Liu Thesis 2013

Wellbore Trajectory Control Based on Minimum Well
Profile Energy for Drilling Automation
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Petroleum Engineering
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Petroleum Engineering
by
Zhengchun Liu
December 2013
ii
__________________________
Zhengchun Liu
Approved:
____________________________________
Chairman of the Committee,
Dr. W. John Lee, Professor,
Petroleum Engineering.
____________________________________
Dr. Robello Samuel, Adjunct Professor,
Petroleum Engineering.
____________________________________
Dr. Gangbing Song, Professor,
Mechanical Engineering.
____________________________ ____________________________________
Dr. Suresh K. Khator, Dr. Michael P. Harold,
Associate Dean, Professor and Chair,
Cullen College of Engineering. Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering.
iii
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to my advisor Dr. Robello Samuel for leading me into the field of
drilling automation, for imparting his drilling engineering expertise, and for bringing me
career growth opportunities. Sincere appreciation is extended to my co-advisor, Dr.
Gangbing Song, for his precious suggestions, support and encouragement. Gratitude is
expressed to my wife, Dr. Yingxu Kuang, for her unwavering support, for searching the
source code of orientation sensor user interface program and for taking care of everything
at home.
iv
An Abstract
of a
Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Petroleum Engineering
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in Petroleum Engineering
by
Zhengchun Liu
December 2013
v
Abstract
When deviated from the planned wellbore path, it is imperative for a drilling system to
take correction actions. A new trajectory control model is developed based on minimum
well profile energy criterion in order to achieve smooth well paths. In this model, the S-
shape returning path from a deviated position to the planned wellbore trajectory is
divided into two sections, each of which has its length, inclination change rate, and
azimuth change rate. By applying minimum well profile energy condition, we can obtain
a unique solution of these parameters. The model is tested using different 2D and 3D
well paths. The wellbore trajectory simulations show that minimum energy method,
being compared with PID (Proportional, Integral and Derivative) control and fuzzy
control, yields much smoother wellbore trajectories. Consequently, the new model is
promising to reduce torque and drag and friction of the drilling string.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...vi
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
Nomenclature ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction to Drilling Automation .................................................................. 1
1.1 Why Drilling Automation ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Status of Drilling Automation ............................................................................... 1
1.3 Drilling Automation System .................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2 Review of Wellbore Trajectory Control........................................................... 11
2.1 Wellbore Trajectory Deviation ............................................................................ 11
2.2 Traditional Wellbore Trajectory Control Method ............................................... 12
2.3 Objective of This Work ....................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3 Minimum Energy Method for Wellbore Trajectory Control ........................... 22
3.1 Wellbore Profile Energy ...................................................................................... 22
3.2 Wellbore Trajectory Control Using Minimum Energy Criterion ........................ 23
3.3 Implementation of the Min. Energy Control Algorithm..................................... 32
Chapter 4 Simulations of Wellbore Trajectory Steering................................................... 35
4.1 Two Dimensional Well ........................................................................................ 35
4.2 Three Dimensional Well ...................................................................................... 40
4.3 PID Control vs. Minimum Energy Method ......................................................... 42
4.4 Fuzzy Control vs. Minimum Energy Method ...................................................... 48
4.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 50
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Future Work ........................................................................... 53
References………………. ................................................................................................ 55
Appendix I Derivation of Drill Bit Tilt Angle Equation................................................. 57
Appendix II Shaft Deflection and Tool Face Angle of RSS with Eccentric Rings ........ 60
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 The levels of drilling automation (adapted from Aldred et al., 2012)............................ 5
Figure 1-2 Inputs required by a drilling automation system . .......................................................... 6
Figure 1-3 Push-the-bit (upper, Felczak et al., 2012) and point-the-bit (lower, Yonezawa et al.,
2002) rotary steering systems. ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 1-4 RSS combining push-the-bit (top) with point-the-bit (bottom) technologies. ............. 10
Figure 2-1 Schematic of deviation vector AB and trend angle (Xue et al., 2012). ....................... 11
Figure 2-2 Schematic of a generic closed-loop fuzzy control system (Stoner, 1997). .................. 14
Figure 2-3 The fuzzy domains of an input variable ...................................................................... 17
Figure 2-4 Mapping directional drilling controller inputs into outputs (Stoner, 1997). ................ 18
Figure 2-5 Schematic diagram of fuzzy control system (Xue et al., 2012).................................... 20
Figure 2-6 Simulation results of fuzzy control step response (Xue et al., 2012). .......................... 20
Figure 3-1 Wellbore deviation and correction targets. .................................................................. 24
Figure 3-2 The two sections of returning path (red line). .............................................................. 25
Figure 3-3 Incremental well profile energy versus section length ∆Dn. ....................................... 28
Figure 3-4 Flow chart of the computer implementation of wellbore trajectory control using
minimum energy criterion............................................................................................ 33
Figure 4-1 2D J-type well for wellbore control study using minimum energy method. ............... 36
Figure 4-2 Incremental wellbore profile energy vs. section length ∆Dn-1. ................................... 37
Figure 4-3 Build/drop rate of returning path sections versus section length. ................................ 38
Figure 4-4 Correction paths of minimum energy vs. uniform dogleg severity. ............................. 39
Figure 4-5 2D projection (left) and 3D profiles (middle) of the 3D J-type well with deviation
correction path amplified on the right. ......................................................................... 40
Figure 4-6 Incremental well profile energy vs. section length....................................................... 41
viii
Figure 4-7 Inclination rate and azimuth rate vs. section length. Cross points showing the section
lengths for uniform dogleg severity. ............................................................................ 42
Figure 4-8 The PID control fluctuation (solid red line) vs. smooth correction using minimum
energy method (black line with circle marker). ........................................................... 45
Figure 4-9 Relatively smooth PID control with big dogleg at the beginning (pointed by arrow). 45
Figure 4-10 Comparison of dogleg severity of PID control vs. minimum energy method............ 46
Figure 4-11 The well profile energy versus relative horizontal position. ...................................... 46
Figure 4-12 PID control becomes unstable if it is not tuned properly. The well trajectory oscillates
wildly off the target. ................................................................................................... 47
Figure 4-13 Well-tuned PID control becomes unstable because of abrupt change of ROP. ......... 47
Figure 4-14 Fuzzy control correction path (red solid line, Stoner, 1997) and minimum energy
method path (blue circle) for a horizontal well with -4.0 ft TVD deviation. ............... 48
Figure 4-15 Build/drop rates of fuzzy control (red solid line, data from Stoner’s dissertation, 1997)
and minimum energy method (blue circle), respectively. ............................................ 49
Figure 4-16 Well profile energy of the correction paths from fuzzy control (solid red line, data
from Stoner’s dissertation, 1997) and minimum energy method (blue circle). ........... 50
Figure 5-1 Schematic illustration of downhole drilling robot prototype. ...................................... 54
Figure 5-2 Schematic tilt and tool face control unit....................................................................... 54
Figure I-1 The tilt angle change due to shaft deflection and drill bit side force………………….57
Figure II-1 Geometric relationship of eccentric rings for shaft deflection and tool face
calculation……………………… ……………………………………………………61
ix
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Rule matrix relating vertical deviation and relative change in vertical deviation ........ 19
Table 4-1 Deviation correction parameters of 2D J-type well ....................................................... 37
Table 4-2 Calculated wellbore path correction parameters of 3D J-type well ............................... 41
x
Nomenclature
Ym Maximum shaft deflection, in
Di Measured depth, ft
e1 Eccentricity between outer ring and housing, in
e2 Eccentricity between outer ring and inner ring, in
e(t) PID control error signal
E Young’s modulus, psi
I Area inertia of momentum, in4
κ(x) Wellbore curvature, °/100 ft
τ(x) Wellbore torsion, °/100 ft
καi Inclination change rate in ith section
κφi Azimuth change rate in ith section
λi Characteristic length, ft
εi Overall logleg angle, °
∆Di ith section length, ft
∆αi Inclination change ith section
∆φi Azimuth change ith section
t Time, sec
Kp Proportional gain
Ki Integral gain
Kd Derivative gain
u(t) PID controller output
β1 Angular position of outer eccentric ring, °
β2 Angular position of inner eccentric ring, °
xi
θ Ideal drill bit tilt angle, °
θ1 actual drill bit tilt angle, °
∆θ1 Side force induced tilt angle change, °
∆θ2 Tilt angle change due to stabilizer lateral shift, °
CI Control intervention, ft
Fe Eccentric ring exerted force on shaft
FS Drill bit side force
RB Support force at pin B
L Distance between cantilever bearing and focal bearing, ft
lb Distance between drill bit and focal bearing, ft
∆d Lateral displacement of BHA stabilizer, in
TF Tool face angle, °
WF Weighting factor
xii
Chapter 1 Introduction to Drilling Automation
Automation has been widely applied in the manufacturing industry for increased
quality and profitability. Can the oil and gas industry also successfully replicate this
strategy, especially for drilling? The short answer is “Yes.” But it is not easy; and it takes
time, money and sometimes courage to make it happen.
1.1 WHY DRILLING AUTOMATION
Drilling automation is promising to deliver financial benefits to the operator. With
today’s drilling activities more and more involved in unconventional resources and
offshore deep-water areas, the cost to drill a well is much higher than that of a traditional
onshore well. Even saving one day or several hours of rig time means a lot of money.
Drilling automation seeks to accomplish this through process improvements, optimized
rates of penetration (ROPs), consistent hole quality and overall drilling performance
(Aldred et al., 2012).
Bring together rig floor and downhole automation also promises to improve
environmental protection and worker health and safety while helping operators to
economically exploit reserves that are out of reach using today’s technologies. As large
numbers of upstream industry experts prepare to retire, automation may offer a way to
codify best practices and knowledge and thereby preserve expertise (Aldred et al., 2012).
1.2 STATUS OF DRILLING AUTOMATION
Today the drilling automation is approaching reality in the oil and gas industry
although the adopting process has fallen behind other industries for many years. Recently,
Norway's Robotic Drilling Systems AS, formerly Seabed Rig, developed an innovative
1
autonomous robotic drilling rig for unmanned drilling operations. The company claims
that the new system, Robotic Drilling System, sets new standards with increased safety
and cost-effective planning and drilling and can be implemented on existing, as well as
new drilling structures, both offshore and on land (Dupre, 2013).
Chesapeake Energy is one of the first operators who tested an automatic drilling
system on a rig in Ohio’s promising Utica shale play in earlier 2013. The rig used
NOVOS operating control software platform from National Oilwell Varco (NOV) to drill
a 7000-ft vertical well section in less than three days, representing the so-called true
automation. The average ROP was more than 2000 ft/day (Mazerov, 2013).
Another milestone event is that IADC and SPE formed a new joint work group to
develop a drilling system automation roadmap. Shell is among operators that have
already joined the new group. The road map will incorporate best practices from oil and
gas and other industries, including aerospace, the military and academia, to address topics
such as advanced controls and robotics, unmanned ground systems, cyber-security and
smart grids (Mazerov, 2013).
The drilling culture is part of the reason for the upstream industry’s delay in adopting
automation. Drilling personnel are suspicious of systems that seem a threat to their skill
set, require them to relinquish some portion of control of the drilling operation or move
technical limits away from traditionally conservative drilling practices. The major
components of an automated system require close cooperation over long periods of time,
but the systems employed in the drilling process are often owned by a variety of
companies and may have different drivers, making automated cooperation difficult.
2
Some people in the industry argue that automation cannot be applied to drilling
because it is an art form that needs human guidance. There are a lot of problems yet to be
solved: how will you accommodate worn seals in a tool? galled threads on a tool joint?
interference of moving equipment? stabilizer blades falling off? Modern automatic pipe
handling systems are still slower than a good driller and a man in the derrick.
Yet the view of optimistic engineers is leaning decidedly toward science instead of art.
“All industries have unique problems,” They argued (Mazerov, 2013). “Some of drilling's
challenges and issues are a little bit different, but many of them are common to other
industries. Focus on the common ones and people will make some progress.”
According to David Reid, VP of National Oilwell Varco (NOV), crisis will be the
catalyst to change the aforementioned culture because we are having a people and a cost
crisis right now. The industry has a great many of wells to drill but not enough skilled
people to drill them. Automation has the ability to provide a quicker learning curve for
the younger and less-experienced workforce of today’s oilfield, allowing them to perform
at a high level (Mazerov, 2013).
In summary, drilling automation is the future trend of technology in the oil and gas
industry. Increasing activities related to US shale boom, along with an aging workforce,
has provided incentives for faster technology adoption.
1.3 DRILLING AUTOMATION SYSTEM
Automation of the drilling process requires a system that has the ability to deal with
changing and uncertain environments. Fed directly by downhole and surface data, these
systems must react to changes such as lithology in a manner that maintains optimal
performance, thus increasing uptime and efficiency. Reduction of personnel on the rig
3
floor and the system’s ability to perform some tasks remotely would be only byproducts
of this effort, not objectives (Pink et al., 2012).
An automated drilling process requires a systems engineering approach—a loop that
integrates real-time downhole and surface data with pre-drill models. Adjusting to
changing conditions, this system modifies operational settings, such as pump rates, hook
load and rotary speed. In addition, an automated system updates the model using real-
time data, essentially simulating the decisions of an experienced driller adapting to the
results of imperfect predictions.
1.3.1 Drilling Automation Levels and Modules
Systems and industries move from manual to automated control systems in a
predictable manner, as shown in Figure 1-1. Generally speaking, the automated control
systems are getting more and more independent of people. Initially, in the first tier, the
systems perform a limited analyze-and-advise function by suggesting an optimal course
of action for the human operator to perform. In the second tier, the semi-autonomous
automated system chooses the action and performs it, but only after receiving approval
from the driller. In the third tier, the automated system is autonomous and informs the
driller of its actions as it takes those (Aldred et al., 2012).
Automating the drilling process is complex. Engineers have segmented the process
into manageable modules that may be used either independently or in combination to
eventually deliver an intelligent system able to drill a hole section autonomously. The
modules are listed as follows:
(1) rig and downhole systems integration;
(2) ROP optimization;
4
Abnormal ev
event detection and mitigation
Shock and vib

