00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

3 Ansichten23 SeitenTT

Sep 17, 2018

RT

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

TT

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

3 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

RT

TT

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23

Duc Nguyen, SPE, Stefan Miska, SPE, and Mengjiao Yu, SPE, The University of Tulsa; and Arild Saasen, SPE, Det

norske oljeselskap ASA and the University of Stavanger

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 27–30 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed

by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or

members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is

restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Field evidence indicates that the thermal regime in wellbore considerably affects the wellbore stability in directional and horizontal

wells. However, the temperature effects have not been investigated thoroughly in existing literature, and the effects of drilling fluid

flow and various heat sources on the behavior of formation temperature profiles during different operations are often neglected.

The affected formation temperature in the vicinity of the wellbore could result in different formation rock behaviors and

consequent wellbore stability problems. This study is conducted to examine the effect of temperature on the stability of the near

wellbore region, taking into account the heat transfer between formation and flowing drilling fluid with the consideration of

mechanical friction and associated heat sources.

A new model is proposed that is applicable to directional and horizontal wells. The model incorporates thermal effects due to the

drag forces created from the contacts between drillpipe and casing/formation during drilling and tripping operations. It is then

utilized in a number of configurations of directional wells to study temperature profiles behaviors and their effects on wellbore

stability. It is observed that the drilling fluid temperature is noticeably under-predicted by existing literature, and in some cases it

can easily exceed the geothermal formation temperature if mechanical friction is taken into account. The formation temperature

profile near the borehole region is also found to be considerably affected when wellbore heat transfer is considered, as opposed to

the constant wall temperature approach in existing literature. These differences alternate the temperature induced stresses and

consequently change the mud weight window for wellbore stability prediction.

The proposed model and the results of this study are very useful for more accurate analyses of wellbore stability problems with a

more detailed look into the effects of temperature. They can be used to enhance predictions of thermal regime in the wellbore at

the design stage of well development or mud weight selection during drilling operation, thereby, avoiding potential drilling

fluid/drillstring overheating and wellbore stability problems.

Introduction

The temperature profile during drilling extended reach (ERD) wells can be very different from those of more conventional wells.

This temperature profile can be difficult to calculate. This occurs especially if the water depth is limited and cooling of the drilling

fluid is insufficient. Several North Sea field examples during drilling long 17 ½” and 12 ¼” sections demonstrate that the fluid

temperature can be far in excess of the maximum observed formation temperature in the well. One example is from a long 17 ½”

ERD section where the maximum formation temperature was close to 45°C, while the maximum observed drilling fluid

temperature in the annulus was 86°C. Even the temperature on the shaker was more than 60°C. Indications exist that the increase

in drilling fluid temperature is larger if hole cleaning is good.

When a severe overheating occurs in the fluid, the formation will be consequently overheated after drilling operations. When the

drillstring is finally pulled out of hole and casing is run, the fluid temperature in the casing would be significantly less than during

drilling. Therefore, the formation is cooled too rapidly, possibly leading to hole stability problems. Thus there might be problems

reaching the target depth with the casing. Water based drilling fluids have larger heat capacity, so such problems are not

2 SPE 133428

anticipated to be of the same severity. Likewise, this overheating has not been observed when drilling 8 ½” sections. This is

probably caused by the drilling fluid being pumped more slowly such that there is enough time for the sea water to cool the drilling

fluid.

Based on these North Sea field experiences, a wellbore temperature model was developed to describe the temperature profile

during drilling, taking into account the effect of flowing fluid and heat generated due to friction. Mechanical friction, although less

mentioned in most studies, appears to be the main heat source contributing to the overheating of drilling fluids. In deviated wells,

the drillpipe is often in contact with the borehole wall, especially in dogleg sections, creating friction between the components.

Friction is also generated at the drillbit during drilling. Actual field damages indicate that a tremendous amount of heat has been

generated, creating a significant force at the points of contact, which wears out inches of steel on the robust tool joints or

underreamers. Therefore, mechanical friction not only adds to the heating of drilling fluids, but also indirectly affects wellbore

instability.

