methods.
a. Sine Wave method
b. Helical method
c. Random Inclination and Azimuth method
d. Random Inclination Dependent azimuth method
Sine Wave method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the
survey point based on the concept of a sine wave shaped ripple
running along the wellbore using the magnitude (amplitude)
and period (wave length) specified. The angle change is
modified using the following relationship
D 
∆α = sin  × 2π  × M
P 
The magnitude M is the maximum variation of angle that will
be applied to the inclination and azimuth of the native
(untortured) wellpath. The determination of magnitudes
should be based on the evaluation of historical data from
offset or similar wells. The values of magnitude can vary
depending on many factors including hole type (cased or open
hole), hole size, drilling performance, hole curvature, and
other parameters. Further, the inclination angle is modified so
that it does not become less than zero, since negative
inclination angles are not allowed. The new angle and azimuth
are given as follows
α n = α + ∆α
ε n = ε + ∆α + ψ xvc
Also while applying tortuosity, ensure that the measured depth
of the survey point is not an exact integer multiple of the
 ∆D 
period as ∆α = sin  2π  = 0
 P 
In this situation, tortuosity will not be applied to the
undithered data set and caution should be exercised to avoid
this situation.
Helical method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the
survey points by superimposing a helix along the wellbore
path using the magnitude (radius of the cylinder in the
parametric equation) and period (pitch) specified. This method
uses the circular helix defined as:
f (u ) = a cos(u ) + a sin( u ) + bu
The generalized parametric set of equations for helix used to
superimpose the wellbore path is given by
x (u ) = M cos(u )
y(u ) = M sin( u )
P
z(u ) = u
2π
Random Inclination and Azimuth method is similar to the
Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth Variation method as
described as above, except that the azimuth variation is
independent of inclination. The new angle and azimuth are
given as follows
α n = α + ∆α
∆α
εn = ε + + ψ cvc
2 sin α n
Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth method applies a
random variation to the survey inclination and azimuth within
the magnitudes specified. Random numbers used may be
between -1.0 to +1.0. In this method the azimuth variation is
inversely proportional to inclination resulting in higher
inclination with lower azimuth variation and lower inclination
with higher azimuth variation. The change in angle, new angle
and new azimuth are given by:
∆α = ζ × δ
SPE/IADC 92565 3

where example provides an analysis of two hole sections with

∆MD diameters 121/4 and 81/2-in. daily drilling reports provided
δ= M the actual measured weights for tripping in, tripping out, and
P
α n = α + ∆α rotating off bottom. Torque and drag calculations were used to
predict the measured weights and torque while tripping in,
∆α tripping out, rotating off bottom, and rotating on bottom. After
εn = ε + + ψ cvc
2 sin α n comparing the field surface data with the predicted surface
data using different friction-factor values, it was found that a
Methodology friction factor of 0.17 inside the casing resulted in the best
The following simple procedure is a guideline to estimate the match as shown in Fig 1.
tortuosity factors for a particular hole size.
Step 1 -- Collect the relevant drilling data. These include the Using the estimated casing friction factor, the model calibrated
original well plan (casing program, directional plan, BHA the openhole friction factor to match the entire 121/4-in. hole
designs, etc.) and actual drilling data (well configuration, hole section. As shown in Fig 2 it was found that a casing friction
section BHAs, definitive survey data, mud logging data and of 0.17 and openhole friction of 0.24 match well with the
any down hole torque / WOB measurements, etc.). predicted calculations. The predicted values are slightly
Step 2 -- For each hole section, calibrate the friction conservative, especially for the tripping out operation. The 8
factor through casing based on the actual drilling data while ½” diameter hole section was then used to validate the
drilling out the shoe and the definitive survey data without any friction-factor values. A similar procedure was followed for
tortuosity correction. determining the casing friction factor for the 8 ½” diameter
Step 3 -- Repeat step 2 for the open hole in each of the hole casing section; found to be 0.15. This is slightly lower than
sections. Note the friction factor through the casing should be the casing friction factor of 0.17 for the 12 ¼” hole section.
that from step 2). The difference may be attributed to the fact that when casing
Step 4 -- Once the appropriate FFs have been established for is run inside of another casing string, it smoothes out the effect
both cased and open holes, these can be used in conjunction of tortuosity and results in lower friction factor as shown in
with the original planned well profile to define the most Fig 2.
appropriate tortuosity factor for the well by matching the
800
torque and drag predictions with the actual drilling data. Note
the tortuosity factor obtained will be applicable to the BHA
that have been used in the hole section. 700