vibration monitoring and mitigation
(3) wellbore
bore steering
steering;
(4) wellbore
bore integrity
integrity;
(5) operations
ations sequen
sequence management.
These automation
ion modules are integrated with the rig controll system in a way that the
driller interact with

ith it intuitiv
intuitively and is in a position to take control
trol at any time.
tim
• Decides ev
everything and acts autonomously.
Tier 3
• Executes a an action automatically and informs

rms the driller
drille only if
it take actio
action.
• Executes a
an action automatically and informs
rms the driller
drille only if
asked.
• Executes a an action automatically, then necessarily
cessarily informs
info
Tier 2
the driller.
• Allows the driller a restricted time to veto an action before
be
automatic e
execution.
• Selections and excutes a suggestion if the drill approves.
approv
• Suggests a single course of action.

Tier 1
• Offers a se
set of alternatives and narrows the
e selection.
• Offers a co
complete set of decision and action
on alternative
alternatives.
• Offers no a
assistance; driller must make alll decisions a
and take
action.
Figure 1-1 The levels oof drilling automation (adapted from Aldred et al.,, 2012).
201
A fully automated
omated drill
drilling process depends ultimately on the ability
abili of all the
components to share inform

information. This requires that many parts
ts and processes
proces sift, select
and act upon an enormous aamount of data autonomously and synchronously

