Spe 173156 Pa

J173156 DOI: 10.
2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16
Stage:
Page: 434
Total Pages: 15
Spiraled Boreholes: An Expression of 3D

Directional Instability of Drilling Systems
Julien Marck and Emmanuel Detournay, University of Minnesota
Summary
Borehole spiraling is predicted by analyzing the delay differential
equations (DDEs) governing the propagation of a borehole. These
evolution equations, expressed in terms of the borehole inclination
and azimuth, are obtained from considerations involving a bit/
rock-interaction law that relates the force and moment acting on
the bit to its penetration into the rock; kinematic relationships that
describe the local borehole geometry in relation to the bit penetration; and a beam model for the bottomhole assembly (BHA) that
expresses the force and moment at the bit as functions of the external loads applied on the BHA and the geometrical constraints arising from the stabilizers conforming to the borehole geometry.
The analytical nature of the propagation equations makes it
possible to conduct a systematic stability analysis in terms of a
key dimensionless group that controls the directional stability of
the drilling system. This group depends on the downhole weight
on bit (WOB), on properties of the BHA, on the bit bluntness, and
on parameters characterizing the steering response of the bit. The
directional stability of a particular system then is assessed by
comparing the magnitude of this group with a critical value, representing a bifurcation of stability, which depends only on the
BHA configuration and on the bit walk. If this group is less than
the critical value, the system is deemed to be directionally unstable, and borehole spiraling is likely. Stability curves for an idealized BHA with two stabilizers show that the bit walk tends to
make drilling systems more prone to spiraling. Applications to
field cases are discussed. Simulations conducted by integrating
the equations of borehole propagation also are presented. They
illustrate that, for unstable systems, the model predicts spiraled
boreholes with a pitch comparable with what generally is
observed in the field.
Introduction
Borehole spiraling, sometimes referred to as microtortuosity, is a
common drilling dysfunction that is not identified easily in real
time without state-of-the-art downhole-measurement equipment
(Sugiura and Jones 2008; Sugiura 2009). Common related issues
include smaller drift diameters (MacDonald and Lubinski 1951),
lower-than-expected rates of penetration, damage and fatigue to
tools and components, as well as higher levels of shocks and
vibrations (Gaynor et al. 2001).
Borehole spiraling is an expression of self-excited oscillations
that arise from the influence of the stabilizers on the drilling direction at the bit, because they interact with the borehole and thereby
locally constrain the deflection of the BHA (Pastusek and Brackin
2003; Marck et al. 2014). Under certain conditions, these kinematic constraints lead to a progressive amplification, at the bit, of
perturbations as they are sensed by the stabilizers. Once a limit
cycle is established, after emergent nonlinearities in the response
of the systemsuch as saturation of the bit tilt (Pastusek et al.
2005) or extraneous contacts between the BHA and the boreholeit is maintained by the lateral force at the bit induced, again,
by the interaction of the stabilizers with the spiraled borehole.
These fluctuations in the drilling direction of the bit essentially
C 2016 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V
This paper (SPE 173156) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, London, 1719 March 2015, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 14 January 2015. Revised manuscript received for review 31
July 2015. Paper peer approved 6 August 2015.
betray variations of the bit tilt because the orientation of the bit
axis remains almost constant, at least as long as the pitch of the
spiral is closely related to the distance between the bit and the first
stabilizer (Marck and Detournay 2014a; Marck 2015) (Fig. 1).
To date, only a handful of studies have focused on analyzing
borehole oscillations. The self-perpetuating nature of the spiral
was discussed first by Pastusek and Brackin (2003), who also
described how the geometry of the BHA could lead to a growing
oscillation pattern in the borehole trajectory. Downton (2007)
demonstrated that a rigid BHA (i.e., BHA with a theoretically infinite stiffness) with three-point contact with the borehole is always
directionally unstable, except for a few discrete configurations.
Downton (2007) further showed that the system could be made
directionally stable with the addition of a flexible element in the
BHA. Moreover, Detournay and Perneder (2011) and Perneder
(2013) proved, with an analytical model of planar borehole propagation (henceforth referred to as the PD model), that a deformable
BHA is directionally stable provided that the active WOB (the
WOB reduced by the axial force transmitted by wearflats) is sufficiently large. On the basis of a parametric analysis of the PD
model, Marck et al. (2014) derived a universal stability curve for
a two-stabilizer BHA with uniform flexural rigidity. This curve
enables quick assessment of the conditions that ensure directional
stability by comparing a certain dimensionless group, computed
for particular drilling conditions, with a bifurcation value that is
only a function of the relative position of the first two stabilizers.
Numerical simulations of borehole propagation have confirmed
the validity of this stability criterion, and show that any perturbations eventually die out under conditions predicted to be stable
(Marck et al. 2014).
Until now, studies have been restricted to analyze the conditions leading to the development of borehole rippling, a planar
mode of instability that is predicated on the assumption that the
bit has a neutral walk tendency. The work described here extends
the investigation to borehole spiraling, which implies consideration of the bit walk. It consists of formulating the system of
coupled DDEs that govern the spatial evolution of perturbations
in the borehole trajectory, and of investigatingby means of a
linear stability analysisthe conditions for which these perturbations grow exponentially and thereby lead to the formation of a
spiraled hole.
Compared with the planar borehole-propagation model, new
parameters are introduced to capture the out-of-plane coupling:
the bit walk and the bit flip. These angles measure the relative
directions between the transverse force and moment at the bit and
the associated penetration.
The bit walk primarily depends on the bit/rock interaction. It
thus is influenced by the local, downhole field conditions; e.g.,
rock anisotropy, presence of heterogeneities, contact pattern
between the bit gauge and the rock, or borehole overgauge (Chen
et al. 2008). Nonetheless, it can be estimated under controlled
conditions in a laboratory environment (Menand et al. 2002). In
directional applications, the walk can be problematic because it
can lead to undesired change of azimuth, which is referred to as
the walk rate. The bit flip is introduced here as a natural extension
of the bit walk, and relates the orientation of applied moment to
the change of bit orientation.
This study is organized as follows. It starts with a summary of
a 3D model of borehole propagation (Perneder 2013; Perneder
and Detournay 2013b), extended to account for the bit flip. The
equations governing the perturbations in the borehole trajectory
434
April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 20:52 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150106/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150106
J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16
Drilling
Direction
d
d
d
d
Fig. 1Borehole-spiraling mechanism. Being constrained by