650 600
Hook Load (kips)

600

500
550
Actual Tripping In

500 400 Actual Tripping Out

Hook Load (kips)

Actual ROT_off bottom

450
Predicted Tripping In
300
Predicted Tripping Out
400
Actual Tripping In Predicted ROT_off
bottom
350 Actual Tripping Out 200
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 2300
Actual ROT_off bottom
Measured Depth (ft)
300
Predicted Tripping In

250
PredictedTripping Out Figure 2: Field tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off
Predicted ROT_off
bottom
bottom hook loads vs. actual survey data and predicted
200 hook loads using friction factor 0.17 for casing and 0.24 for
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000
Measured Depth (ft)
12.25” (OBM) open hole.

Figure 1: Actual tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off
bottom hook loads vs. actual survey data and predicted
hook loads using casing friction factor 0.17 for 12.25”
(OBM) hole section.
With the availability of definitive survey data, one can assume
that the tortuosity of the well has been built into the survey. It
can used to calibrate the friction factor for the first hole size
for which the tortuosity factor needs to be estimated. Our
For 12 1/4” hole section, good hook load and surface torque,
while rotating off bottom, data was available and was
compared with the simulated hook load and surface torque
prediction. The results are shown in Fig 3. The field data trend
matched the predicted results well.
To further validate the results, simulations were re-run for the
well using the same friction factor numbers used in the well to
predict surface torque, while rotating on bottom. For this well
 4 SPE/IADC 92565

only mud logging data for torque, rotating on bottom, was Tortuosity factor calibration
available and hence it was used for this study. The graph in As the friction factor numbers for these wells were already
Fig 3, shows that the trend line has three different slopes one determined the next step was to compare the planned surveys
starting from 17000’ to 18000’ the next from 18000’ to with actual surveys for these particular wells and come up
20000’ feet and then it increases till TD. This can be explained with some base line tortuosity number i.e. wavelength and
by the fact that the WOB and torque at bit were varying magnitude for the sine wave.
throughout the hole section. Three different torque at bit
values were taken, 5000 lb-ft, 8200 lb-ft, and 13000 lb-ft to Torque and drag calculations were used to predict the Hook
mimic the down-hole conditions. One can see from Fig 3 that loads for tripping in, tripping out, and rotating off bottom
the predicted upper (13000 lb-ft), middle (8200 lb-ft), and the using the 12 ¼” hole section, planned survey, for the well
lower (5000 lb-ft) trend lines bound the field data real well under analysis. It was determined that by using the Tortuosity
and there slopes are in agreement. wavelength or period of 500ft, magnitude of 0.35 inside casing
and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole we get a very
1000 35000 good match between field surface data and predicted data as
shown in Fig 4, where as Fig 5 shows that when applying no
30000
900
tortuosity values the simulated data is under predicting as
compared to the field data. By viewing both the plots it can be
25000
seen that the predicted data are in close agreement with the
800
20000
field data when using tortuosity period of 500ft, magnitude of
Hookload (kips)

0.35 inside casing and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole.
700 15000 800
Actual Hookload
750
10000
600 Predicted Hookload
700

5000
Mud Logging Surface 650
500 Torque
Measured Depth (ft)

0 600
Predicted Surace
Torque
550
400 -5000
Actual Tripping In
18300 18500 18700 18900 19100 19300 19500
500
Measured Depth (ft) Actual Tripping Out

450 Actual ROT_On Bottom

400 Predicted Tripping In w/o

Figure 3: Mud logging hook-load vs. actual survey data Tortuosity
Predicted Tripping Out w/o
and predicted hook-load using friction factor 0.17 for 350 Tortuosity
Predicted ROT w/o Tortuosity
casing and 0.24 for open hole. Pump rate = 1000 gpm, 300
WOB = 40 kips (OBM) 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000
Hookload (kips)

800 Figure 5: Hook Load Vs. Measured Depth -Casing FF =

0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity None
750

700
800

650 750
Measured Depth (ft)

600 700

550 650
Measured Depth (ft)

600
500
Actual Tripping In
550
450 Actual Tripping Out
Actual ROT_On Bottom
Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity 500
400 Actual Tripping In
Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity
Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity 450 Actual Tripping Out
Actual ROT_On Bottom
350
Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity
400
Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity
300 Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 350

Hookload (kips)
300
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000
Hookload (kips)
Figure 4: Sine Wave Method: Hook Load Vs. Measured
Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity Figure 6: Helical Method: Hook Load Vs. Measured Depth
Periods = 500ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5 - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) Tortuosity Pitch
= 500ft Helix Radius Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5
SPE/IADC 92565 5