ynchronously (Figure 1-2).
To efficiently use these dat

data to automatically and appropriately
ely respond to the drilling
5
situation requires system-wide interoperability—the linking of people, tools, equipment
and information at the right time and in the context of the drilling operation.
Hydraulic: Geologic:
Drilling pressure Formation pressure
Rheology Wellbore quality
Hole cleaning Formation evaluation
Drilling
Automation
Drilling Process:
Mechanical: Reduction of
Control nonproductive time
Surface measurements Invisible lost time
Downhole management
measurements Data analytics
Maintenance
Downhole dynamics
Figure 1-2 Inputs required by a drilling automation system (adapted from Sadlier et al., 2012).
A significant issue of the current surface-centered automation system is the lagging
communication between the bottom-hole tools and the surface computers due to the
bandwidth limitation of prevailing telemetry techniques. In many cases, a great amount of
real-time data, which are valuable for real-time wellbore steering, ROP optimization and
wellbore quality monitoring, have to be first stored in the down-hole memory devices and
then be retrieved after trip-out. On the other hand, down link process using mud-pulse
telemetry system takes several minutes to send commands to down-hole tools (Allen et
al., 2009). All these kinds of delay are harmful for the overall drilling performance. A
straightforward solution of the problem is to develop new telemetry techniques. Recently,
telemetry using wired drill pipe with induction joint coupling (Sumit et al., 2010) was
6
reported to increase the bandwidth up to two millions of bits per second. Compared to
less than 200 bits per second of prevailing techniques, it is a big leap. But it is not easy
for the industry to switch to wired drill pipes. In addition, its reliability (87%--95%
operational) needs to be improved. Boosters are also needed to handle signal attenuation
along the drill string, which yield additional electric power delivery burden.
1.3.2 Down-Hole Drilling Automation
An alternate solution is to move some or all of the automation modules down-hole so
that the real-time data can be real-time processed and commands can be sent and received
instantly. The ultimate goal is a drilling robot capable of making decisions of everything
and taking actions autonomously and promptly.
Although there is no commercial downhole drilling robot on the market, significant
technology progresses have been reported. For example, the drilling dynamics sub,
developed by NOV, can provide real-time and memory data of downhole WOB,
downhole torque, lateral/angular acceleration, axial acceleration, external pressure,
temperature, and RPM. With whirl and stick-slip capabilities under development, these
data are extremely valuable to the drilling process, and consistent performance
improvements of 20-30 percent have been demonstrated already. The tool is extremely
compact at four feet in length, enabling it to be run both in BHA and drilling string (Pink
et al., 2012).
Halliburton Sperry Drilling recently reported that its Geo-Pilot Dirigo System delivers
record high dogleg solution on an offshore platform in Malaysia. Geo-Pilot Dirigo is a
point-the-bit rotary steerable system which is capable of high build rate even in the soft
formations, typically limiting build rate capability when using other rotary steerable
7
systems. As an important part of Sperry’s fleet of automated drilling systems, Geo-Pilot
Dirigo System can deliver well profiles previously only possible with downhole motors,
but with the wellbore quality and higher rates of penetration of a point-the-bit rotary
steerable system. It can drill the vertical, curve and lateral sections in one BHA with no
sliding intervals or added trips for downhole motors.
1.3.3 Rotary Steering System
As we discussed above, a rotary steerable system (RSS) is a significant technology
progress in drilling automation. It is a tool designed to drill directionally with continuous
rotation from the surface, eliminating the need to “slide” a mud motor. The advantages of
RSS lie in: (1) improved transportation of cuttings; (2) better weight-on-bit (WOB)
transfer; (3) reduced wellbore tortuosity.
The methods used to direct the well path generally fall into two broad categories, these
being “push-the-bit” or “point-the-bit,” as shown in Figure 1-3. Push-the-bit tools use
pads on the outside of bottom hole assembly (BHA) which press against the wellbore
thereby causing the bit to press on the opposite side causing a direction change. Point-
the-bit technologies cause the direction of the bit to change relative to the non-rotating
housing by bending the main shaft running through it. The latter require some kind of
non-rotating housing or reference housing in order to create this deflection within the
shaft. Recently a hybrid system (Figure 1-4) was reported to generate higher build rate
because it combines push-the-bit with point-the-bit technology (Bai et al., 2013).
In this work, the default RSS is assumed to be point-the-bit type. The reason is that its
direction parameters such as tilt angle and tool face angle can be relatively easy to
8
calculate using geometric relationships and formulas of materials mechanics. Detailed
equation derivation procedures can be found in Appendices I and II.
Figure 1-3 Push-the-bit (upper, Felczak et al., 2012) and point-the-bit (lower, Yonezawa et al., 2002)
rotary steering systems.
9
Figure 1-4 RSS combining push-the-bit (top) with point-the-bit (bottom) technologies.
Such a hybrid steering unit can provide greater build rates and directional control than
conventional RSS technology (Bai et al., 2013).
10
Chapter 2 Review of Wellbore Trajectory Control
One of the most important elements of drilling automation is the wellbore trajectory
control, especially in the era of extended reach drilling and horizontal drilling. By
definition, wellbore trajectory control is to restrict the drilling direction from time to time
so that the deviation of actual drilling path from the designed one is minimized.
2.1 WELLBORE TRAJECTORY DEVIATION
2.1.1 Drilling deviation vector
Deviation vector is the defined as the vector starting from the actual drilling path
position A and pointing to position B, which is the cross point of the designed path with
the deviation plane (Figure 2-1). Deviation plane is the plane through point A and
perpendicular to the planned drilling path.
2.1.2 Drilling trend angle
As shown in Figure 2-1, the drilling trend angle is the angle between two unite length
tangential vector Ta and Tb of the two ending spots A and B of the deviation vector AB.
Figure 2-1 Schematic of deviation vector AB and trend angle (Xue et al., 2012).
11
2.2 TRADITIONAL WELLBORE TRAJECTORY CONTROL METHOD
2.2.1 PID Control
PID control is the most widely used control method in automation. The Proportional,
Integral, and Derivative terms are summed to calculate the output of the PID controller.
Defining u(t) as the controller output, the final form of the PID algorithm is
= + + , (2-1)
where Kp: Proportional gain, a tuning parameter
Ki: Integral gain, a tuning parameter
Kd: Derivative gain, a tuning parameter
e: Error. Here e(t) is related to the drilling path deviation vector.
t: Time or instantaneous time (the present)
τ: Variable of integration; takes on values from time 0 to the present t.
It is usually required to carefully adjust PID controller parameters Kp, Ki and Kd in
actual applications. This procedure, namely PID tuning, is a difficult task, even though
there are only three parameters and in principle is simple to describe, because it must
satisfy complex criteria within the limitations of PID control. If the parameters (Kp, Ki
and Kd) are chosen incorrectly, the controlled process input can be unstable. Excess gain,
particularly in the presence of significant lag, often causes instability.
Li and co-workers (Li et al., 2010) reported an intelligent PID control method based
on the direct expert system. Simulated platform test shows that the intelligent PID control
can better deal with factors such as strong disturbance, strong nonlinearity and large
parametric change so as to obtain stable control performance. Up to now, no commercial
system based on PID control has been reported.
12
2.2.2 Fuzzy Control
Fuzzy control is a rule based methodology in which system inputs (observables) are
systematically and mathematically related to system outputs (controllables). In the
common engineering sense, the formulation of a fuzzy controller is not model based; i.e.,
the rules which govern the controller are not necessarily derived from a precise physics-
based model of the system. Rather, the engineer describes in approximate or vague terms
the relationships between quantities thought or desired to hold true.
There is nothing fuzzy about the logic itself; it is the words, represented with fuzzy
sets, which are ambiguous or uncertain. A fuzzy set is a set whose boundary is not sharp.
That means the change from non-membership to membership is gradual rather than
abrupt. Being mathematically represented with a degree of membership function, a fuzzy
set is subjective in nature, as it is a matter of definition rather than measurement.
Figure 2-2 shows a schematic of a generic fuzzy control system. The controller is the
“brain” of the control system. With fuzzy logic a controller may be designed to employ
experience and common sense knowledge, since rules-of-thumb exist mainly in the form
of linguistic statements that are usually, but not always, true.
Stoner (1997) developed a fuzzy logic drilling direction controller (FDDC) for a
closed-loop rotary directional drilling system. The controllable variables of the drilling
system are the eccentricity settings of a non-rotating near-bit downhole adjustable
stabilizer. The FDDC controller outputs are relative changes to the eccentricity settings.
The inputs to the FDDC controller are based on linear and angular deviations, and the
changes thereof, between actual and planned drilling trajectories.
13
Figure 2-2 Schematic of a generic closed-loop fuzzy control system (Stoner, 1997).
Stoner used eight input variables for the FDDC. The following four variables are
directly related to the linear and angular deviations.
(1) “Vertical” Deviation:
∆ √∆ +∆ ∆ ≠ 0$
=
−∆ ∆ =0
, (2-2a)
where ∆ = %& ∗ + ∗ − %&( + (.
(2) “Horizontal” Deviation: H = ∆N. (2-2b)
(3) Inclination Deviation: ∆α = αb - αb*. (2-2c)
(4) Azimuth Deviation: ∆Ф = Фb - Фb*. (2-2d)
In the above equations,
Np* = North coordinate on planned path at MD* (ft),
Ep* = East coordinate on planned path at MD* (ft),
αb*= planned inclination,
Фb*= planned azimuth,
14
TVDp* = true vertical depth coordinate on planned path at MD* (ft),
DEPp* = planned departure at MD* (ft),
Nb = current North coordinate of bit (ft),
Eb = current East coordinate of bit (ft),
αb = current inclination,
Фb = planned azimuth,
TVDb = current TVD coordinate of bit (ft),
DEPb = current departure of bit (ft).
Four additional FDDC inputs are computed with CI (controller intervention), which are
used to quantify the relative rate at which V, H, ∆α, and ∆Ф are changing. Superscript n
represent the current controller processing, and n-1 represent the previous controller
processing. Subscript r represent relative change. These four inputs are
∆+ , -∆+ ,./
∆ )
*
= ,
01
(2-3a)
∆3 , -∆3 ,./
∆2)* = ,
01
(2-3b)
∆5 , -∆5 ,./
∆4)* = ,
01
(2-3c)
∆7 , -∆7,./
∆6)* = .
01
and (2-3d)
Each crisp variable requires 12 parameters of degree-of-membership (DOM) functions
with which to fuzzify its applicable domain. For FDDC controller, this means 12 × 8 = 96
parameters are required to fuzzify the eight inputs! Considering symmetry and similarity,
96 parameters can be reduced down to nine parameters. Thus, there are nine control
parameters on the input side of the FDDC controller.
15
DOM functions which define the input fuzzy sets of the FDDC are given as follows:
: ;
89 / = @. ∆.AB/ C ,
;<=> ? E
(asymptotic) (2-4a)
DB/ C
: ;
89 F = @. ∆.ABF C G
, (centroidal) (2-4b)
;<? E
DBF C
: ;
89 H = @. ∆.ABH C I
, (centroidal) (2-4c)
;<? E
DBH C
: ;
89 G = @. ∆.ABG C G
, (centroidal) (2-4d)
;<? E
DBG C
: ;
and 89 J = .@L ∆LABJ C
. (asymptotic) (2-4e)
;<=> K M
DBJ C
Using these DOM functions, input variables can be divided into domains as follows:
V: Very Low (VL), Low (LO), Right On (RO), High (HI), Very High (VH)
H: Far Left (FL), Left (LE), Right On (RO), Right (RI), Far Right (FR)
∆α: Negative Big (NB), Negative Small (NS), Zero (ZE), Positive Small (PS),
Positive Big (PB)
∆φ: NB, NS, ZE, PS, PB
∆Vr: NB, NS, ZE, PS, PB
∆Hr: NB, NS, ZE, PS, PB
∆∆αr: NB, NS, ZE, PS, PB
∆∆φr: NB, NS, ZE, PS, PB
16
Figure 2-3 shows an example of fuzzy domains of an input variable. We can clearly see
the gradual change of domain membership.
Figure 2-3 The fuzzy domains of an input variable.
FDDC outputs are relative changes to the eccentricity settings of the adjustable stabilizer
(of push-the-bit RSS, in this case), namely, ∆εx and ∆εy. The unit of the outputs is
millimeter. They can also fuzzified similarly.
∆εx: Drop Hard (DH), Drop Soft (DS), Leave Alone (LA), Build Soft (BS),
Build Hard (BH)
∆εy: Right Hard (RH), Right Soft (RS), Leave Alone (LA), Left Soft (LS),
Left Hard (LH)
The FDDC rules mimic a similar structure of a classical proportional-differential (PD)
controller, in that “errors” and “error rates” are grouped. Figure 2-4 shows how the
FDDC inputs are assembled and related to outputs.
17
Figure 2-4 Mapping directional drilling controller inputs into outputs (Stoner, 1997).
The selection of fuzzy controller inputs and controller parameters, and the entire
process of rule generation, is not something which may be mathematically derived. The
design of a fuzzy controller comes from an understanding of the physical problem and of
fuzzy logic. According to Stoner, “it is the lack of formal mathematical structure which
gives fuzzy systems their versatility and superiority over some of their classical
counterparts.”
Each sub-grouping of inputs to outputs has the same rule matrix (RM) structure. For
example, Table 2-1 shows the rules of changing eccentricity ∆εx to correct vertical
deviation. The left superscript (m, n) signifies the inputs and the left subscript (k)
signifies the output, where V, ∆Vr, ∆α, ∆∆αr, H, ∆Hr, ∆Ф ∆∆Фr are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
respectively, and εx, εy are 1, 2, respectively. There are totally four applicable
combinations of (m,n,k): (1,2,1), (,3,4,1), (5,6,2), and (7,8,2), making 25 × 4 = 100 rules.
Collectively, the rules and fuzzy logic act to quantify and systemize the decision
making process, of which a directional driller does subjectively. Every rule matrix can be
expressed in terms of natural language, of which most experienced drilling engineer
could understand. For example, in Table 2-1, cell (4,4) =DH, corresponding to V=HI and
∆Vr= PS, can be interpreted as “when <vertical deviation> is High (HI), and <relative
18
change in vertical deviation> is Positive Small (PS), the FDDC controller will give an
output that <change in x-eccentricity> should be Drop Hard (DH).
Table 2-1 Rule matrix (Stoner, 1997) relating vertical deviation (V) and relative change in vertical
deviation (∆Vr ).
R∆S> T
P,Q
(V)
PNO
VL LO RO HI VH
NB| BH BH BH BS LA
NS| BH BH BS LA DS
(∆Vr) ZE| BH BS LA DS DH
PS| BS LA DS DH DH
PB| LA DS DH DH DH
Finally, by defuzzification the results of RMs can be converted into crisp output
signals such as ∆εx=0.3 mm. In this defuzzification process, a weighting factor (WF)
between 0.0 and 1.0 should be assigned to the output fuzzy set scaling factors.
Recently, Xue and co-workers (2012) also built a fuzzy controller using trend angle,
deviation vector, and deviation vector change rate as joint control variables. Comparing
with Stoner’s eight input parameters, their model seems much simpler because of much
less input parameters. Figure 2-5 shows their schematic fuzzy control system. They
compared their simulation results of step response of fuzzy control with that of traditional
PID control (Figure 2-6). Fuzzy control exhibits significant advantages: faster response
and no overshooting.
In summary, fuzzy control is a quite subjective method. It is intended to mimic the
subjective decision making process of drillers. To a large degree, its success depends on
the careful selection of inputs, outputs, controller input parameters and defuzzification
weighting factors.
19
Deviation vector
rate of change
Deviation Deviation vector