the borehole, the stabilizers induce an oscillating (2D) or rotating (3D) lateral force and moment at the bit, affecting its drilling
direction, and perpetuating the ripple or spiral, respectively.
This mechanism is illustrated here for borehole rippling.
are presented next. A linear stability analysis then reveals that the
unstable modes are spirals with exponential growth of their radius. It is shown that the condition of instability can be expressed
as a critical value of a certain dimensionless group, the critical
value depending only on the BHA configuration and on the bit
walk. Then, the influence of the walk is investigated for an idealized, two-stabilizer BHA. Numerical simulations are presented, as
well as analyses of field cases showing how this general approach,
as part of an optimization process, can be useful to reduce occurrences of spiraling.
3D Model of Borehole Propagation
General Assumptions and Scaling. Formulation of a model of
borehole propagation relies on three components (Neubert and
Heisig 1996; Neubert 1997; Downton 2007; Detournay 2009;
Downton and Ignova 2011; Perneder 2013): a bit/rock-interaction
law, a model of the BHA, and kinematic relationships at the bit.
The bit/rock-interaction law relates the force and moment acting
on the bit to its penetration into the rock. The BHA model
expresses this force and moment as a function of the external
loads applied on the BHA and the constraints imposed by the
borehole geometry by means of the stabilizers. The kinematic
relationships connect the bit penetration to the local borehole geometry. Combination of these three elements leads to a system of
equations that govern propagation of the borehole (Neubert and
Heisig 1996; Detournay and Perneder 2011; Downton and Ignova
2011; Perneder 2013). For 3D trajectories, these equations can be
recast as two coupled first-order DDEs in terms of the azimuth
and inclination of the borehole. The spatial delays embedded in
the equations correspond to the positions of the stabilizers relative
to the bit. Through the stabilizers, the existing borehole geometry
affects how the bit propagates the borehole.
The model further relies on the following assumptions:
The stabilizers are assumed to be located, on average, on the
borehole axis; thus, the influence of the stabilizer gauges on
the directional stability is not considered. Furthermore, the
influence of borehole enlargement, caused by drilling fluids
or downhole dynamics, is neglected.
Downhole dynamics do not influence the directional tendency at the bit. This is a consequence of the time-scale separation between dynamic processes, which usually occur at
the time scale of the bit revolution, and the directional tendency, defined over hundreds of revolutions. The instantane-
Stage:
Page: 435
Total Pages: 15
ous resultants of force and moment are then irrelevant when

studying the directional tendency; only values averaged over
at least several revolutions are used when evaluating borehole propagation. (Influence of dynamics theoretically could
be lumped into parameters of the model, such as borehole
overgauge or extraneous components to the force and
moment at the bit.)
The drilling process is rate-independent (i.e., it does not
depend on the rotary speed of the bit). The directional stability of the drilling system, as well as the establishment of the
spiral, is thus similarly rate-independent. This is a consequence of the rate independency of the bit/rock-interaction
law (Detournay et al. 2008), as confirmed by kinematically
controlled drilling experiments (Franca 2010). The length of
the borehole (equivalently, the position of the bit) is then the
relevant variable to track its evolution, not time.
The model is formulated at the length scale of the BHA,
because the borehole evolution is influenced mainly by a
few sections of the BHA closest to the bit, which are delimited by contacts with the borehole.
Downhole WOB is known from a downhole sensor or can
be inferred from surface measurements.
Scaling of the equations makes it possible to extract key
dimensionless groups that most influence the drilling direction at
the bit. These groups, which combine characteristics of the bit
and of the BHA and the WOB, are the natural parameters through
which directional stability can be assessed and analyzed. The scaling hinges on first defining characteristic length L and characteristic force F . Here, L 1 , the distance between the bit and the
first stabilizer, and F is defined as
F
3EI
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
21
where EI is the nominal bending stiffness of the BHA; i.e., E is

the Youngs modulus and I is the area moment of inertia of the
drill collars. (Force F represents the reaction force at one extremity of a simply supported beam of length 1 and bending stiffness
EI, when a relative rotation of one radian is applied at that
extremity.)
Geometry of the Problem. Globally, the borehole can be
described by its axis, a 3D curve in the Cartesian reference system
(ex , ey , ez ) with ez pointing in the direction of gravity. This curve
is defined by vector RS of curvilinear coordinate S along the
borehole, with S 0 at the rig and S L at the bit. Parameter L
thus indicates the current length of the borehole. For a smooth trajectory, the tangent to the borehole,
I 1 S
dR
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
dS
uniquely defines inclination HS 2 0; p and azimuth US 2

0; 2p of the borehole. The inclination is measured with respect
to ez a vertical borehole has zero inclinationand the azimuth
measured clockwise respective to ex from the projection of I 1 in
horizontal plane (ex , ey ). (Note that the azimuth is undetermined
for H 0.) The local borehole-reference system (I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ) is
defined with I 2 in the same vertical plane as I 1 , and I 3 I 1 I 2 .
Similarly, a local reference system (i1 , i2 , i3 ) attached to the
point of reference of the bit is introduced, and is defined such that
i1 is on the bit axis of symmetry and pointing ahead of the bit, i2
is in the same vertical plane as i1 , and i3 i1 i2 . The point of
reference is an arbitrarily chosen point along the bit axis at which
the bit/rock-interaction law is computed. Its trajectory defines the
borehole axis. (At the global scale, the bit is collapsed onto a
point at the extremity of the BHA, which defines the lower boundary condition of the system. For practical purposes, this point can
be chosen to be at the center of the cutting structure.) At the scale
of the borehole, the centerline of the BHA can be seen as a small
perturbation to the borehole axis: The relative orientation of the
435
(a)
Stage:
Page: 436
Total Pages: 15
(b)
Fig. 2Local frame and bit penetration. (a) Drilling direction d at the bit, equivalent to the tangent to the borehole axis, and definition of the bit tilts. (b) Components of the force and moment at the bit and the corresponding penetrations per revolution, with
respect to the orthogonal system (i1,i2,i3) attached to the bit.
reference systems (I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ) and (i1 , i2 , i3 ) is small and described