Many factors need to be considered in a wellbore stability analysis, and it requires quite comprehensive studies in order to resolve

the problems thoroughly. In summary, the major mechanisms that affect the state of stresses in the rock formation around the

wellbore are: mechanical, hydraulic, thermal and chemical effects. This study focuses on providing a more accurate prediction for

the thermally induced stresses and their effects on wellbore stability prediction, by incorporating the developed wellbore

temperature model. The outcomes are mechanistic and computer models that could be used to analyze wellbore stability problems,

or combined with other models to produce more comprehensive simulations that can better manage various field conditions.

Modeling

Literature review has been carried out on wellbore heat transfer and wellbore stability. More details are presented by Nguyen8

(2009). In summary, the wellbore temperature model is constructed based on balance of energy in a control volume. Heat

generated by mechanical friction is calculated from contact forces obtained from a 3D drag and torque model. And finally, the

wellbore stability model uses the traditional single point failure approach with consideration of hydraulic and thermally induced

stresses.

Basic assumptions for the transient heat transfer model:

Drilling fluid is incompressible with constant properties;

Radiation heat transfer is negligible;

Formation properties are independent of temperature;

Radial temperature gradient of drilling fluid is negligible.

For the control volume shown in Fig. 1, the heat balance in the annulus can be expressed as:

Heat entering Heat exiting

from drillpipe from annulus internal

the annulus the annulus

to annulus to formation energy

q a ( z z , t ) q ap q s q a ( z , t ) q af q Ea (1)

qa ( z, t ) mc p , mTa ( z, t )

qa ( z z, t ) mc p , mTa ( z z, t )

where qaf 2 r f ha (Ta T f )z (2)

qap 2 rp ,iU ap (T p Ta )z

T

q Ea m c p ,m Aa a z

t

SPE 133428 3

qs is the total heat sources in the segment.

Ta T

A1 A2 a (Ta T f ) A3 (T p Ta ) A4 (3)

t z

m c p , m Aa mc p , m rp ,oU ap qs

where A1 , A2 , A3 , and A4 . (4)

2rw ha 2rw ha rw ha 2rw ha z

T p T p

B1 B2 (Ta T p ) (5)

t z

m c p , m Ap ,i mc p , m

where B1 , and B2 . (6)

2rp ,iU ap 2rp ,iU ap

Formation Temperature

The temperature profile of the formation can be obtained through the diffusivity equation with the inclusion of convection heat

transfer of formation pore fluid. Assuming a Darcy flow in the formation, Equation 7 is obtained:

T f 2T f 1 T f 2T f P T f

f 2 C (7)

t r r r z 2

r r

fl c p , fl f

where C (8)

f c p , f fl

kf

f (9)

f c p, f

Equations 3, 5, and 7 can be solved simultaneously to obtain temperature profiles of drilling fluid and formation along the

wellbore.The finite difference numerical method is utilized.

During drilling operations, frictional heat usually originates from the following two main sources:

Viscous friction

Viscous drag friction is created from contacts between drillpipe and formation/casing with the moving drilling fluid as a result

of fluid viscosity effect. However, apart from the case of circulation in a vertical well, viscous friction is often of less significance

when compared to mechanical friction in other circumstances. Therefore, heat generated from viscous drag is neglected in this

study.

Mechanical friction

Friction from drillbit: A considerable amount of work has been done on this subject by various authors for different bit types.

In this study, a general formula by Warren12 (1984) is used to estimate the heat generated at drillbit:

4 SPE 133428

1

qbit (10)

J

where J is Joule’s constant, relating the work done and heat generation (J=1 when both sides are in a consistent unit system),

is bit efficiency (the portion of work done by the drillbit that is used to break the rock),

Friction from drag force between drillpipe and formation/casing: In rotary drilling, heat generated from the drag force is one of

the primary components. However, the effect of this factor on wellbore temperature profiles has not been addressed in recent

studies. Therefore, in order to evaluate the value and significance of drag force, a 3D drag and torque model was investigated.