vector fuzzy control rules
Trend Trend angle fuzzy Steering force

angle control rules model
Trajectory
model
Figure 2-5 Schematic diagram of fuzzy control system (Xue et al., 2012).
Figure 2-6 Simulation results of fuzzy control step response (Xue et al., 2012).
2.3 OBJECTIVE OF THIS WORK
In many literature articles, authors use the step response to evaluate their trajectory
control performance. But step response is not sufficient for wellbore trajectory evaluation
20
because a smooth step response does not necessarily guarantee a smooth well path. For
example, a step response simulation in Figure 2-6 shows no overshoot, short settling time,
and almost zero error after reaching stabilization. It is better than PID control, as was
mentioned before. However, if the dashed line (fuzzy control) represents a wellbore
trajectory, the very sharp turn, as shown by the red arrow, will definitely undermine the
claimed “satisfactory” results. Apparently, wellbore trajectory is different from an
electrical signal like voltage and should be treated differently. We need a quantitative
evaluation criterion of well path deviation corrections.
One objective of this work is to apply a minimum energy method to the wellbore
trajectory quality evaluation. Based on the minimum well profile energy criterion
(Samuel and Liu, 2009), a new trajectory control model will be developed in order to
achieve smooth well paths. The model is subject to case studies using a wellbore
trajectory simulator. Artificially generated well paths including 2D and 3D wells will be
investigated. The simulation results of deviation correction will be compared with PID
control and fuzzy control methods, respectively. Moreover, a downhole drilling robot
prototype is proposed as future work to experimentally verify the wellbore trajectory
control model.
21
Chapter 3 Minimum Energy Method for Wellbore Trajectory Control
3.1 WELLBORE PROFILE ENERGY
Here the wellbore profile energy is not the borehole-induced strain energy of the
rocks. It is actually a drilling difficulty/complexity index, which is based on the “thin
elastic line” analogy of the well path. The relevant real strain energy exists in the drilling
string inside the wellbore. Considering the drill string as an elastic beam, its bending
strain energy is a function of curvature κ(x).
1 L
E bend =
2 EI ∫
0
M 2 dx, (3-1)
where bending momentum M = EI κ ( x ).
EI L
Ebend =
2 ∫
0
κ ( x )2 dx , (3-2)
where E is the Young’s modulus and I is the area moment of inertia.
For a circular cross-section beam with diameter D,
A πD 4
I = ∫ r dA =
2
. (3-3)
0 32
Similarly, the torsion strain energy of a beam is
GI L
Etorsion =
2 ∫ 0
τ ( x ) 2 dx , (3-4)
V
where U = is shear modulus, ν is Poisson’s ratio.
;<W
22
The strain energy of the wellbore path is defined as
∫ [κ ( x ) ]
L
Ew = 2
+ τ ( x ) 2 dx . (3-5)
0
It states that the wellbore profile energy equals the arc-length integral of the sum of
curvature κ(x) squared and torsion τ(x) squared (Samuel, Mar. 2009).
3.2 WELLBORE TRAJECTORY CONTROL USING MINIMUM ENERGY CRITERION
In non-linear curve modeling, the thin elastic line that bends the least while passing
through a given set of points is known as the minimum-energy curve. It is considered an
excellent criterion because of its simplicity for producing smooth curves, i.e., describing
the minimum energy of the wellbore path. An additional advantage is that it can more
effectively emphasize the undulation of well-path curvature of tortuous well paths than
can obtained using the previous methods (Samuel, Mar. 2009). The minimum energy
method involves
(1) Defining a target point, e.g., C or D in the planned well path;
(2) Calculating the parameters of returning path such that we have the minimum
incremental well profile energy.
The target point for a trajectory correction can be determined using the maximum
allowable dogleg severity and other limitations. For example, if the maximum added
dogleg severity is 2 °/100 ft and the current orientation angle error, i.e., deviation angle in
Figure 3-1, is 6°. We then know that we need at least 300 ft to correct the wellbore
orientation. However, to correct orientation is not enough. We also need to correct the
position error ε. Assuming that the position error is small, we will find out later that the
new target needs to be ~900 ft ahead of the current location in the designed trajectory.
23
Figure 3-1 Wellbore deviation and correction targets.
We assume that the devia

deviation correction path consists of two
o curve sections:
sectio ∆Dn-1 and
∆Dn, as shown in Figure 33-2. In each section we keep inclination

nation change
chang rate κα and
azimuth change rate κφ con

constant. That means the derivatives of κα and κφ are zero. The
deviation correction starts at the beginning of ∆Dn-1 section. To determine the correction
well path, we need to calc

calculate all six parameters of these two sections.
section These six
unknown variables are ∆D

Dn-1, ∆Dn, καn-1, καn, κφn-1, and κφn.
From Eq. (3-5), the incremen

incremental well profile energy is
== (κ n2−1 + τ n2−1 ) ∆Dn −1 + (κ n2 + τ n2 ) ∆D n ,

∆E w = (3-6)
κ αi κ&φi − κ φi κ&αi κ α2i
where τ i = sin α + κ φi (1 + ) cos α i , (3-7)
κ i2 κ i2
i
and κ i = κ α2i + κ φ2i sin 2 α i , (3-8)
where i is an integer
teger numbe
number, being n-1or n, Di is the measured depth, αi is the
inclination angle, κ is wellbo

wellbore curvature, τ is the borehole torsion, κα is rate of
inclination change, and κφ is the rate of azimuth change.
24
C
Figure 3-2 The two sections of returning path (red line).
For convenience,
nce, we defi
define more variables related to the correction
rrection path in 3D space.
These variables will

ill be frequ
frequently used later.
∆X=XA-XC, difference in X direction (North) between current

nt position A and target C,
∆Y=YA-YC, difference in Y direction (East),
∆Z=ZA-ZC, difference in Z direction (Vertical Down),
∆Dn=MDC-MDQ, curve le
length of QC,
∆Dn-1=MDQ-MDA, curve length of AQ.
3.2.1 Trajectory
tory solution by balanced tangential method
As mentioned
ed above, we have six unknown parameters to
o define the two-sectional
correction wellbore
bore trajector
trajectory. From the constant change rate assumption and
a geometric
relationships, we can have tw

two equations as:
25
κ αn −1 ∆D n -1 + κ αn ∆D n = α n − α n − 2 (3-9)
and κ φn −1 ∆ D n -1 + κ φn ∆ D n = φ n − φ n − 2 . (3-10)
Now let us apply the simple balanced tangential method (Samuel and Liu, July 2009) for
wellbore trajectory coordinate calculation, we can establish three equations as follows:
∆D n -1 ∆D n
∆Z = (cos α n − 2 + cos α n −1 ) + (cos α n −1 + cos α n ) , (3-11)
2 2
∆D n -1
∆X = (sin α n − 2 cos φ n − 2 + sin α n −1 cos φ n −1 )
2 , and (3-12)
∆D n
+ (sin α n −1 cos φ n −1 + sin α n cos φ n )
2
∆D n -1
∆Y = (sin α n − 2 sin φ n − 2 + sin α n −1 sin φ n −1 )
2 , (3-13)
∆D n
+ (sin α n −1 sin φ n −1 + sin α n sin φ n )
2
where α n −1 = α n − κ αn ∆D n .
Finally, let us apply the minimum incremental energy criterion:
d∆E w
= 0. (3-14)
d∆Dn
From Eq. (3-10),
2∆Z − ∆D n -1 cos α n − 2 − ∆D n cos α n
cos α n −1 = . (3-15)
∆D n -1 + ∆D n
From Eq. (3-11) and Eq. (3-12),
2∆X − ∆D n -1 sin α n − 2 cos φ n − 2 − ∆D n sin α n cos φ n

sin α n −1 cos φ n −1 = and (3-16)
∆D n -1 + ∆D n
2∆Y − ∆D n -1 sin α n − 2 sin φ n − 2 − ∆D n sin α n sin φ n
sin α n −1 sin φ n −1 = . (3-17)
∆D n -1 + ∆D n
Squaring and then summing up both sides of Eqs. (3-15), (3-16), and (3-17), we have
(∆X 2 + ∆Y 2 + ∆Z 2 ) − ∆D n (∆Z cos α n + ∆X sin α n cos φ n + ∆Y sin α n sin φ n )

∆D n -1 = , (3-18)
∆D n (1 − cos β ) / 2 + (∆Z cos α n − 2 + ∆X sin α n − 2 cos φ n − 2 + ∆Y sin α n − 2 sin φ n − 2 )
where cos β = cos α n − 2 cos α n + sin α n− 2 sin α n cos(φ n − φ n − 2 ) .
26
In Eq. (3-18), the right side has only one unknown variable ∆Dn.
 2∆Z − ∆D n -1 cos α n −2 − ∆D n cos α n 
From Eq. (3-15), α n −1 = ± arccos   . (3-19)
 ∆D n -1 + ∆D n 
Negative angle is possible when the target angle is close to zero. But only one solution is
feasible. The other one can be excluded using other restriction conditions, for example,
geometric relationship and minimum energy criterion.
Thus we have
κ αn −1 = (α n −1 − α n − 2 ) / ∆D n -1 and (3-20)
κ αn = (α n − α n −1 ) / ∆D n . (3-21)
Dividing Eq. (3-16) by Eq. (3-17), we obtain
2∆Y − ∆D n -1 sin α n − 2 sin φ n − 2 − ∆D n sin α n sin φ n

tan φ n −1 = . (3-21)
2∆X − ∆D n -1 sin α n − 2 cos φ n − 2 − ∆D n sin α n cos φ n
That is
 2∆Y − ∆D n -1 sin α n −2 sin φ n −2 − ∆D n sin α n sin φ n 

φ n −1 = arctan   . (3-22)
 2∆X − ∆D n -1 sin α n− 2 cos φ n − 2 − ∆D n sin α n cos φ n 
Therefore,
κ φn −1 = (φn −1 − φn − 2 ) / ∆D n -1 and (3-23)
κ φn = (φ n − φ n −1 ) / ∆D n . (3-24)
Analytically solving Eq. (3-14) is quite complicated. Since we have expressed all five
parameters (∆Dn-1, καn-1, καn, κφn-1. κφn ) as functions of ∆Dn, we can numerically calculate
the incremental well profile energy ∆Ew versus different ∆Dn, as shown in Figure 3-3.
By comparison we can easily find the unique ∆Dn value corresponding to the minimum
incremental well profile energy ∆Ew. Once ∆Dn is known, all other parameters can be
calculated using Equations (3-18) to (3-24).
27
Figure 3-3 Incremental well profile energy versus section length ∆Dn.
3.2.2 Trajectory
tory solution by minimum curvature method
We can also use industry

industry-standard minimum curvature method (Samuel and
a Liu, July
2009) for wellbore trajectory coordinate calculation.
∆Z = λ n -1 (cos α n −1 + cos α n −2 ) + λ n (cos α n + cos α n −1 ) , (3-25)
∆X = λn -1 (sin α n −2 cos φ n −2 + sin α n −1 cos φ n −1 )

, and (3-26)
+ λn (sin α n−1 cos φ n−1 + sin α n cos φ n )
∆Y = λn -1 (sin α n −2 sin φ n −2 + sin α n −1 sin φ n −1 )

, (3-27)
+ λ n (sin α n −1 sin φ n −1 + sin α n sin φ n )
180 ∆Di εi
where λi = tan , i=n, n-1, (3-28)
π εi 2
and angle εi is determine
determined by
cos ε i = cos α i −1 cos α + sin α i −1 sin α cos(φi − φi −1 ) . (3-29)
28
Combining the above equations with Eqs. (3-9) and (3-10), we can express all six
parameters (∆Dn, ∆Dn-1, καn-1, καn, κφn-1. κφn ) as functions of λn. Using similar techniques,
we can obtain
(∆X 2 + ∆Y 2 + ∆Z 2 ) − 2λ n (∆Z cos α n + ∆X sin α n cos φ n + ∆Y sin α n sin φ n )