by two angles: w2 h H and w3 / UsinH, where h and
/ are the inclination and the azimuth of the bit axis, respectively.
These two small angles are referred to as the bit tilts: w2 measures
the difference of inclination between i1 and I 1 , whereas w3 can be
seen as a proxy for the difference of azimuth.
Finally, a third reference system (Î 1 , Î 2 , Î 3 ) is defined respective to the BHA, with Î 1 aligned with chord C1 , which is delimited
by the point of reference of the bit and the first stabilizer. Position
of the first stabilizer in (ex , ey , ez ) is given by rsi ; L, where si is
the position of the first stabilizer behind the bit, taken respective
to the center of the stabilizer, and measured along curvilinear s of
the BHA, with s 0 at the bit and evolving opposite to S.
Because axial deformations of the BHA are negligible and the
first stabilizer is assumed, on average, to be centered inside the
borehole, position rsi ; L can be replaced advantageously by
RSi , where Si is the position of the first stabilizer measured
along S; i.e., si L Si . Vector Î 2 is in the same vertical plane as
Î 1 , and Î 3 Î 1 Î 2 .
Reference system (I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ) tracks the borehole evolution.
The bit/rock-interaction law is described respective to (i1 , i2 , i3 ),
and the force and moment acting on the BHA are computed in basis (Î 1 , Î 2 , Î 3 ). The difference between these reference frames is
usually small because their relative orientation is defined by
angles of approximately the same magnitude as the tilts; i.e., of
the order O (0:1 ). Accounting for this relative orientation
unnecessarily complicates the equations of propagation. This distinction then is neglected when balancing the expressions for the
force and moment at the bit, expressed within the BHA and bit/
rock-interaction models. Nevertheless, the tilts remain explicitly
in the interface law. For similar reasons, it also is assumed that
sinH sinh sinhHi1 when projecting azimuths in the inclined
planes defined by the inclinations of the bit, borehole, or chord C1 .
Bit/Rock Interaction and Definition of the Drill Bit. The bit/
rock-interaction law expresses the relation between the force and
the moment acting on the bit and the related kinematic quantities
(Ho 1987; Perneder et al. 2012), defined as penetrations per revolution. The force and moment are decomposed in reference frame
(i1 , i2 , i3 ) (Fig. 2b). The force acting on the bit has one axial, F1 ,
and two lateral components in this frame, F2 and F3 . Because of
the convention adopted for i1 , F1 W, where W denotes the
WOB. Similarly, the moment is defined by its components, M2
and M3, along axes i2 and i3 , respectively. (The torque on bit, M1,
does not affect the bit trajectory directly.) These generalized
forces are related to the axial (d1), lateral (d2, d3), and angular
(u2 ; u3 ) penetrations, which define the translation, as well as the
rotation, of the bit/rock interface over one revolution of the bit
(Fig. 2b).
For typical drilling conditions, the bit/rock-interface law is linear; the nature of this interaction finds its origin in a bilinear
single-cutter/rock-interaction law that has been validated experimentally (Detournay and Defourny 1992; Detournay et al. 2008).
This law identifies two contact surfaces between the cutter and
the rock: the cutting face and the wearflat. When the depth of cut
is small, both the cutting and the contact forces are proportional
to it; however, beyond a critical depth of cut, the contact forces
saturate, and only the cutting forces keep increasing. Thus, two
regimes of interaction are defined naturally: contact- and cuttingdominated. By assuming that the bit gauge interacts with the rock
in the first regime (i.e., the forces on the gauge increase with the
amount of rock shaved from the borehole wall) and the bit face in
the second regime (i.e., the contact forces on the bit face have
reached saturation), the bit/rock-interaction law assumes the general form
8
8 9 2
9
F1 >
G1 >
H1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
F
0
>
>
>
>
6
2
<
< = 6 0
=
F3 0 6
6 0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
> M2 >
>
>
> 4 0
>
>
>
:
: >
;
;
0
M3
0
0
H2
H3
0
0
0
H3
H2
0
0
0
0
0
H4
H5
38 9
0 >
> d1 >
>
7>
> >
>
0 7>
d2 >
>
>
<
=
7
0 7
d
7> 3 >:
7> >
>
H5 5>
>
> u2 >
>
>
: >
;
H4
u3
3
Coefficients Hi depend on rock strength, bit geometry, and parameters that define the single-cutter/rock interaction. Because
they relate force and moment to penetrations per revolution, terms
Hi can be interpreted as damping coefficients. Indeed, penetration
vector d is akin to a velocity. This bit/rock-interface law is a
generalization of a previous model (Perneder et al. 2012); it now
also considers a coupling between the angular penetrations, which
naturally leads to the introduction of the bit flip.
According to Eq. 3, the axial force at the bit is uncoupled from
the lateral force and the moment. There is coupling, however,
between F2 and F3 through off-diagonal term H3 and between M2
and M3 through H5. Appendix A provides an evaluation of the
coefficients of the interface law for an idealized cylindrical bit.
However, in principle, the coefficients for a particular polycrystalline-diamond-compact (PDC) bit can be assessed from experimental testing or numerical simulation.
Axial penetration d1 (usually referred to as the depth of cut per
revolution) is proportional to active WOB Wa, defined as
Wa F1 G1 W G1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Active weight Wa is, thus, the WOB reduced by G1, the resultant of the axial forces transmitted by the cutter wearflats that do
not contribute to drilling the rock (Detournay et al. 2008; Zhou
and Detournay 2014). Contact force G1 increases with the cutter
wear and the rock strength. Downhole pressure also indirectly
influences G1 because it modifies the apparent rock strength. For
436

I2
ex
<>1
ey
I3
I1
n
ex
ey
ez
d I1
ez
M/
1 F*
F / F*
1
Fig. 3Model of the BHA and representation of the force and

moment at the bit in the reference system (Î 1 ; Î 2 ; Î 3 ) attached to
the first chord, C1 , of the BHA (adapted from Perneder 2013).
future developments, it is convenient to introduce the scaled

active WOB, P:
P
Wa
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F
which is of the order O103 101 .