Details of the drag and torque model can be found from the work of Mitchell and Miska7 (2008) and are summarized in Appendix

A. The unit contact force resulting from the drag and torque model, which subsequently relates to the drag force, is then used to

estimate the heat generated by this mechanical drag:

s

1 2

J s1

q drag f wc rp 2 N ds (11)

s

1 2

J s1

q drag f wc ROP ds (12)

wc is unit contact force,

Wellbore Stability

When a well is drilled, the rock is replaced by the drilling fluid with different density. Along with the rock’s exposure to

drilling fluid, this leads to an uneven redistribution of rock stresses in the formation, especially around the borehole, causing

different effects on the stability of the well. First, the in-situ stresses and rock deformation are connected to each other using a

linear elastic approach. Then, the effects of pore pressure induced stresses and temperature induced stresses are added to the

system by the principle of superposition. Finally, failure criteria are utilized to determine the limits of deformation and evaluate

rock stability under investigated conditions.

For an inclined wellbore geometry shown in Fig. 2, the well is characterized by its inclination angle and azimuth, measured

from true geological North. A homogeneous and isotropic formation around the wellbore is assumed with constant rock and pore

fluid properties. The stress state caused by the three in-situ principal stresses is rotated to align with the wellbore axes, and then

converted to the cylindrical coordinate system for convenience in wellbore problems. The solution for the pure elastic model can

be found in most literature such as Jaeger and Cook6 (1976) and Fjaer et al.4 (1992). The equations for hydraulic and thermally

induced stresses are presented below without going into detailed derivation:

P 1 2 1 r rw2

r 2 rw

rr P ( r ' , t ) r ' dr ' P

1

w 2

r

P 1 2 1 r rw2

2 P(r ' , t )r ' dr ' P(r , t ) Pw 2 (13)

1 r rw r

zz P 1 2 P(r , t )

1

SPE 133428 5

P ( r , t ) P ( r , t ) P ( r ,0 ) (14)

T E 1 r rw2

1 r 2 rw

rr T f (r ' , t )r ' dr ' T E Tw (t ) 2

r

T E 1 r rw2

1 r 2 rw

T f ( r ' , t ) r ' dr ' T f ( r , t ) T E Tw (t ) (15)

r2

zz T E T f (r , t )

1

where Tw is the borehole wall temperature fluctuation, and is given by:

Tw (t ) T f ( rw , t ) T f ( rw ,0) (16)

Thermo-Poro-Elastic Model

The thermo-poro-elastic model is obtained by superposing in-situ mechanical, hydraulic and thermal induced stress effects.

Equations 13 and 15 are added onto the pure elastic model, and the stress components (Fig. 3) can be expressed as follows:

xxo yy

o

rw2 xxo yy

o

4 2

4 2

rr 1 1 3 rw 4 rw cos 2 xyo 1 3 rw 4 rw sin 2

r 2 4 2 4 2

2 2 r r r r

rw2 P 1 2 1 r T E 1 r rw2

r 2 rw 1 r 2 rw

Pw 2 P (r ' , t )r ' dr ' T f (r ' , t )r ' dr ' T E Tw (t ) 2

r 1 r

xxo yy

o

rw2 xxo yy

o

4

4

2

1 1 3 rw cos 2 xyo 1 3 rw sin 2 Pw rw

r 2 r 4 r 4 r2

2 2

P 1 2 1 r E1 r rw2

2 P ( r ' , t ) r ' dr ' P ( r , t ) T

2 fT ( r ' , t ) r ' dr ' T ( r , t ) E T (t )

1 1 r r

f T w

r r w w

r2

1 2 E

zz zzo 2 xxo yyo

2 2

r r

w

cos 2 4 xyo sin 2 P

w

P(r , t ) T T f (r , t )

r2

r

2

1 1

yy

o

xxo 4 2

4 2

r r 1 3 rw 2 rw sin 2 xyo 1 3 rw 2 rw cos 2

4 2 4 2

2 r r r r

rw2

z z

sin cos 1 2

o

xz

o

yz

r

rw2

zr rz xzo cos yzo sin 1 .

r 2

(17)

6 SPE 133428

Failure Criteria

When the formation rock is subjected to sufficiently large stresses, a failure of some kind will occur. Failure criteria define the

limit of deformation before the rock fails due to induced stresses. Most strength criteria are expressed in terms of principal stresses,

which are normal stresses acting on principal planes where all shear stresses are zero. Thus it is necessary to find the orientation of

coordinate system that can satisfy this condition. The procedure of finding principal stresses is equivalent to computing the

eigenvalues of the stress tensor matrix, and this can be achieved with mathematical matrix operations and algorithms.