λn -1 = , (3-30)
λn (1 − cos β ) + (∆Z cos α n − 2 + ∆X sin α n− 2 cos φ n− 2 + ∆Y sin α n− 2 sin φn − 2 )
where cos β = cos α n −2 cos α n + sin α n− 2 sin α n cos(φ n − φ n −2 ) , and
 ∆Y − λn -1 sin α n− 2 sin φ n −2 − λn sin α n sin φ n 

φ n −1 = arctan   . (3-31)
 ∆X − λn -1 sin α n − 2 cos φ n −2 − λn sin α n cos φ n 
From Eq. (3-25), we have

 ∆Z − λn -1 cos α n −2 − λn cos α n 
α n −1 = ± arccos   . (3-32)
 λn -1 + λn 
Therefore,
πλi ε i πλi ε i εi
∆Di = = cot , i = n − 1, n (3-33)
εi 180 2
180 tan
2
κ αn −1 = (α n −1 − α n− 2 ) / ∆D n -1 , (3-34)
κ αn = (α n − α n −1 ) / ∆D n , (3-35)
κ φn −1 = (φ n −1 − φ n − 2 ) / ∆D n -1 , and (3-36)
κ φn = (φ n − φ n −1 ) / ∆ D n . (3-37)
Now we express all six parameters as functions of λn. If we select a value of λn, we can
calculate ∆Dn-1, ∆Dn, καn-1, καn, κφn-1. κφn, and incremental well profile energy ∆Ew.
Changing the value of λn, we will have value series of ∆E vs. λn or ∆E vs. ∆Dn. By
comparison we can determine the minimum ∆Emin and the corresponding six well path
correction parameters such as καn and ∆Dn.
29
3.2.3 Trajectory solution by natural curve method
It is reported that natural curve method could result in more accurate wellbore
trajectory calculation. Using natural curve method, we can similarly establish 3D
coordinate equations as follows:
180 180
∆Z = (sin α n −1 − sin α n − 2 ) + (sin α n − sin α n −1 ) , (3-38)
πκ αn −1 πκ αn
90
∆X = [cos(α n − 2 − φn − 2 ) − cos(α n −1 − φn −1 )]
π (κ αn −1 − κ φn −1 )
90
+ [cos(α n − 2 + φn − 2 ) − cos(α n −1 + φn −1 )]
π (κ αn −1 + κ φn −1 )
(3-39)
90
+ [cos(α n −1 − φn −1 ) − cos(α n − φn )]
π (κ αn − κ φn )
90
+ [cos(α n −1 + φn −1 ) − cos(α n + φn )], and
π (κ αn + κ φn )
90
∆Y = [sin(α n −1 − φ n −1 ) − sin(α n − 2 − φ n − 2 )]
π (κ αn −1 − κ φn −1 )
90
− [sin(α n −1 + φ n −1 ) − sin(α n − 2 + φ n − 2 )]
π (κ αn −1 + κ φn −1 )
(3-40)
90
+ [sin(α n − φ n ) − sin(α n −1 − φ n −1 )]
π (κ αn − κ φn )
90
− [sin(α n + φ n ) − sin(α n −1 + φ n −1 )].
π (κ αn + κ φn )
Solving the above equations combined with Eqs. (3-9, 3-10), we can express καn-1 in
terms of καn:
360 α n − α n −2 φ n − φn −2
− (sin 2 + cosα n cosα n −2 sin 2 ) + κ αn (∆X cosα n −2 cosφn − 2 + ∆Y cosα n −2 sin φn −2 − ∆Z sin α n− 2 ) .
κ αn−1 = π 2 2
π
κ αn (∆X 2 + ∆Y 2 + ∆Z 2 ) + (∆X cosα n cosφn + ∆Y cosα n sin φn − ∆Z sin α n )
360
(3-41)
Then we can express the parameters of ∆Dn, ∆Dn-1 in terms of καn:
30
∆Dn = (α n − α n −1 ) / κ αn and (3-42)
∆Dn −1 = (α n −1 − α n − 2 ) / κ αn −1 , (3-43)
 π 
 κ αn κ αn −1 ∆Z + κ αn sin α n − 2 − κ αn −1 sin α n 
where α n −1 = arcsin  180 .
 κ αn − κ αn −1 
 
 
Eqs. (3-9, 3-10, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40) can also yield
 φ − φn − 2 ∆D n - 1 2 2 φ − φn − 2 ∆D n - 1 2 2  π 2
0 = ( n − κ φn − 1 ) κ φn − 1 − κ α2nκ φ2n − 1 − ( n − κ φn − 1 ) κ αn − 1 ( ) ( ∆X 2 + ∆Y 2 )
 ∆ D n ∆ D n ∆ D n ∆ D n  180
φn − φ n − 2 ∆D n - 1 2 φ n − φn − 2 ∆D n - 1
+ κ φn − 1 sin α n + (
2 2
− κ φn − 1 ) sin α n − 2 − (
2
− κ φn − 1 − κ φn − 1 ) 2 sin 2 α n − 1
∆D n ∆D n ∆D n ∆D n
π π φn − φ n − 2 ∆D n - 1
− κ αn κ φ2n − 1 cos α n ( ∆X cos φn + ∆Y sin φn ) + ( − κ φn − 1 )(κ α2n − 1 − κ φ2n − 1 ) sin α n ( ∆X sin φn − ∆Y cos φn )
90 90 ∆D n ∆D n
π φn − φn − 2 ∆D n - 1 2 π
+ κ αn − 1 ( − κ φn − 1 ) cos α n − 2 ( ∆X cos φn − 2 − ∆Y sin φn − 2 ) − κ φn − 1 (κ α2n − 1 − κ φ2n − 1 ) sin α n − 2 ( ∆X sin φn − 2 + ∆Y cos φn − 2 )
90 ∆D n ∆D n 90
φn − φn − 2 ∆D n -1 φ − φn − 2 ∆D n - 1
− 2( − κ φn − 1 )κ αn − 1 sin α n cos α n − 2 sin(φn − φn − 2 ) − 2κ φn − 1 ( n − κ φn − 1 ) sin α n sin α n − 2 cos(φn − φn − 2 )
∆D n ∆D n ∆D n ∆D n
+ 2κ αnκ φn − 1 cos α n sin α n − 2 sin(φn − φn − 2 ).
(3-44)
We can solve Eq.(3-44) using iteration methods to obtain κφn-1. Then κφn can be
calculated as
φn − φ n−2 ∆D n -1
κ φn = − κ φn −1 . (3-45)
∆D n ∆D n
If we select a value of καn, we can calculate ∆Dn-1, ∆Dn, καn-1, κφn-1. κφn, and incremental
well profile energy ∆Ew. Changing the value of καn we will have value series of ∆Ew
versus καn. By comparison we can determine the minimum ∆Ew and corresponding well
path correction parameters such as καn, ∆Dn, and so on.
31
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MIN. ENERGY CONTROL ALGORITHM
As we discussed before, minimum energy method can offer a unique quantified
solution to correct the well path deviation. It promises a smooth returning path to the
designed wellbore trajectory. Based on this new control algorithm, we can develop a
control program for down-hole rotary steering system. Figure 3-4 is the flow chart of the
computer program for trajectory control using minimum energy method.
At the beginning, the detailed wellbore design data will be stored on the downhole
computer such as coordinates and orientation angles of designed well path (MD*, X*, Y*,
Z*, α*, Ф*), pay zone location, maximum allowable dogleg severity, locations of must-
detour obstacles (e.g., existing wellbores, faults, etc.). When the actual well trajectory
data (MD, α, Ф) are received, the actual coordinates (X, Y, Z) will be calculated using
wellbore trajectory models, for example, the industry standard minimum curvature model
or the simple balanced tangential model (Samuel and Liu, July 2009).
Then we can determine the deviations. One simple way is to find a point on the
designed well path. That point has the same measured depth as the current position of
actual path. The deviations are simply (∆X, ∆Y, ∆Z, ∆α, ∆Ф) with ∆MD=0. But this
method may cause false alarm when the actual path overlaps with designed path with
(∆X≠0, ∆Y≠0, ∆Z≠0, ∆α=0, ∆Ф=0). A more applicable way is to use the deviation
vector, as we discussed in Chapter Two. There is no analytical formula to calculate the
deviation vector. We can numerically get the vector length by finding the minimum value
|ε| among multiple trials. Once the reference point B on the designed path is found out,
we store the ∆MD = MDA-MDB for next iteration of deviation vector search.
32
Orientation
Surface sensor
computer
sensor
Designed path data:
Real path data
MDB, XB, YB, ZB, αB, φB,
MDA, XA, YA,
Pay zone location, Max.
ZA, αA, φA, TF
Dogleg Severity
Trend angle, Correction path

Deviation vector length data: MDi, Xi,
Yi, Zi, αi, φi,
No Deviated from Yes

design path?
No Deviated from
correction path?
Yes
Next target point

MDC, XC, YC, ZC, αC, φC
Min. energy solver
Trajectory correction
parameters κα, κФ, ∆MD, etc.
Shaft deflection ∆x, ∆y
Actuator 1: Displacement ∆x
Actuator 2: Displacement ∆y
Figure 3-4 Flow chart of the computer implementation of wellbore trajectory