The penetration variables are related kinematically to the local
borehole geometry. A first set of relations pertains to the bit attitude relative to the local borehole orientation. In referential (i1 , i2 ,
i3 ), the bit orientation relative to the borehole is expressed by the
tilts (Fig. 2a), which can be expressed in terms of the penetrations
according to (Perneder and Detournay 2013b)
w2
d2
d3
; w3 ;
d1
d1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
where the small-angle approximation has been used because d2 <<

d1 and d3 << d1 for normal drilling conditions.
Angular penetrations per revolution u2 and u3 are related to
the change of orientation of i1 around i2 and i3 , respectively; i.e.,
they measure how the orientation of the bit/rock interface varies
along curvilinear coordinate S. Mathematically, in local planes
(i1 , i2 ) and (i1 , i3 ) attached to the bit,
u2
d/
sinh ;
dS
d1
u3 dh
:
d1 dS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
By use of Eq. 5, components of the lateral force F2 and F3 read

F2 =F
cos- sinw2
gP
; . . . . . . . . . 8
F3 =F
w3
sin- cosp
where g H22 H32 =H1 is the bit lateral steering resistance and
- arctanH3 =H2 is the bit walk. Walk - represents the angle
between the lateral penetration and the lateral force on the bit. If
- 0 , the lateral force and penetration are coaxial; otherwise,
the bit is said to have a right (- > 0 ) or left (- < 0 ) walk tendency, depending on the relative orientation of the lateral penetration vector on that of the lateral force when looking in the
direction of i1 . For PDC bits, walk angles of approximately 10
are not uncommon (Menand et al. 2002). Lateral steering resistance g defines how difficult it is to impose a lateral penetration
with respect to an axial one. It can be understood as the inverse of
the bit steerability. This parameter mainly depends on the length,
the geometry (full-gauged, undercut, tapered), and the aggressiveness (passive, semiactive, active) of the bit gauge (Dupriest and
Sowers 2009), but, theoretically, not on the downhole rock
strength. (All coefficients of Hi are expected to be proportional to
the strength.) Laboratory experiments have shown that the lateral
Stage:
Page: 437
Total Pages: 15
steering resistance for PDC bits usually varies between approximately 3 for bits with a short active gauge and 100 for bits with a
long passive gauge (Menand et al. 2002).
Scaling of the bit/rock-interaction law for the moment gives
8
9
> sinh d/ >

<
=
cos1 sin1
M2 =F =1
dn ; . . . 9
vP
sin1 cos1 >
M3 =F =1
: dh >
;
dn
q
where v H42 H52 =21 H1 is the angular steering resistance,
1 arctanH5 =H4 is the bit flip, and n S=1 is the scaled curvilinear coordinate along the borehole. The bit flip is defined by
analogy with the bit walk; it expresses that the change of bit orientation is not contained in the same plane as applied moment
M2 i2 M3 i3 . Angular-steering resistance v measures the relative
difficulty of imposing an angular penetration to the bit. This small
number, of order O102 101 , also depends on the position of
the first contact between the borehole and the BHA behind the bit.
(In the model, the position of the first contact is identified with 1 ,
the position of the first stabilizer.) Angular steering resistance v, if
small enough, and thus 1, does not influence the spiraling tendency of the system significantly (Marck 2015).
The general behavior of the bit, then, can be defined by four
numbersg; v; -; 1which depend theoretically only on the bit
design (cutter distribution, nature of the gauge, and cutter design),
except for angular steering resistance v, which also depends on 1 .
The two numbers g and v are inverse measures of bit steerability,
and the two angles - and 1 define the coupling between the lateral
force and the moment at the bit, and the lateral and angular penetrations, respectively. Of these four numbers, the lateral steering
resistance and the bit walk dominate the bit response.
Model of the BHA. Because the borehole radius of curvature is

usually large compared with 1 , the BHA may reasonably be
approximated by an Euler-Bernoulli beam. The force and moment
at the bit are determined according to that linear model, given the
external loads and the geometrical constraints imposed by the
borehole on the (relative) deflection of the BHA at the stabilizers.
It is assumed here that the stabilizers are the only contact points
between the BHA and the borehole, and that, on average, they are
centered on the borehole axis. Their positions are computed respective to the bit point of reference.
The BHA is assumed to be initially in an undeformed, straight
configuration oriented along the chord C1 , delimited by the bit and
the first stabilizer. Components F1, F2, F3, M2, and M3 of the force
and moment at the bit are expressed with respect to (Î 1 , Î 2 , Î 3 )
(Fig. 3).
The BHA is subjected to gravity loading, to the rotary steerable system (RSS) force, and to the geometrical constraints
imposed by the stabilizers that center the BHA, on average, in the
borehole. In Eqs. 10 through 13, gravity loading is accounted for
with the parameter ! w1 =F (with w denoting the buoyant
weight per unit length of the BHA), which is applied in the vertical plane (Î 1 , Î 2 ). It is assumed to be projected uniformly along
the BHA according to inclination Hw , taken to be equal to inclination hHi1 of C1 . Scaled RSS force C is applied at distance K
behind the bit. The positions of the stabilizers are enforced
through averaged orientations hHii and hUii of the BHA sections
delimited by the i1th and ith stabilizers.
In view of the linear nature of the Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory, the lateral force and moment at the bit can be expressed as
a linear combination of the external loads and constraints applied
on the BHA:
F2 =F F b h hHi1 F w !sinHw F r C2
n1
X
F k;1 hHii hHii1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
i1
437
F3 =F F b / hUi1 sinhHi1 F r C3
n1
X
F k;1 hUii hUii1 sinhHi1 ; . . . . . . . 11
i1
M2 =M Mb / hUi1 sinhHi1 Mr C3

n1
X
Mk;1 hUii hUii1 sinhHi1 ; . . . . . . 12
i1
M3 =M Mb h hHi1 Mw !sinHw Mr C2
n1
X
Mk;1 hHii hHii1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . 13
i1
where C2 and C3 are the components of the RSS force along Î 2

and Î 3 , respectively, and n is the number of stabilizers. Coefficients of influence F and M, which quantify the influence of a
(generalized) load on the force or moment at the bit, only depend
on the BHA configuration. If the BHA can be approximated as a
pipe of uniform cross section, these coefficients are defined completely by the relative positions of the stabilizers and of the RSS
pads behind the bit (Appendix B). As long as linearity of the
underlying model holds, which implies restrictions to the nature
of the contacts between the BHA and the borehole, as well as to
borehole curvature (geometric linearity), the magnitude of these
coefficients could be computed, for example, by the use of a finite-element discretization of the BHA. The model description
and the formulation of the propagation equations would remain
completely similar. The term proportional to ! only affects F2
and M3, as the weight acts in vertical plane (Î 1 , Î 2 ).
Analytical Equations of Borehole Propagation. By balancing
Eqs. 8 and 9 and Eqs. 10 through 13, two coupled DDEs are
obtained for the evolution of H and U along the borehole. Their
explicit expressions are not relevant in this context, but their general form reads
eH0 n FH Hn; Un; Hn ni ;
Un ni ; hHii ; hUii ; C; C0 ; !;
14
eU0 n FU Hn; Un; Hn ni ;