There are several different criteria used in wellbore stability analysis, most of which apply to a homogeneous rock only. Hence,

to utilize the existing failure criteria for a porous medium saturated with fluid, effective stresses need to be used. The most

commonly used criteria are included in this study: Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, Modified Lade, Tensile Failure, etc. Details

about these criteria have been summarized by Nguyen8 (2009) and will not be described here.

Results

The complete model consists of five sub-models: Wellbore Trajectory, Drag & Torque, Wellbore Hydraulics, Wellbore Heat

Transfer, and Wellbore Stability. Each sub model is also available as a stand-alone module that can be used for specific

simulations and studies. The complete algorithm is shown in Fig. 4, with the sub models in bold. A computer simulator is also

developed and utilized in a parametric study and sensitivity analysis.

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis can help determine the important factors that have greatest effects on wellbore stability. Controllable

factors can be adjusted and managed during drilling operation, and thus enhancing the control and stability of the well. On the

other hand, an analysis on uncontrollable parameters can help with categorizing formation types or rock properties in terms of

wellbore stability prediction.

First, it is necessary to determine all of the parameters involved and classify them based on their controllability. As seen in

Table 1, there are approximately 23 controllable parameters and 23 uncontrollable parameters. Using the traditional factorial

approach, if 3 levels of variation are used for each controllable parameter, then the total number of simulation runs will be: 323 =

94,143,178,827. This is clearly impractical in any scope of study. Therefore, the Taguchi approach9 is used to reduce the work

load. This is a statistical optimization method that is very useful in the design of experiments. It helps produce analyses at

relatively high levels of confidence with far fewer experiments. The selection of the Taguchi matrix based on the number of

variables and number of levels is shown in Table 2. For 23 factors with 3 levels, the minimum number of tests is only 36, a

significant reduction from the factorial approach.

Uncontrollable Factors

Uncontrollable factors consist of formation properties and pore fluid properties. The inputs for the base case are shown in

Table 6, and the inputs for 3 levels of variation for each parameter are shown in Table 7. The selection of the Taguchi orthogonal

array is therefore as shown in the following list. All orthogonal arrays used are included in Tables 3 through 5.

Pure Elastic: L18 (5 factors, 3 levels)

Poro-Elastic: L27 (10 factors, 3 levels)

Thermo-Poro-Elastic: L36 (19 factors, 3 levels)

After running the computer simulator with the specified Taguchi matrix, the mud weight window is obtained (Table 9). This

information is then examined in an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The p-value calculated is the probability of error involved in

accepting a result as valid (or the probability that the observed relationship in a sample occurred by pure chance). In other words,

(1 – p) represents the level of confidence that the event is statistically significant (i.e., unlikely to have occurred by chance).

Therefore, a lower p-value indicates a higher degree of confidence and vice versa. Typically, a cut-off value of 5% is used, which

means that if a finding has a 95% or more chance of being true (p-value 5%), it can be considered statistically significant.

As seen in Table 10, all factors in the pure elastic model are statistically significant. However, the p-value lacks a

demonstration of the relative effect of each individual factor on the mud weight window. Therefore, a test of significance is usually

accompanied by effect size statistics, which approximate the size and practical importance of each factor. Fig. 5 shows pie charts

for the effect size statistics, with statiscally significant factors in bold red letters. It can be observed that cohesive strength, internal

friction angle and pore pressure gradient have the greatest effect on the prediction of mud weight window.

SPE 133428 7

The shear failure criterion used to analyze wellbore stability (Mohr-Coulomb) takes cohesive strength and internal friction

angle as the controlling rock strength parameters, hence their influence on the final result. And because the pure elastic model

assumes a constant pore pressure profile along the radial direction, the pore pressure gradient – which determines the initial pore

pressure value and consequently the calculation of effective principal stresses – is one of the main factors affecting the outcome.