control using minimum energy criterion.
33
If the |ε| =0, ∆α=0, ∆Ф=0, and target is not reached yet, we can conclude that we are
on the right track. We can certainly use a tolerance value instead of zero as the criterion
for the deviation judgment. If the |ε| (or ∆α or ∆Ф) is not zero or beyond tolerance limit,
we need to check if a correction action is going on. If no, then a correction action is fired.
If a deviation correction is running, we need to further check if the actual path is deviated
from the correction returning path. Any deviation from the current correction returning
path will result in a start-over of the trajectory correction.
Once a correction action is fired, the minimum energy algorithm will start running.
First, we select a target point C based on maximum allowable dogleg severity. For
example, if |ε| is 0.0 feet, the angle deviation is 4°, and the maximum allowable dogleg
severity is 2 °/100 ft, then we need at least 200 ft to correct the angle deviation. In reality,
|ε| will become non-zero during the correction of angle deviation. To overcome that, three
times of 200 ft = 600 ft is needed to complete the correction. Details will be discussed in
Chapter Four. Then we can calculate the trajectory correction parameters (∆Dn-1, ∆Dn,
καn-1, καn, κφn-1, κφn). After that, we can calculate ∆καn-1 = καn-1 - καn-2 and ∆κφn-1 = κφn-1 -
κφn-2 corresponding to the bit tilt angle adjustments in vertical and horizontal directions,
respectively, provided that lateral force on bit is very small. The controllable parameters
are shaft eccentricity ∆ex and ∆ey, or rotation angles (β1, β2) of eccentric rings, which can
be computed using Equations (1-1, 1-2, 1-3) in Chapter One. Finally, commands are
given to the actuators to deflect the shaft so as to adjust the build/drop rate of inclination
or increase/decrease rate of azimuth.
34
Chapter 4 Simulations of Wellbore Trajectory Steering
Computer simulations were carried out to generate the wellbore correction path under
control using minimum energy method. For the sake of simplicity, the lateral force is
assumed to be very small so that the build/drop rate or azimuth change rate is purely
determined by the geometric parameters of the drill bit, for instance, the tilt angle of drill
bit with respect to the center line of drill string.
Suppose we have a 20 feet long bottom hole assembly (BHA) and a drill bit tilt angle
of 1°, if the drill bit is pointing toward the High side, i.e., tool face TF=0°, then we are
expecting a build rate of 1°/20 ft = 5° /100 ft. If the drill bit is pointing toward Right side,
TF=90°, then we expect an azimuth change rate + 5° /100 ft.
Computer programs were implemented using Microsoft Excel spread sheets. Different
types of wellbore structures, including 2D and 3D wells, were tested. Different wellbore
trajectory models, including balanced tangential model, minimum curvature model and
natural curve model, are covered in the computer simulations. Numerical method is used
to find the minimum incremental energy and corresponding deviation correction
parameters. The solving procedures are described in Chapter Three.
4.1 TWO DIMENSIONAL WELL
As shown in Figure 4-1, a two-dimensional (2D) J-type well profile is used as an
example of minimum energy wellbore trajectory control. The planned well path is
represented by double blue line while the actual well path is the single red line. The well
path consists of one build section OP (1020 ft), built with constant rate κα = 6 °/100 ft,
and one hold section PB (960 ft). Actual well path deviated from the planned well path at
MD=1980 ft by ∆α = +7.2°. The planned inclination at MD=1980 ft should be αB=63°.
35
Real αA=70.2°
Plan αB=63 °
Figure 4-1 2D J-type

type well for wellbore control study using minimum energy
nergy method.
metho
Now we assume
ume that the drilling situation requires the drilling
ling controller
controlle to bring the
wellbore trajectory
tory back to tthe planned path in the next 200 ft of measured depth. First,
we know that ∆Dn-1, ∆Dn must be in the range of 0—200 ft since ∆Dn--1 + ∆Dn =200 ft.
For every single ∆Dn, we ca

can compute the incremental well profile
rofile energy ∆E and other
deviation correction
ction parame
parameters like καn, καn-1, and ∆Dn-1. Thee incremental
incrementa well profile
energy ∆Ew is plotted versu

versus the first correction section length ∆Dn-1, as shown
sh in Figure
4-2. We can findd that ∆Ew does have a minimum value corresponding
sponding to approximately
a
∆Dn-1 = ∆Dn, that

at is, two sec
sections with equal lengths. Data from different trajectory
tra model
are only slightly

ly different, as shown in Table 4-1. Interestingly,
gly, parameters
parame to realize
uniform dogleg severity ((Figure4-3) are NOT the same as oness for minimum
minimu well profile
energy. From Figure 4-2,

2, we can read that for the minimum energy
ergy path, we need to
36
(1) drill the first section of ~100 ft with constant build rate -14.9 °/100 ft (negative
means drop operation);
(2) drill the second section of ~100 ft with constant build rate 6°/100 ft.
∆Dn-1 ≈ ∆L/2, where ∆L = ∆Dn-1 + ∆Dn.
From Figure 4-3, we can read that for uniform dogleg severity path, we need to:
(1) drill the first section of ~130 ft with constant build rate -12.4 °/100 ft (negative
means drop operation);
10
balanced tangential
8 min. curvature
natural curve
∆E
2
0 50 100 150 200
∆Dn-1, ft
Figure 4-2 Incremental wellbore profile energy vs. section length ∆Dn-1.
Table 4-1 Deviation correction parameters of 2D J-type well
∆Dn-1 καn-1 καn

Trajectory Model
(ft) (°/100 ft) (°/100 ft )
Balanced Tangential 101.7 -14.9 7.92
Min. Curvature 101.1 -14.96 7.94
Natural Curve 101.6 -14.9 8.0
37
(2) drilll the second ssection of ~72 ft with constant build
d rate +12.4°/100
+12.4° ft.
∆Dn-1 ≈ ∆L/3, where ∆L = ∆Dn-1 + ∆Dn.
Figure 4-4 shows

ws the well trajectories of different correction
n mechanisms.
mechanism From that
figure and the data

ata above, w
we can see that there are actually three
ree processes
processe happened in
the two section deviation co

correction operation: (1) angle deviation
tion correction
correctio to make ∆α
= 0, but undesirably
rably make ddeviation vector length even larger, |ε| ≠ 0; (2) linear
li deviation
correction to reduce
duce deviatio
deviation vector length, but undesirably make
ake ∆α ≠ 0; (3) continued
linear deviation correction aand compensational angle correction in the meantime,

mea finally
make |ε| =0 and make ∆α = 0 again.
Figure 4-3 Build/d

Build/drop rates of returning path sections versuss section length.
len
38
Figure 4-4 Correction paths of minimum energy vs. uniform dogleg severity.
Along the deviation correction path of uniform dogleg severity, each stage mentioned
in the above three processes accounts for roughly one third of the total length duration.
The inclination deviation 7.2° was created in the length of 120 feet using constant build
rate 6°/100 ft; but it takes 200 feet to correct that deviation even with more than doubled
build/drop rate 12.4 °/100 ft. The accumulated absolute angle change in the correction
work is totally 200 × 12.4 = 24.8°, which is roughly three times of the deviation angle
7.2°. Therefore, we can say that it takes approximately three-fold time/length to correct a
deviation of the one to create it.
39
4.2 THREE DIMENSIONAL
NSIONAL WELL
This is a 3D J-type
type well. As shown in Figure 4-5, the well path is very similar to the
2D J-type well except for th

the constant azimuth angle 45°. Well
ll profile parameters
para are as
follows.
OP (1020 ft) is the build ssection, in which κα= 6 °/100 ft, κφ =0 °/100 ft, Azimuth=45°.
PQ (960 ft) is the hold sect

section, in which κα = 0 °/100 ft, κφ =0 °/100 ft, Azimuth=45°.
QA (120 ft) is the deviation building section: κα = 6 °/100 ft, κφ =6 °/100 ft. At point A
in the actual welll path, the inclination angle is 70.2°, comparing

ring with the planned 63°.
The azimuth angle

gle is 37.8°, comparing with the planned 45°.
Figure 4-5 2D projection

ction (left) aand 3D profiles (middle) of the 3D J-type well
ell with deviation
dev
correction
ion path amp
amplified on the right.
40
Still we assume that the drilling situation requires the drilling controller to bring
the wellbore trajectory back to the planned path in the next 200 ft of measured depth.
Similarly, we can plot incremental well profile energy versus ∆Dn-1in Figure 4-6. The
corresponding length ∆Dn-1 of minimum energy increase is still approximately half of
total two-section correction path (Table 4-2). Again, for uniform dogleg severity,
∆Dn-1 should be roughly 2/3 of total two-section length. All these data are consistent
with the 2D case.
20
balanced tangential
min. curvature
15
natural curve
ΔE
10
5
0 50 100 150 200
ΔDn-1, ft
Figure 4-6 Incremental well profile energy vs. section length.
Table 4-2 Calculated wellbore path correction parameters of 3D J-type well
method ∆Dn ∆Dn-1 ∆L Kαn Kαn-1 Kφn Kφn-1
Balanced 103 100.05 203.05 7.17 -14.57 8.6 -16.03

tangential
Min. 102.91 98.79 201.7 7.17 -14.8 8.6 -16.2
curvature
Natural 93 107.5 200.5 9 -14.49 9 -14.49
curve
41
Figure 4-7 Inclination
tion rate an
and azimuth rates vs. section length. Crosss points showing
sho the section
lengthss for uniform dogleg severity.
4.3 PID CONTROL VS. MINIMUM ENERGY METHOD
In PID control,
rol, the signa
signal usually fluctuates before it returnss to the desired
desir value. We
have to carefully
ly tune the ccoefficients of the Proportional, Integral,
egral, and Derivative
De parts
in order to achieve
ieve a smoo
smooth signal correction. In down-hole
le drilling, it is desired to
avoid the trajectory

ctory fluc
fluctuation and have a smooth curve. However,
owever, it
i is difficult to
realize smooth control using common PID methods because PID

ID tends to create
c a strong
abrupt feedback at the begin

beginning of error correction operation. On the other hand, the pre-
tuned PID coefficients

fficients may not work due to the often abrupt
pt and sometimes
som wildly
changing down-hole
hole operati
operation conditions.
42
A 2D horizontal well is used for comparison study of wellbore trajectories controlled
using PID and minimum energy method, respectively. The PID control inputs are linear
deviation |ε| and angle deviation (∆4, ∆6 with a weighting factor (WF, between 0 and
1). In 3D space,
5 = XY × ∆[/]^ + 1 − XY × ∆4 (4-1)
and
7 = XY × ∆`/]^ + 1 − XY × ∆6, (4-2)
where ∆[ = |S| 4, ∆` = |S|bc 4, CI is the control intervention with length unit of ft.
For this 2D horizontal well, we let WF=0.5 and CI=100 ft. Here ε is the deviation vector
defined in Figure 2-1.
PID output can be calculated based on
=
= + + . (4-3)
Converted into numerical calculation formula, the equation becomes
∆= ,
* = * + ∑*fh; e f g∆ f + , (4-4)
∆ ,
where ∆tj = tj - tj-1.
The controllable variables are vertical eccentricity ∆eV and horizontal eccentricity
∆eH. Recall in Chapter One, the drill bit tilt angle is related to deflection as
lmn
i = jkb j , (4-5)
√ -; o
where L is the length shown in Figure 1-3, pq = %∆ + +∆ 3.
When tilt angle is small, we may take the approximation as

lmn
i≈ . (4-6)
√ -; o
43
Based on this approximation of linear relationship, assuming that the lateral force on drill
bit is small, we can directly add PID output u(t) into the change rates of inclination and
azimuth. At moment t, the inclination change rate κα(t) and azimuth change rate κφ(t) are
s5 * = s5 *-; + 5 * (4-7)
and s7 * = s7 *-; + 7 * . (4-8)
As shown in Figure 4-8, a deviation is artificially created in the length of ~200 ft to
bring the vertical position from 10 ft down to 6 ft while the inclination angle from 90° to
87.7°. From that position, if minimum energy method is used, a single smooth correction
trajectory can be obtained. If PID control is fired, the obtained correction trajectory will
be mostly like the solid red line in Fig 4-8. There is some fluctuation at the beginning; but
it finally converges at the target position. With careful tuning, we might obtain a
relatively smooth well profile like Figure 4-9. But in both PID cases the dogleg severity
at the beginning of correction is always big, as shown with arrows. The dogleg severity is
plotted against horizontal position in Figure 4-10 so that we can see it more clearly. From
energy point of view, the well profile energy of PID-controlled correction trajectory is
apparently much higher than the one of minimum energy method (Figure 4-11). The
spike of dogleg severity like in Figure 4-10 in a wellbore might cause severe problems
such as stuck pipe, torque and drag, etc. It is absolutely necessary to overcome the
dogleg spike problem for PID control to be possibly used for downhole wellbore steering.
In some cases, if the PID coefficients are not tuned well, the control may become
unstable, as shown in Figure 4-12. Another type of unstable PID control is the unstable
build/drop rate (Figure 4-13), which is usually caused by sudden change of drilling
parameters. For instance, the case of Figure 4-13 was produced by sudden increase of
44
ROP by 100%. One point should be mentioned is that the PID coefficients Kp, Ki, and Kd
are the same as the well-tuned case in Figure 4-10.
Figure 4-8 The PID control fluctuation (solid red line) vs. smooth correction using minimum energy
method (black line with circle marker).
Figure 4-9 Relatively smooth PID control with big dogleg at the beginning (pointed by arrow).
45
Figure 4-10 Comparison of dogleg severity of PID control vs. minimum energy method.
0.35
0.3
Well Profile Energy
Min. Energy Method