Un ni ; hHii ; hUii ; C; C0 ; !:
15
the positions of the stabilIn Eqs. 14 and 15, delays ni denote P

izers behind the bit (n1 1 and ni ni1 kn , with ki i =1 ),
and e =v/g is a small parameter. Eqs. 14 and 15 capture the feedback of the borehole trajectory by means of the stabilizers on the
drilling direction of the bit.
Equations for borehole propagation have different applications.
One of them is the derivation of the directional tendency of the
borehole. This stationary or quasistationary solution depends on
factors such as the borehole inclination (for the influence of gravity), the steering cycles (for the averaged value and direction of the
RSS force), the active weight, and bit properties (Perneder and
Detournay 2013a, b). The attribute of being quasistationary alludes
to the slowly varying borehole inclination, the effect of which is
felt at a length scale at least one order of magnitude larger than
that at which borehole spiraling develops. Directional tendency is
thus not the same as what is referred to here as directional stability.
The directional tendency of the borehole is the long-term, quasistationary borehole trajectory, whereas directional stability pertains
to whether a perturbation around these long-term solutions is
amplified or reduced progressively because of the local geometric
feedback at the stabilizers.
Directional-Stability Analysis
Perturbation Equations. To study the propensity of a perturbation in the borehole trajectory to grow or shrinki.e., to analyze
the directional stability of the drilling systemEqs. 14 and 15
can be rewritten advantageously in a local Cartesian coordinate
Stage:
Page: 438
Total Pages: 15
system. This Cartesian system is chosen most appropriately to be

oriented with (I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ) at curvilinear coordinate n n0 , at which
perturbation is assumed to occur. This fixed local frame, called
(~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 )any quantity with a tilde is defined respective to this
basishas axis ~I 1 with inclination H0 and azimuth U0 . The nonlinear dependence of the azimuth on the inclination, because it
needs to be projected in an inclined plane related to the bit or
borehole inclination, can be approximated by introducing pseu~ U U0 sinH0 of the borehole. The pseudoazidoazimuth D
muth is the borehole orientation projected on plane (~I 1 ; ~I 3 ) and
~ plays in
measured from ~I 1 to ~I 3 . In other words, pseudoazimuth D
plane (~I 1 ; ~I 3 ) the role that inclination H plays in (I 1 , ez ), measuring the relative orientation of the borehole in that plane. Simi~ measures the relative orientation of the
larly, pseudoinclination H
~
~
borehole in (I 1 , I 2 ), from ~I 1 to ~I 2 .
Within reference system (~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ), the local equations of
borehole propagations can be redefined. This can be performed
simply by noticing that when expressing Eqs. 7, 9, 11, and 12 in
terms of the pseudoazimuth, the dependence on sinh or sinhHi1
drops. (It is assumed implicitly that sinH0 sinh sinhHi1 .)
DDEs for the evolution of the pseudoinclination and pseudoazimuth have similar features and can be written as
~
eN~ n AN~ H~ Hn
0
n
X
~
BN~ H;i
~ Hn ni
i1
n
X
~
~
CN~ H;i
~ hHii n DN
~ !sinH 0
~H
i1
~ 0 Hn
~
~ 1 F ~ ~ C2 n
E N~ H~ !cosH
Hn
NH
0
~
GN~ H~ C2 n AN~ D~ Dn
n
X
~
BN~ D;i
~ Dn ni
i1
n
X
0
~
CN~ D;i
~ hDii n F N
~ C3 n GN
~ C3 n; . . . .
~D
~D
16
i1
with N H; D. Because of symmetry in the bit/rock-interaction

law (Perneder et al. 2012) and in the expressions from the BHA
model, the coefficients of the local propagation equations satisfy
the relations
J H~ H~ J D~ D~ ;
J H~ D~ J D~ H~ ; J A; B; C; F ; G:
17
These coefficients only depend on the coefficients of influence

in Eqs. 10 through 13, on dimensionless groups gP and e, and on
the bit walk and flip (Appendix C). In particular, when - and 1
are zero, there are no cross terms in the bit/rock-interface law (Eq.
2) and the propagation equations (Eq. 16) uncouple; each of them
reduces to the equation governing the planar propagation of a
borehole (Marck et al. 2014).
Although they simplify the expressions for the DDEs, the
propagation equations (Eq. 16) are valid only as long as the borehole inclination does not vary too much. The directional, local
stability of the borehole, however, is not affected by this approximation because significant changes of inclination only
appear on a length scale larger than that at which spiraling occurs.
Moreover, actual borehole simulations that are based on Eqs. 14
and 15 reproduce similar spiraling features, except that the spiral
then is intertwined with the (quasi)stationary solution, so that systematic characterization of spiral properties is less straightforward. This local formulation also has the advantage of raising the
indetermination of the azimuth for vertical borehole, in which
~
~ becomes the inclination in vertical plane (~I 1 , ~I 2 ) and D,
case, H
the inclination in vertical plane (~I 1 , ~I 3 ).
From Eq. 16, borehole trajectory in (~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ) can be seen,
moreover, as the superposition of two solutions: the quasistation~ s n caused by the quasiconstant loads
~ s n and D
ary solution H
438

~
~
on the BHA, and the perturbations dHn
and dDn.
Inserting
this decomposition in Eq. 16 leads to the following equations governing the perturbation of the trajectory:
~
edN~ n AN~ H~ dHn