Poro-Elastic Model:

The same analyses are carried out and the results obtained show some similarities with the pure elastic model in the

significance and effect size of cohesive strength and internal friction angle (Fig. 6). However, when the effect of pore pressure

changes is taken into account, the influence of Biot’s constant is more pronounced. This is due to the additional consideration of

hydraulic induced stresses which is also influenced by Biot’s constant through the effective stress concept by Terzaghi11 (1948)

and Biot1 (1941).

Thermo-Poro-Elastic Model:

Fig. 7 shows the results for thermo-poro-elastic model. The previous rock strength properties (cohesive strength and internal

friction angle) still play an important role in mud weight window prediction as expected. Biot’s constant also has a sizeable effect

on the result, and the influence seems to be more prominent at lower values of Biot’s constant (higher rock compressibility). In

contrast, the thermal related parameters do not display their significance or influence.

Controllable Factors

Controllable factors include wellbore geometry, drilling fluid properties and operating conditions. The inputs for 3 levels of

variation for each parameter are shown in Table 8. The selection of the Taguchi orthogonal array is:

Pure Elastic: L18 (7 factors, 3 levels)

Poro-Elastic: L18 (8 factors, 3 levels)

Thermo-Poro-Elastic: L36 (20 factors, 3 levels)

The analysis of variance for pure elastic and poro-elastic models do not show any statistically significant parameters, perhaps

due to the large variation in some factors’ values with small sample sizes. The results for the thermo-poro-elastic model are shown

in Fig. 8. There are several significant parameters that have sizeable effects on the mud weight windows: wellbore diameter,

azimuth, circulation rate, drilling fluid characterization parameters, drilling fluid specific heat capacity. Upon further investigation,

the effect of circulation rate and drilling fluid heat capacity seem to be less significant due to smaller changes in mud weight

window over large ranges of values. Since the drilling fluid characterization parameters (flow behavior index, consistency index,

and yield point) are considered primarily in the Wellbore Hydraulics model, the true influencing factor here is the pore pressure.

This aspect can be investigated by considering the effect of yield-power law fluid on pore pressure in a separate model.

Usually, one would expect inclination angle to have a noticeable effect on the mud weight window as well. Fig. 9 shows the

simulation results for various inclination angle using different failure criteria. It can be observed that the influence is more

pronounced for higher inclination angles only (more than 60 degrees). This effect is not seen in the analysis of variance due to the

limited number of levels in the Taguchi orthogonal arrays, and the fact that some arrays do not utilize all of the provided levels of

variation.

The differences in various failure criteria are also displayed in Fig. 9. Tensile failure criterion provides a conservative cutoff

for upper mud weight limit compared to other shear failure criteria. However, its prediction for lower minimum mud weight is

lower (splitting failure occurs mostly with brittle particles under compressive stress, and shear failure usually happens before

splitting). Mohr-Coulomb criterion is seen to be more conservative than other shear failure criteria and results in a narrower mud

weight window. The Outer Drucker-Prager criterion gives the widest window since it is an approximation that circumscribes the

Mohr-Coulomb hexagonal failure surface.

Other Results

Fig. 10 shows the temperature profiles of drilling fluid in different operating conditions. It can be observed that bottomhole

temperature reaches a very high value in rotary drilling mode (it even exceeds geothermal temperature). On the other hand, in

downhole motor drilling mode, the majority of additional heat added is due to the drillbit; the amount of frictional heat generated

from drag force is negligible (3% of total mechanical heat sources) compared to rotary drilling (75% of total mechanical heat

sources). This is because the rotary speed is much higher than the rate of penetration, and thus drag force in rotating mode is more

significant than in sliding mode. Another important point is that the drilling fluid return temperature seems to be similar for

8 SPE 133428

different cases while downhole temperature varies, indicating that misinterpretation of downhole temperature may be taking place,

which could result in serious problems.