0.25
PID control
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4
Horizontal position, x 100 ft
Figure 4-11 The well profile energy versus relative horizontal position.
46
Figure 4-12 PID control becomes unstable if it is not tuned properly. The well trajectory oscillates
wildly off the target.
Figure 4-13 Well-tuned PID control becomes unstable because of abrupt change of ROP.
The build/drop rates oscillate wildly in this particular case.
47
4.4 FUZZY CONTROL VS. MINIMUM ENERGY METHOD
The fuzzy control case is taken from Stoner’s dissertation (1997). As shown in Figure
4-14, a planned two-dimensional horizontal well locates at TVD= 4000 ft. Now the actual
drilling trajectory is 4 ft below the target but has no angle deviation, i.e., actual
inclination α = 90°. Using a weighting factor WF=50%, Stoner simulated the linear
deviation correction trajectory using fuzzy control method and obtained a relatively
smooth well path (solid red line in Figure 4-14). Compared with PID control, fuzzy
control is able to get rid of overshoot and undulation problems.
∆MD, ft
0 200 400 600 800 1000

3999
4000
4001
TVD, ft
4002
Fuzzy control
4003
minimum energy
method
4004 Plan (horizontal)
4005
Figure 4-14 Fuzzy control correction path (red solid line, Stoner, 1997) and minimum energy
method path (blue circle) for a horizontal well with -4.0 ft TVD deviation.
48
But minimum energy method is still superior in terms of wellbore smoothness (Figure
4-14). Just like PID control, fuzzy control still generates a high dogleg section at the
beginning of deviation correction. This is directly related to the design of fuzzy control
rules: big deviation build/drop hard. Until improved significantly, this kind of reaction
mimicking driller’s behavior won’t yield high quality wellbore. Figure 4-15 shows the
build/drop rates along the correction path. The profile of fuzzy control build/drop rates
(solid red line) is quite similar to that of PID control (Figure 4-10) in terms of the rate
spike at the beginning section. But the minimum energy method uniformly distributes
build/drop rates along the whole correction path. Consequently, a much smoother
wellbore trajectory is obtained. The well profile energy plot (Figure 4-16) clearly support
that result.
0.014
0.012
0.01
Fuzzy control
build/drop rate, °/ft
0.008
Min. energy method
0.006
0.004
0.002
-0.002
-0.004
0 200 400 600 800 1000
ΔMD, ft
Figure 4-15 Build/drop rates of fuzzy control (red solid line, data from Stoner’s dissertation, 1997)
and minimum energy method (blue circle), respectively.
49
0.005
Min. Energy Method
Fuzzy control
0.004
Well Profile Energy
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
∆MD, ft
Figure 4-16 Well profile energy of the correction paths from fuzzy control (solid red line, data from
Stoner’s dissertation, 1997) and minimum energy method (blue circle).
4.5 DISCUSSION
4.5.1 Limitation of Minimum Energy Method
The smooth well profile obtained using minimum energy method is not without cost.
As a matter of fact, we can see from Figure 4-9 that the minimum energy method further
increases the linear deviation at the beginning of correction. The vertical deviation
increases to -6.0 ft from -4.0 ft before it decreases again. On the contrary, PID control
uses very aggressive build rate to minimize further linear deviation. Therefore, in some
cases, e.g., a horizontal well in thin pay zone, we need to use minimum energy method
50
cautiously by setting a very close target ahead and double check if the correction
trajectory is within the required boundaries.
4.5.2 Non-Ideal Factors: Side Force, Self-Weight, and BHA Lateral Movement
All the simulations are based on the assumption that the side force onto the drill bit is
negligible and the change rate of inclination/azimuth can be calculated purely from the
geometric relationships. However, in real drilling operations, some non-ideal factors must
be considered.
First, we have to include the effect of side force. In the point-the-bit RSS, side force
effect on the tilt angle is usually negative. The tilt angle as a function of side force Fs can
be expressed as
lmn uD vw
i; = jkb j e√ -;go
− jkb j R3z( + 2e√2 − 1g|T, (4-9)
xV1
where Ym is the shaft deflection exerted by eccentric rings, L is the distance between
cantilever bearing and focal bearing, lb is the distance between focal bearing and the drill
bit, .E is the Young’s modulus of the shaft, I is the area inertia of momentum of the shaft.
The derivation of Equation is in Appendix I.
Considering total BHA length=18 ft, L=12 ft, Ym=0.5 inch, lb=5 ft, E=2.9×107 psi,
shaft outer diameter D=3.5 inches, inner diameter d = 2.992 inches, Fs=1000 lbf, we have
I= π(D4-d4)/64 = 3.43235 inch4, pure geometric tilt angle θ = 0.7204°, angle reduction
due to side force ∆θ1= 0.1436°, the effective tilt angle θ1 = θ - ∆θ1 =0.5768°. This angle
will yield a build/drop rate of 0.5768°/(18 ft)*100 ft =3.2 °/100 ft.
Second, the self-weight of BHA may cause higher drop rate and lower build rate due to
the downward gravity pulling of drill bit. This effect can be alleviated by adding a near-
bit stabilizer.
51
Finally, the BHA lateral movement will also reduce the effort of eccentric rings,
especially when the side force or BHA self-weight is significant. Due to the gap between
the stabilizer and the wellbore, the axis of BHA may shift to the direction opposite to the
one of bit-pointing.
Let’s still consider the aforementioned example. BHA total length=18 ft. We assume
that two stabilizers are 12 ft apart, and the stabilizer-wellbore gap is 0.1 inches. If the bit
side force is high and push the near-bit stabilizer upward so as to touch the wellbore high
side while the other stabilizer is still in close contact with the wellbore low side. The tilt
angle change will be
∆θ2 = -180/3.1416*0.1 inches/ (12 ft *12 inches/ft) = -0.04°.
Drop rate will be reduced by 0.04°/(18 ft)*100 = 0.22 °/100 ft.
52
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Future Work
A new trajectory control model is developed based on minimum well profile energy
criterion in order to achieve smooth well paths. In this model, the S-shape returning path
from a deviated position to the planned wellbore trajectory is divided into two sections,
each of which has its length, inclination change rate, and azimuth change rate. By
applying minimum well profile energy condition, we can obtain a unique solution of
these parameters.
The model is tested using different sections of artificially generated well paths,
including 2D and 3D well paths. In comparison with PID control and fuzzy control,
minimum energy method yields much smoother wellbore trajectories so as to reduce drag
and friction of drilling string, casing string, etc.
The minimum energy method offers deterministic calculations, i.e., no guess on
control parameters, which is a significant advantage for limited computation power of
down-hole tools. The settings of constant inclination/azimuth change rate in each
correction section also offer benefits like less frequent steering— hence less electric
power consumption and less abrasion failure of down-hole tools.
In the future, a downhole drilling robot prototype is proposed to further verify the
minimum energy trajectory control model with emphasis on the effects of side force and
abrupt external interference. Figure 6-1 shows the schematic system of the proposed
drilling robot prototype. Figure 6-2 shows the schematic of control unit for tilt angle and
tool face angle. An orientation sensor will be put inside the model drill bit to measure the
inclination and azimuth. A computer program with close-loop feedback control algorithm
53
is the core of the system. With this prototype system, we will be able to study how the
trajectory control unit reacts to the external influences on tilt angles and tool face angles.
2
1
1. Computer system;
2. Bending shaft assembly with deflection actuator;
3. Side force adjustment.
Figure 5-1 Schematic illustration of downhole drilling robot prototype.
Support Displacement Focal