0
n
X
~
BN~ H;i
~ dHn ni
i1
n
X
~
~
CN~ H;i
~ hdHii n AN
~ dDn
~D
i1
i1
18
where the terms related to the RSS force naturally disappear
because they only influence the quasistationary solution (if sufficiently smooth), and those associated with gravity are neglected
because their influence can be shown to be negligible at this
length scale. Indeed, the latter are either accounted for in the quasistationary solution or do not influence the perturbed dynamics,
owing to D! << CH~ H;1
~ for reasonable values of the walk and E!
being a second-order term in the perturbed equation of propagation. The evolution of the perturbation is then, at first order,
purely geometric: the terms remaining in Eq. 18 are related only
to the borehole trajectory. Eq. 18 then propagates the perturbation
with respect to reference system (~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ), but it can be extended
to the dynamics of any perturbation along the quasistationary solution (Hs , Us ), even when defined respective to (I 1 ; I 2 ; I 3 ), as
long as small variations of the borehole inclination are considered.
Appendix C lists the expressions for the coefficients of Eq. 18 for
a two-stabilizer BHA.
Spiraled-Borehole Instability. Borehole spiraling occurs when
the equations of propagation are directionally unstable. Any local
perturbation in the bit trajectory then is amplified progressively
by the interaction of the stabilizers with the borehole, until a limit
cycle is reached. The initial perturbation can be induced by layer
interfaces, dynamic vibrations, or sudden significant changes in
WOB or RSS force. The crossing of interfaces has been identified
in the field as a trigger for spiraling (Dupriest and Sowers 2009)
because it creates high-dogleg severities locally (Boualleg et al.
2006; Marck and Detournay 2014b). These may result rapidly in
oscillations in the borehole trajectory, especially when the transition is from a softer to a harder rock, because it generates larger
perturbations in the borehole geometry and reduces the active
weight by increasing G1 . The perturbations induced by a change
of WOB or RSS force are one order of continuity lower, leading
to a longer transient before significant oscillations develop (Marck
et al. 2014).
Eq. 18 governing the propagation of perturbations can be analyzed readily for stability, in view of their analytical form.
Although it is tempting to neglect the term eN0 n with the small
parameter e v=g, it should be noted that, in general, the stability
properties of these equations are affected by setting e 0 as soon
as the stabilizers are not free to tilt. The condition e 0 implies
that the moment transverse to the bit axis vanishes (Marck and
Detournay 2014c).
The stability of system (Eq. 18) is assessed by determining
~
~
whether perturbations dHn
and dDn
grow or decay exponentially. Because of the independence of Eq. 18 on the orientation of
(~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ), perturbations of the form
~
~
dHn
ean ; dDn
eani/ ; a 2 C; / 2 R;
Page: 439
Total Pages: 15
n
X
1 ea
ank
BH~ H;k
CH~ H;1
~ e
~
a
k1
!
n
X
eank1 eank
CH~ H;k
~
a
k2
AH~ H~ ea
n
X
1 ea
ank
BH~ D;k
CH~ D;1
~ e
~
a
k1
!
n
X
eank1 eank
CH~ D;k
0; 20
~
a
k2
ei/ AH~ D~ ea
n
n
X
X
~
~
BN~ D;i
CND;i
~ dDn ni
~ hdDii n;
i1
Stage:
. . . . . . 19
are considered, which represent perturbations around the (quasi)s~

tationary trajectory in the form of oscillations for dHn
and
~
dDn
that have the same spatial wavelength and similar exponential growth in amplitude, but possibly a different phase. The stability of the system is determined by computing characteristic
roots a, solutions of the transcendental characteristic equations of
the problem (Hale 1977; Michiels and Niculescu 2007):
n
X
1 ea
ank
BD~ H;k
CD~ H;1
~ e
~
a
k1
!
n
an
an
X
e k1 e k
CD~ H;k
~
a
k2
AD~ H~ ea
n
X
1 ea
ank
BD~ D;k
CD~ D;1
~ e
~
a
k1
!
n
X
eank1 eank
CD~ D;k
0: 21
~
a
k2
ei/ AD~ D~ ea
Eqs. 20 and 21 have an infinite number of complex roots that

have to be computed numerically. Different approaches are possible (Tweten et al. 2012); here, they are calculated by use of a
spectral method (Wu and Michiels 2012).
By substituting Eq. 19 in Eqs. 20 and 21, the phase between
~ n satisfies e2i/ 1, meaning that
~ n and dD
dH
p
/ 6 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2
This phase corresponds to the development of a spiral or, more
precisely, a helix. Indeed, the general parameterization in the
local orthogonal system (~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ) of the propagating perturbation reads
~
dHn
e<an cos=an;
~
dDn
e<an sin=an;
23
where <a and =a denote the real and imaginary parts of characteristic root a, respectively. The actual borehole trajectory is
obtained by integration of the inclination and azimuth. In principle, the sign of the phase is determined by the walk tendency of
the bit. The uniqueness of the phase means that, as soon as there
~ n, all solutions are
~ n and dD
exists some coupling between dH
combinations of helices, which grow or shrink exponentially
depending on the associated characteristic root. At bifurcation,
the real part of the right-most characteristic roots is zero,
<arm 0, and the radius of the spiral, after some transient,
remains theoretically constant (Fig. 4a); otherwise, the radius has
exponential growth/decay, typifying the directional stability of
the system. It corresponds to a conic helix, or a spiral on a conic
surface (Fig. 4b). If - 0 , the phase is undefined, and the pseudoazimuth and pseudoinclination oscillate independently; rippling, in general, is recovered.
For unstable systems, a growing spiral means that each quantity pertaining to the borehole trajectory or the BHA deflection
similarly exhibits an exponential growth, in a referential rotating
along with the helix: the magnitude of the perturbed bit tilt, the
amplitude of the spiral, or the relative position of the stabilizers
respective to the bit, when projected in plane (~I 2 , ~I 3 ), all grow
exponentially at a pace given by <a. At bifurcation when
<a 0 (i.e., when the amplitude of the spiral remained theoretically constant), the BHA has a stationary (perturbed) deflection
on average, which rotates with the spiral. Force and moment at
the bit are then also stationary, as is the bit tilt, so that steady state
for the perturbation is maintained naturally.
439
I2
()
os
c
I3
Page: 440
)
(
(
cos
(a)
Total Pages: 15
)
(
()
in
I3
I2
Stage:
()
sin
I3
(b)
Fig. 4Perturbed borehole trajectories. (a) Parametric definition of a circular helix in a Cartesian system [<
<(arm) 0]. (b) Conic helix, as an example of an unstable trajectory [<
<(arm) > 0].
The stability of the system thus depends on the real part of the
right-most complex-conjugate characteristic root, arm . If negative,
the system is stable, and all spirals progressively decay. If positive, the system is unstable because any perturbation has at least
one exponentially growing component. The imaginary part of the
right-most complex root defines the pitch of the spiral, a direct
outcome of the general form (Eq. 15) for the solution. Because
critical characteristic roots have a real part generally close to 2p,
the pitch of the spiral corresponds therefore to the distance
between the bit and the first stabilizer. Microtortuosity is then naturally recovered. The actual pitch is, however, a function of the
BHA geometry and the field conditions embodied in dimensionless group gP.
The current analysis relies on the observation that there exists
a critical value of the dimensionless group gP, called gPjs , a
function of e; -; 1, and the BHA configuration, such that the system is always stable for gP > gPjs . This critical value corresponds to a Hopf bifurcation of equilibrium (Erneux 2009); i.e.,
when the pair of right-most complex-conjugate roots crosses the
imaginary axis. However, bifurcation value gPjs is essentially a
function of the BHA configuration and the bit walk, because the
influence of e (a small parameter) and of 1 (related to the moment
at the bit, and thus to e) is negligible (Marck and Detournay
2014c). Critical value gPjs does not depend on the sign of the bit
walk, which only affects the sense of rotation of the spirals; in the
following, only positive values for the walk are considered, but
they should be understood as absolute values independent of the
right or left tendency of the bit.
The directional stability of any particular drilling system then
can be assessed by comparing gP, encapsulating the current field
conditions, with gPjs . Given a BHA configuration, the bit and the
downhole WOB can be selected to mitigate or prevent borehole
spiraling by enforcing that the system operates within spiral-free
conditions. Dimensionless group gP, representative of the drilling
conditions, reads
gP g
W G1 21
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3EI
This group embeds downhole WOB W, parameter G1 (a measure of the state of wear of the bitpand
rock strength), the lateral
steering resistance of the bit, g H22 H32 =H1 , and BHA properties EI and 1 . Consequently, computing gPjs as a function of
bit walk - for a BHA configuration provides a guideline not only
for selecting an appropriate bit, but also for assessing the field
conditions that are unlikely to induce spiraled holes. The bit selection and BHA configuration can help make a system intrinsically
more stable (i.e., a system with small gPjs ), but it is ultimately
the field conditions that define the directional stability of a drilling
system. For instance, a system that is stable initially may become
directionally unstable with increasing bit wear, higher rock
strength, or reduced downhole WOB, all which reduce the active