Using this model, the formation temperature profile obtained is also different from those using the constant wall temperature

approach in existing literature (Fig. 11). The transient effect in this model is noticeable in the near wellbore region. These changes

in formation temperature alter the thermally induced stresses in the affected region and consequently change the prediction of mud

weight window. Fig. 12 shows the effect of induced stresses on mud weight window. As hydraulic and temperature induced

stresses are taken into account, the operating window is narrowed down significantly. In this study case, an increase of

approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit in formation temperature shifts the window up by up to 8%, reducing the chance of wellbore

fracture. Similar to previous results from sensitivity analysis of inclination angle’s effect, the influences are only observed at

higher inclination angles.

Conclusions

For wellbore stability analysis, significant uncontrollable parameters that have considerable effects on mud weight

window prediction are:

o Cohesive strength;

o Internal friction angle;

o Biot’s constant.

Significant controllable parameters include:

o Wellbore diameter (hole clearance);

o Azimuth;

o Inclination angle (in highly inclined wells).

Induced stresses from pore pressure and formation temperature changes narrow down the operating mud weight window.

Heating of the formation reduces the chance of wellbore fracture while cooling has the reversed effect.

Bottomhole temperature in rotary drilling mode can exceed formation temperature in a horizontal well.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Bjørn Dahl (Optipro As) for the initiation of this project and for providing with initial data. Also thanks

to all member companies of the Tulsa University Research Projects for their financial and technical support throughout this study.

Nomenclature

A : cross-sectional area n : normal unit vector

b : binormal unit vector P : (pore) pressure

C : compressibility q : heat rate

cp : heat capacity r : radius

E : modulus of elasticity ROP : rate of penetration

F : force s : length, measured depth

Gt : geothermal gradient T : temperature

h : heat transfer coefficient t : time

k : thermal conductivity ti : tangential unit vector

M : torque, moment U : overall heat transfer coefficient

m : mass flow rate WOB : weight on bit

N : rotary speed z : depth

Greek Letters

: thermal diffusivity : viscosity

P : Biot’s constant f : friction coefficient

: thermal expansion coefficient : porosity

: bit efficiency : density

c : contact force angle : stress (normal and shear)

: curvature : torsion

f : permeability

Subscripts

a : annulus o : outer (radius)

c : contact p : drillpipe

SPE 133428 9

e : effective r : radial

f : formation sf : surface

fl : (pore) fluid t : tangential

i : inner (radius) w : borehole wall

m : mud, drilling fluid z : vertical

References

1. Biot, M.A.: “General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 12 (1941) 155-164.

2. Chen, Guizhong, and Ewy, Russell T.: “Thermoporoelastic Effect on Wellbore Stability,” Society of Petroleum Engineers

Journal (June, 2005) 121-129.

3. Dahl, B., and Saasen, A.: “Heating of wells due to drilling operation,” Industry Presentation at The University of Tulsa

Drilling Research – Advisory Board Meeting (2006).

4. Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., and Risnes, R.: “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics,” Amsterdam:

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (1992).

5. Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S.: “Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores,” Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers

(2002) 670-674.

6. Jaeger, J.C., and Cook, N.G.W.: “Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics,” New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1976).

7. Miska, S.Z.: “Advanced Drilling Notes,” The University of Tulsa (2008).

8. Nguyen, Duc: “Modeling of Thermal Effects on Wellbore Stability,” M.S. Thesis, the University of Tulsa (2009).

9. Roy, Ranjit: “A Primer on the Taguchi Method,” New York: Society of Manufacturing (1990).

10. Shahabadi-Farahani, Hamidreza: “Modeling Transient Thermoporoelastic Effects on 3D Wellbore Stability,” M.S.

Thesis, the University of Tulsa (2005).

11. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B.: “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,” New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1948).

12. Warren, T.M.: “Factors Affecting Torque for a Roller Cone Bit,” paper SPE 11994 (1984).

Appendix

(Summarized from the work of Mitchell and Miska7 - 2008)

The simplified model applies the following assumptions:

The pipe is in continuous contact with wellbore (no tool joints, couplings, wellbore irregularities or tortuosity effect);

Inertia effect due to sliding and/or rotation are neglected;

Fluid flow effects are not considered;

Friction force is modeled using Coulomb friction concept;

No consideration of buckling;

Wellbore trajectory is modeled using minimum curvature method;

The drillpipe has no bending rigidity and no shear forces.