Similar procedure was repeated for other methods. Fig 6 applied as similar to the 12 ¼” hole section and under
exhibits the result comparison between the actual data and the predicted when tortuosity was not applied.
match with the helical method. It was observed that by using These results are specific to the deepwater wells in the
the Tortuosity pitch or period of 700ft, magnitude of 0.35 GOM undertaken in this study. The friction factors vary based
inside casing and a magnitude of 0.5 inside the open hole a on hole diameter, hole conditions, lithology, and drilling fluid
good match between field surface data. Further the plots type. It can be concluded for these wells that good predictions
shown in figures 7 and 8 are for the Random Inc and Azimuth were achieved by using friction factors of 0.17 for casing and
and Random Inc Dependent Azimuth. It can be seen that the 0.24 for open hole in 121/4-in. hole. For 81/2-in. hole, the
tortuosity period between the Random Inc and Azimuth and friction factor value for casing is slightly lower, 0.15, which
Random Inc Dependent Azimuth did not affect the results to a we attribute to the smoothing effect of the casing being set
large extent in this case. inside another casing string. For planned well paths different
800 magnitudes and tortuosity periods can be applied to have a
750 comparable predicted surface torque and drag results for
different operating modes.
700

650 Concluding Remarks

The proposed method demonstrates and ascertains the
Measured Depth (ft)

600
dependence on the calibration of friction factors and tortuosity
550
factors for the prediction of the results accurately during the
500 planning stage of the well. Also this method provides a
450
powerful and robust method for investigating and quantifying
Actual Tripping In
Actual Tripping Out
the wellbore tortuosity. The proposed framework generally
400 Actual ROT_On Bottom
Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity
describes wells that are very deep with tortuous or spiraled
350 Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity wellpath. From the analysis it can be concluded that the
Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity

300
severity of the torque and drag calculations depends on the
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 tortuosity and spiraling of the wellpath. The method proposed
Hookload (kips)
provides a relative comparison of various designs by way of
Figure 7: Random Inc and Azimuth: Hook Load Vs. evaluating with the untortured wells. This method can be
Measured Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 (OBM) further expanded to quantify the hole quality for different
Tortuosity Period = 200ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, OH = 0.5 drilling BHAs (rotary, motor and rotary steerable).

800 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express appreciation to their
750
companies for the opportunity to present this paper.
700
Nomenclature
650
D = Measured depth, ft
Measured Depth (ft)

600 P = period,
M = magnitude,
550
ψ xvc = cross vertical correction
500
ζ = random number
450
Actual Tripping In

400
Actual Tripping Out References
Actual ROT_On Bottom
Predicted Tripping In w/Tortuosity 1. Stroud, D., Peach, S., Johnston, I., “Optimization of
350 Predicted Tripping Out w/Tortuosity
Predicted ROT w/Tortuosity
Rotary Steerable System Bottomhole Assemblies
300
Minimizes Wellbore Tortuosity and Increases Directional
9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 Drilling Efficiency”, SPE 90396. Presented at the SPE
Hookload (kips)
Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.,
and September 2004.
Figure 8: Random Inc Dependent Azimuth: Hook Load 2. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, and Darren
Vs. Measured Depth - Casing FF = 0.17, OH FF = 0.24 Stuart: “Quantifying Tortuosities by Friction Factors in
(OBM) Tortuosity Periods = 200ft Magnitude Csg = 0.35, Torque and Drag Model” SPE 77617 presented at The
OH = 0.5 SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas,
29 September-2 October 2002.
The simulations were repeated for 8 ½” hole section also for 3. Paul Pastusek and Van Brackin,.: “A Model for Borehole
predicted hook loads vs. actual hook loads. Similar tortuosity Oscillations” SPE 77617 presented at The SPE Annual
and friction values were applied to compare surface torques as Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., pp. 5-8
before. The results showed that the simulated hook loads October 2003.
matched closely with the field data when tortuosity was
6 SPE/IADC 92565

4. Yuejin Luo, Kaiwan Bharucha, Robello Samuel, Faris

Bajwa: “Simple practical approach provides a technique
for calibrating tortuosity factors” Oil & Gas Journal 15,
2003.
5. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, Darren Stuart,
and Blaine Comeaux.: “Tortuosity versus Micro-
Tortuosity - Why Little Things Mean a Lot” SPE 67818
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 27 February-1 March 2001.