weight. A lower active weight generally makes a drilling system
less directionally stable (or more unstable). However, the magnitude of the active weight must not be understood as absolute, but
rather relative to 3EI=g21 , in accordance to the definition (Eq. 24)
of the dimensionless group gP; this reference value depends on
the BHA geometry and the bit selection.
Analysis and Applications
Two-Stabilizer BHA. Qualitatively correct tendencies for gPjs
are obtained even when limiting description of the BHA to two
stabilizers. Relative position k2 of the second stabilizer with
respect to the first one is, indeed, the dominant BHA-parameter
controlling gPjs (Marck et al. 2014). Analysis of Eq. 18 is conducted here by considering a simple BHA with uniform mechanical properties and two stabilizers at 1 and 1 k2 above the bit.
The influence of the RSS design on the directional stability is not
considered here but can be found elsewhere (Marck and Detournay 2015).
Influence of gP on the Directional Stability of the Drilling
System. As dimensionless group gP increases, the directional
stability of the system generally improves (Fig. 5a). This variation is not monotonic, however; for some combinations of k2 and
-, different values of gPjs may coexist (Fig. 5b). Nevertheless,
the intermediate zones of stability between two bifurcation values
are generally small, so that considering gPjs as the largest of the
bifurcation values is convenient in practice: The system is always
stable for gP > gPjs .
Fig. 6 illustrates two simulations of a borehole trajectory conducted with identical BHAs but different gP. The plots show the
evolutions of borehole inclination H and azimuth U U0
~
DcscH
0 after an imposed perturbation in the borehole inclination
(5 over a scaled distance of 0.04).
The pitch, or wavelength, of the spiral is approximately equal
to the distance between the bit and the first stabilizer; it corresponds to a right-most root with an imaginary part close to 2p.
This pitch corresponds to that typically observed in the field, usually corresponding to the distance between the bit and the first contact between the BHA and the boreholebe it a stabilizer, the
RSS pads, or a contact caused by the deflection of the BHA
(Sugiura and Jones 2008). Thus, this model is able not only to capture the geometrical feedback imposed by the relative positions of
the stabilizers constrained by the borehole, but also to reproduce
the emergence of spirals as observed in the field. (When the value
of gP is small, other modes with higher frequencies also may be
unstable. Their relevance in terms of amplitude is not ascertained,
however, because smaller periods correspond to smaller amplitudes.) In practice, the amplitude of the fluctuation is bounded
440

0.5
1
1.5
Simulation 1
0.2
0.1
0
Simulation 2
Unstable
Stable
0.5
0.2
1
1.5
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
15
30
45
0.5
(rm)
Unstable
Stable
(rm)
(rm)
Total Pages: 15
0
15
30
45
0.5
Page: 441
(rm)
Stage:
0.2
0.04 0.08
2.5
103
102
0.12 0.16
0.2
101
100
2.5
103
101
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
102
101
(a)
Stable
region
100
101
(b)
Fig. 5Stability diagram. (a) Evolution of <(arm) with gP for e 0.001, k2 2.5, and different bit walks. The dots represent actual values of gP for the upcoming simulations. (b) Similar computations with k2 4.5. Different bifurcations of stability sometimes are
observed, but the intermediate zone of stability generally remains small. The walk tends to make the system intrinsically less
stable.
because of the emergence of nonlinearities in the response of the

system, such as a saturation of the bit tilt or extra contacts between
the drill collars and the wellbore; a limit cycle is established with
constant amplitude of the oscillations. Characterization of the limit
cycle is currently under investigation.
Influence of the Position of the Second Stabilizer on the
Directional Stability. Relative position k2 of the second stabilizer has a strong effect on gPjs . In general, the directional stability of the system is improved by moving the second stabilizer
away from the first one (Fig. 7). However, the risk of extraneous
contacts between the BHA and the borehole simultaneously
increases, with potential adverse influence on the directional stability (Marck et al. 2014).
When gPjs is plotted by use of a linear scale (Fig. 7b), an abrupt
decrease of gPjs at approximately k2 2:5 offers a first indication
on where to locate the second stabilizer on the BHA to significantly
improve the intrinsic directional stability of the system.
35
Influence of the Bit Walk on Directional Stability. Fig. 7 also