10 SPE 133428

A differential pipe element is considered in a global right hand Cartesian coordinate system with unit vectors i , j , k as

depicted in Fig. A.1. Furthermore, a Frenet – Serret local coordinate system is also introduced with unit vectors t , n , b .

Equilibrium of force:

dF

w0 (A.1)

ds

F Ft t Fn n Fb b

where (A.2)

w we wc wd

Ft is the tangential (axial) force,

Fn is the shear force in normal direction,

Fb is the shear force in binormal direction,

we is pipe effective unit weight,

wc is unit contact force, and

wd is unit drag force.

Equilibrium of moment:

dM

t F m 0 (A.3)

ds

M EIb M t t

where (A.4)

m rp wd

EI is pipe bending stiffness,

is pipe curvature,

M t is the magnitude of moment required for pipe rotation, and

rp is pipe radius vector.

Combine Equations A.1 through A.4, and obtain the corresponding scalar equations for force and moment equilibrium:

dFt

ds F n we t k wd t 0

dFn

Ft Fb we n k wd n wc n 0 (A.5)

ds

dFb

ds F n w e k wd b wc b 0

b

SPE 133428 11

dM t

ds m t 0

M t EI Fb m n 0 (A.6)

d

EI Fn m b 0.

ds

Equations A.5 and A.6 consist of 6 scalar equations that can be solved simultaneously for the desired components of forces and

moments along the string.

In sliding mode, M t 0 along the string. Apply simplifying assumptions, Equations A.5 reduces to:

dFt

ds we t z f wc 0

Ft we n z wc cos c 0 (A.7)

w b w sin 0

e z c c

where c is the contact force angle as shown in Fig. A.1, and f is friction coefficient.

w F w n 2 w b 2

c t e z e z

dFt (A.8)

we t z f wc 0.

ds

dFt

ds we t z 0

Ft we n z wc cos c f wc sin c 0

we bz wc sin c f wc cos c 0 (A.9)

dM t f wc rp 0

ds

M 0.

t

It is observed that the weakness of this simplified model is that the last equation in Equation A.9 cannot be satisfied.

The unit contact force is calculated from:

dFt

ds we t z 0

w Ft we bz we bz

2 2 (A.10)

c 1 2f

12 SPE 133428

Tables

Controllable Uncontrollable

Azimuth Density

Inclination angle Specific Heat Capacity

Wellbore

TVD/MD Thermal Conductivity

Formation

Borehole Diameter Properties Surface Temperature

Drillpipe ID/OD Geothermal Gradient

Drillstring Pipe Unit Weight in Air Porosity

Pipe Thermal Conductivity Permeability

Flow Behavior Index Maximum Horizontal Stress Gradient

Consistency Index Minimum Horizontal Stress Gradient

Yield Point Overburden Stress Gradient

Density Rock Compressibility

Drilling

Inlet Temperature Rock Tensile Strength

Fluid

Specific Heat Capacity Stresses Cohesive Strength

Thermal Conductivity Properties Internal Friction Angle

Heat Transfer Coefficient Modulus of Elasticity

(in Drillpipe and Annulus) Poisson’s Ratio

Circulation Rate Biot’s Constant

Time Thermal Expansion Coefficient

ROP Density

Operating

Parameter RPM Formation Viscosity

WOB Pore Fluid Specific Heat Capacity

Bit Torque Compressibility

Friction Coefficient Pore Pressure Gradient

SPE 133428 13

14

SPE 133428

SPE 133428

15

16 SPE 133428

SPE 133428 17

Cohesive Strength 0.000000 1.11111

Minimum

Mud Weight Internal Friction Angle 0.000000 1.16111

Poisson's Ratio 0.028008 0.11111

Biot's Constant 0.009603 0.14444

Pore Pressure Gradient 0.000000 0.51111

Cohesive Strength 0.000000 1.22778

Maximum

Internal Friction Angle 0.000180 0.31111

Mud Weight

Poisson's Ratio 0.021461 0.16111

Biot's Constant 0.010276 0.17778

18 SPE 133428

Figures

q p ( z, t)

qa ( z, t )

z

rw

ro

ri

q af

z

q ap

z z

qa ( z z, t )

q p ( z z, t )