bearings bearing bearing
Drill
Bit
Linear
actuator
Figure 5-2 Schematic tilt and tool face control unit.
54
References
Aldred, W., Bourque, J., Mannering, M., Chapman, C., du Castel, B., Hansen, R., Downton, G., Harmer,
R., Falconer, I., Florence, F., Zurita, E. G., Nieto, C., Stauder, R., and Zamora, M. 2012. “Drilling
Automation,” Oilfield Review, 24(2): 18-27.
Allen, S., McCartney C., Hernandez M., Reeves, M., Baksh A., and MacFarlane D. 2009. “Step-Change
Improvements with Wired-Pipe Telemetry,” paper SPE 119570, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Mar. 17-19.
Bai, D. X., Sheng, Y., Zhu Y., Li, Q., Wang Q., Chinh P. V., Ke C., and Zhang M. 2013. “High Build Rate
RSS Sets Records While Targeting Thin Reservoirs,” World Oil, 234(6), Jun.
http://www.worldoil.com/June_2013_High_build_rate_RSS_sets_records.html
Dupre, R. 2013. “Is Automated Drilling the Industry’s Future,” Rigzone, Jan. 01. Retrieved from
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/123099/Is_Automated_Drilling_the_Industrys_Future.
Felczak E., Torre A., Godwin N. D., Mantle K., Hawkins, R., Li, K., Jones S., and Slayden F., 2012. “The
Best of Both Worlds—A Hybrid Rotary Steerable System,” Oilfield Review, 23(4):36-44, Winter.
Gieck, K. and Gieck, R. 2006. Engineering Formulas, 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill Professional, Jun 5.
Li, Y., Cheng W., Tang N. 2010. “The Intelligent PID Control of the Rotary Navigational Drilling Tool,”
China Petroleum Machinery, (8):13-16,104.
Matheus, J. and Naganathan, S. 2010. “Drilling Automation: Novel Trajectory Control Algorithm for
RSS,” IADC/SPE 127925, presented at 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, USA, Feb. 2-4.
Mazerov, K. 2013. “Turning Vision into Value: Automation Technologies Must Deliver Efficiency, Cost
Saving, Safety to Make Economic Sense on Rigs, Land and Offshore,” Drilling Contractor, 69(5):
22-33.
Pink, T., Bruce, A., Kverneland, H., and Applewhite B. 2012. “Building an Automated Drilling System
Where Surface Machines Are Controlled by Downhole and Surface Data to Optimize the Well
Construction Process,” paper SPE/IADC 150973, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, Mar. 6-8.
55
Sadlier, A., Laing, M., and Shields, J. 2012. “Data Aggregation and Drilling Automation: Connecting the
Interoperability Bridge between Acquisition, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Control,” paper IADC/SPE
151412, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA,
Mar. 6-8.
Samuel, R. 2009. “Ultra-Extended-Reach Drilling (u-ERD: Tunnel in the Earth) – A New Well-Path
Design,” SPE/IADC 119459, the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, 17-19 Mar.
Samuel, R. and Liu, X. 2009. Advanced Drilling Engineering. Gulf Publishing Company, July.
Samuel, R. and Liu, X. 2009. “Wellbore Tortuosity, Torsion, Drilling Indices, and Energy: What do They
Have to Do with Well Path Design?” SPE 124710, the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4-7 Oct.
Sumit, R., Mandadi, S., Thamizhmani, V., and Samuel, R. 2010. “Amplifer/Booster Joint Positioning
Framework Design for a High-Speed Wired Telemetry System in MWD/LWD Downhole Tool
Environment,” Paper SPE 134504, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Florence, Italy, Sept. 19-22.
Stoner, M. S. 1997. A Fuzzy Logic Controller for Drilling Directionally (PhD dissertation), Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, July 1997.
Yonezawa, T., Cargill E. J., Gaynor T. M., Hardin, J. R., Hay R. T., Ikeda A., and Kiyosawa, Y., 2002.
“Robotic Controlled Drilling: A New Rotary Steerable Drilling System for the Oil and Gas Industry,”
IADC/SPE 74458, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 26-28..
Xue, Q., Wang, R., Song, W. and Huang, L. 2012. “Simulation Study on Fuzzy Control of Rotary Steering
Drilling Trajectory,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(13):
1862-1867.
56
Appendix I Derivation of Drill Bit Tilt Angle Equation
Assumptions:
1) Shaft can be treated as a fixed end (left side) cantilever beam.
2) The tilt angle θ1 in Figure I-1c can be treated as the combining effect of eccentric
ring actuation (Figure I-1a) and drill bit side force (Figure I-1b).
3) Location of eccentric rings (point C) is designed to be the maximum shaft
deflection point between cantilever bearing A and focal bearing B.
4) Shaft and drill bit is weightless.
Fe
MA
(a) C B θ
A
RB
RA
RC FS
(b) C B ∆θ1
RB
F’e
MA FS
(c)
A C B θ1
RA R’B
Figure I-1 The tilt angle change due to shaft deflection and drill bit side force.
57
Let a=AC, b=CB, L=AB, then from figure (1), the maximum deflection at point C is
(Gieck, 2006)
}~ oH l( (H u• ‚F (
pq = • o − oH € − .
xV1 V1
(I-1)
The support force at point B is
‚F ‚ l(
ƒ„ = Y= •o + €.
oF o
(I-2)
Combining Eq. (I-1) with Eq. (I-2), we have
j j 3… l
Y= • + € | 3… … l Y= j …
pq = | | 2| ‡ − lˆ − ,
6 ^ | | 2 ^
u• ‚F ( ‚ l( (F
= ?• + € •1 − loF € − 1E.
V1 o o
Since a=L-b, then
u• ‚F ( ( (F (H
pq = • − − €.
V1 o lo F xoH
(I-3)
On the other hand,
u• ‚F ( ; u• ‚F (
j i = j 6„ = = .
‰V1o o V1
(I-4)
( (F (H
Therefore, pq = 2| j i • − − €,
o lo F xoH
mn ( (F (H
j i= Š• − − €.
o o lo F xoH
(I-5)
lmn
From assumption 3), … = √2 − 1 |, then j i= .
√ -; o
If there is no side force on drill bit and if we ignore the self-weight of the shaft, the
housing, and the drill bit, we can obtain the ideal tilt angle (unit in degree) caused by the
shaft deflection.
58
lmn
i = jkb j .
√ -; o
(I-6)
Let lb be the distance from drill bit to the focal bearing B, From Figure b, the angle
change caused by side force can be obtained by
u‹ vw
j ∆i; = 2… + 3z( , which is equivalent to
xV1
u‹ vw
∆i; = jkb j Œ2 √2 − 1 | + 3z( •.
xV1
(I-7)
In Figure I-1, the side force Fs direction is opposite to the tilting direction of drill bit,
the tilt angle will decrease, resulting i; = i − ∆i; . If we are reducing build/drop rate
e.g., from 15 °/100 ft to 5 °/100 ft, through adjusting eccentric rings, the side force will
point to the same direction as the drill bit tilts, and i; = i + ∆i; . Generally speaking,
the side force is expected to counter the intended tilt angle change. Thus the adjusted tilt
angle is
lmn uD vw
− i − i -; jkb j xV1
R3z( + 2e√2 − 1g|T. (I-8)
If further considering the lateral shift of BHA stabilizer, the tilt angle change will be
further offset by amount ∆θ2.
lmn uD vw ;• ∆
− i − i -; Žjkb j Œ3z( + 2e√2 − 1g|• + ‘,
xV1 •o
(I-9)
where Ym is the shaft deflection exerted by eccentric rings, L is the distance between
cantilever bearing and focal bearing, sign(θi - θi-1) is the sign of tilt angle change from θi-1
to θi, lb is the distance between focal bearing and the drill bit, E is the Young’s modulus
of the shaft, I is the area momentum of inertia of the shaft, ∆d is lateral displacement of
the stabilizer, which is usually the gap between the stabilizer blade and the wellbore.
59
Appendix II Shaft Deflection and Tool Face Angle of RSS with
Eccentric Rings
In Figure II-1, Let AB=e1, BC=e2, AC=Ym, then we have
AC2 =AB2+BC2-2AB·BC·cos(180+β1-β2). (II-1)
Therefore, the total shaft defection is
pq = ’] = %’“ + “] − 2’“ ∙ “] ∙ cos 180 + ™; − ™ .
That is
pq = % ; + −2 ; cos 180 + ™; − ™ . (II-2)
Here e1 is the eccentricity of outer ring with respect to housing center; e2 is the
eccentricity of inner ring with respect to the outer ring center; β1 and β2 are angular
positions (unit in degree) of outer ring and inner ring, respectively.
š0 F <š„F -„0 F
In the triangle ABC, bc 4 =
š„∙š0
. Using Eq. (II-1), we have
š„-„0∙›œ• ;• <ž/ -žF

bc 4 =
š0
.
In another form, it is
=/ -=F ∙›œ• ;• <ž/ -žF

bc 4 = .
mn
Hence,
=/ -=F ∙›œ• ;• <ž/ -žF

4 = jkbc R T.
mn
(II-3)
Considering the opposite drill bit point direction, tool face (TF) angle in degree should be
=/ -=F ∙›œ• ;• <ž/ -žF

Y = 180 + ™; + jkbc R T.
mn
(II-4)
60
High Side
TF
Outer
Eccentric
Inner
Ring
Eccentric
Ring β1
A
β2 α
B
C
Shaft
Low Side
Figure II-1 Geometric relationship of eccentric rings for shaft deflection and tool face calculation.
61

Liu Thesis 2013

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Liu Thesis 2013

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wellbore Trajectory Control Based on Minimum Well

Profile Energy for Drilling Automation

The Faculty of the Department of Petroleum Engineering

of the Requirements for the Degree of

career growth opportunities. Sincere appreciation is extended to my co-advisor, Dr.

The Faculty of the Department of Petroleum Engineering

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Figure 1-2 Inputs required by a drilling automation system . .......................................................... 6

2002) rotary steering systems. ....................................................................................... 9

Figure 2-3 The fuzzy domains of an input variable ...................................................................... 17

Figure 3-1 Wellbore deviation and correction targets. .................................................................. 24

minimum energy criterion............................................................................................ 33

correction path amplified on the right. ......................................................................... 40

Figure 4-6 Incremental well profile energy vs. section length....................................................... 41

lengths for uniform dogleg severity. ............................................................................ 42

energy method (black line with circle marker). ........................................................... 45

wildly off the target. ................................................................................................... 47

and minimum energy method (blue circle), respectively. ............................................ 49

Figure 5-1 Schematic illustration of downhole drilling robot prototype. ...................................... 54

Figure 5-2 Schematic tilt and tool face control unit....................................................................... 54

Table 4-1 Deviation correction parameters of 2D J-type well ....................................................... 37

Ym Maximum shaft deflection, in

e1 Eccentricity between outer ring and housing, in

e2 Eccentricity between outer ring and inner ring, in

e(t) PID control error signal

E Young’s modulus, psi

I Area inertia of momentum, in4

κ(x) Wellbore curvature, °/100 ft

τ(x) Wellbore torsion, °/100 ft

καi Inclination change rate in ith section

κφi Azimuth change rate in ith section

εi Overall logleg angle, °

∆Di ith section length, ft

∆αi Inclination change ith section

∆φi Azimuth change ith section

u(t) PID controller output

β1 Angular position of outer eccentric ring, °

β2 Angular position of inner eccentric ring, °

θ1 actual drill bit tilt angle, °

∆θ1 Side force induced tilt angle change, °

∆θ2 Tilt angle change due to stabilizer lateral shift, °

Fe Eccentric ring exerted force on shaft

FS Drill bit side force

RB Support force at pin B

L Distance between cantilever bearing and focal bearing, ft

lb Distance between drill bit and focal bearing, ft

∆d Lateral displacement of BHA stabilizer, in

TF Tool face angle, °

time, money and sometimes courage to make it happen.

1.1 WHY DRILLING AUTOMATION

Drilling automation is promising to deliver financial benefits to the operator. With

Drilling automation seeks to accomplish this through process improvements, optimized

(Aldred et al., 2012).

1.2 STATUS OF DRILLING AUTOMATION

new drilling structures, both offshore and on land (Dupre, 2013).

smart grids (Mazerov, 2013).

at a high level (Mazerov, 2013).

has provided incentives for faster technology adoption.

1.3 DRILLING AUTOMATION SYSTEM

of this effort, not objectives (Pink et al., 2012).

An automated drilling process requires a systems engineering approach—a loop that

results of imperfect predictions.

1.3.1 Drilling Automation Levels and Modules

Systems and industries move from manual to automated control systems in a