Figure 1 - Heat Rates in the Control Volume Figure 2 - In-situ Principal Stresses Around a Wellbore

from drag force Torque Model Trajectory

from mechanical from drillbit Hydraulics

Transfer Model Temperature Profile Profile

situ) Stress Stress Induced Stress

Stresses

Effective Stresses

Failure Criteria

Wellbore Stability

Model

Figure 3 - Stress Components in

Cylindrical Coordinate System Figure 4 - Model algorithm

SPE 133428 19

(Minimum Mud Weight) (Maximum Mud Weight)

5% Pore Pressure Constant Gradient

Poisson's Ratio Gradient 8%

4% 21%

16%

Poisson's

Ratio

7%

Internal

Friction Angle Cohesive Internal Cohesive

38% Strength Friction Angle Strength

37% 13% 51%

Figure 5 - Effect Size of Uncontrollable Factors on Mud Weight Window (Pure Elastic)

(Maximum Mud Weight)

(Minimum Mud Weight)

Pore Fluid Formation

Pore Fluid Porosity

Pore Fluid Viscosity Compressibility

Pore Fluid 1% 4%

Compressibility Formation Biot's 1%

Viscosity

Biot's Constant 1% Porosity Formation

5% Constant

2% Permeability

12% 16% 1%

Formation

Permeability Rock

Poisson's Ratio 4% Compressibility

4% 0%

Poisson's Ratio

Rock Pore Pressure

6%

Compressibility Gradient

2% 1%

Pore Pressure

Gradient

4% Internal

Internal

Friction Angle Cohesive

Friction Angle Cohesive 20% Strength

28% Strength 50%

38%

20 SPE 133428

(Minimum Mud Weight)

Biot's Constant

Poisson's Ratio 11%

1%

Pore Pressure Gradient

10% Cohesive Strength

33%

Modulus of Elasticity

6%

Thermal Expansion

Coefficient

2%

Formation Thermal

Conductivity

1%

Misc. Internal Friction

6%

Angle

30%

(Maximum Mud Weight)

Cohesive Strength

Biot's Constant 26%

18%

Poisson's Ratio Internal Friction

17% Angle

8%

Pore Pressure Gradient Misc.

4% 7%

Modulus of Elasticity

6% Pore Fluid Density

2%

Thermal Expansion

Coefficient Formation Density

5% 2%

Formation Geothermal Formation Specific Heat

Formation Thermal

Gradient Capacity

Conductivity

2% 1%

2%

SPE 133428 21

(Minimum Mud Weight)

3% In Air WOB 1% HoleSize

2% 2%

Drilling Fluid Inlet

11%

Temperature

3% Yield Point

Bit Torque 10%

4%

Inclination

4%

Friction Coefficient Flow Behavior

4% Index

9%

ROP

5%

RPM

Circulation Rate 9%

5%

Drilling Fluid Heat Azimuth

Transfer Coefficient in Drilling Fluid 8%

Annulus Specific Heat

8% Capacity

8%

(Maximum Mud Weight)

Drilling Fluid Heat

Drillpipe Unit Transfer Coefficient in Time

Weight In Air Drillpipe

3% Drillpipe Thermal

3% 2%

WOB Conductivity

2% 4%

Consistency Index

1%

Hole Size

Bit Torque

24%

1%

Inclination

11%

Friction Coefficient

2%

ROP

2%

Yield Point

Circulation Rate 12%

9%

Drilling Fluid Heat

Transfer Coefficient in

Drilling Fluid Flow Behavior

Annulus

1% Specific Heat RPM Index

Azimuth 1% 14%

Capacity

4%

4%

22 SPE 133428

SPE 133428 23

(Shahabadi-Farahani10 – 2005) (Wellbore Heat Transfer considered)

Figure 12 - Mud Weight Window vs. Inclination Angle for Different Models

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.