suggests the influence of the walk on gPjs . The general tendency
is unequivocal: The bit walk makes the drilling system intrinsically less stable and consequently more prone to spiral. The varying distance between the curves for - 0 and 15 indicates,
moreover, a nonuniform influence of the walk with k2 . In fact, as
long as the bit walk remains smaller than a threshold, - k2 , it
hardly affects the critical value of gPjs ; the 2D model is sufficient
to predict directional stability if - < - . Beyond this threshold,
gPjs exhibits a large increase (Fig. 8).
Critical walk - strongly depends on k2 . For instance, for
k2 2:5, gPjs only increases by 8% up to a walk of 20
(gPjs 5:46 102 instead of 5:04 102 for - 0 ), but then
jumps to 12:4 102 for - 30 (Fig. 8). In terms of field conditions, the system will maintain somewhat-similar stability features
up to - - . A much-larger downhole WOB then is required
beyond that threshold to keep the system directionally stable. In
contrast, for k2 2:25, the influence of the walk is rapidly significant: the critical value of the walk is approximately 4 .
35
Initial perturbation
30
Inclination
Inclination
25
20
Degrees
Degrees
25
Azimuth
15
10
5
30
20
Azimuth
15
10
5
10
Scaled Drilled Distance
(a)
15
5
10
Scaled Drilled Distance
15
(b)
Fig. 6Borehole simulations with k2 2.5 and - 1 15 , leading to gPjs 5.4 102. (a) Directionally unstable system
(gP 4 102); (b) directionally stable system (gP 8 102). The only difference between the two simulations is the value of
dimensionless group gP. The same initial perturbation in the borehole trajectory is amplified progressively or dampened, depending on the directional stability of the system. The reconstructed lateral deformation of the borehole is not to scale, but presents a
realistic picture. In practice, nonlinearities in the response of the system limit the amplitude of the fluctuations. The linear model
is able, however, to capture the onset of spiraling.
441
Page: 442
Total Pages: 15
0.2
0.5
0
15
30
45
Stable
0.16
0
15
30
45
Stable
0.12
log
Stage:
1.5
0.08
0.04
Unstable
Unstable
2.5
5
2
10
(a)
5
2
10
(b)
Fig. 7Influence of the relative position of the second stabilizer on the directional tendency of the drilling system: (a) on a logarithmic scale; (b) on a linear scale. If the shape of this curve is confirmed by field data, it enables identification of optimum positions for the second stabilizer such that the intrinsic stability of the system is improved significantly. The second stabilizer should
be in one of the sweet spots of the curve.
(It translates to gPjs , increasing to 6:95 102 for - 5 from

3:27 102 for - 0 .)
The pitch of the spiral, when the system is directionally unstable, also generally increases with - and can be up to 2 for large,
rather-unrealistic walks and small k2. In general, this difference
between the wavelength of the spiral and the distance between the
bit and the first stabilizer progressively leads to larger BHA
deflections close to the bit.
Although some parameters of the model, such as EI or w,
always are known accurately, others are not. Factors influencing
the bit walk downhole are not well-understood (Chen et al. 2008).
Determination of evolving parameter G1 (because of bit wear and/
or change of formation) requires systematic drilloff tests, and lateral steering resistance g requires laboratory testing. Nonetheless,
good estimates can be obtained for gPjs knowing the BHA geometry and a reasonable range for the bit walk. Directional stability
then can be evaluated with educated guesses for g and G1.
Field Cases
Two field cases, which were previously analyzed with the zerowalk model (Marck et al. 2014), are revisited here by use of the
3D borehole-propagation model. Despite the absence of informa-
0.3
2
1.5
2.25
2.5
4.5
Stable
0.25
,2.25
0.2
,1.5
,2.5
,4.5
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Unstable
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
(degrees)
Fig. 8Influence of bit walk - on the bifurcation value gPjs for
different positions of the second stabilizer, k2. For each k2,
there exists a critical value, -*, under which the influence of the
walk remains small.
tion on the bit walks, this new stability analysis provides valuable
information on the possible range of walks that characterize these
runs.
Field Case 1. For the first field case, we are concerned with a tangent section that has an inclination of approximately 49 . The
BHA is equipped with four stabilizers and a reamer, respectively
located at 10, 43, 71, 121, and 130 ft behind the bit (Fig. 9a), as
well as a push-the-bit RSS with pads positioned 2.6 ft behind the
bit. In view of the particular design of this RSS, its pads are modeled as a stiff node of the BHA (Marck et al. 2014). The drill bit
is a 105=8-in. PDC bit with a semiactive gauge of 2 in. and the
downhole WOB ranged between 5 and 10 kips.
For this BHA, the critical value gWa js is computed to be 983
kips if the bit has a neutral-walk tendency, and 1,096 kips if the
walk - 15 ; this walk is less than the critical threshold for
which significant increase of the critical value has been identified
(Fig. 9c). Lateral steering resistance g is estimated between 5 and
10 for this short-gauge laterally aggressive bit. Taking the applied
WOB as an upper bound for active weight Wa, gWa is estimated
to be less than approximately 100 kips. This is far less than the
critical value gWa js , irrespective of the walk (Fig. 9b). An azimuthal density-log measurement confirms that the borehole spiraled over the entire run. The observed pitch corresponds to the
distance between the bit and the pads of the RSS (Fig. 9d), which
justifies a posteriori the assumption of treating the RSS pads as a
stiff node of the BHA.
Results of simulations on the basis of the 3D borehole-propagation model can be found in Fig. 10a. An initial perturbation in
the borehole trajectory (5 over 0.1 ft) was imposed to trigger
possible oscillations. The model is able not only to reproduce the
spiraled run, but also to capture a pitch close to 3 ft. The difference between the pitch observed in the field (approximately 2.6
ft) and the predicted one could be caused by the lateral rigidity of
the pads (assumed here to be infinite), the imposed value of gWa ,
and the assumed walk, all of which influence the pitch. Again,
emergent nonlinearities in the response of the system would limit
in practice the amplitude of the fluctuations and establish a
limit cycle.
To suppress the identified spiraling, another bit with less laterally aggressive features was selected for the subsequent run: a
PDC bit with a 4-in., undercut, passive gauge. The new bit is characterized by a larger g, estimated to be in the range of 3040. The
downhole WOB was also larger, between 10 and 18 kips. Slight
changes in BHA geometry, mainly caused by a longer bit shank,
reduce the critical value gWa js to 521 kips if walk is neglected.
The system, even if possibly on the edge of the stability limit, was
442

Stage:
Page: 443
Total Pages: 15
RSS
40 ft
50
BHA
0 1
15 1
0 2
15 2
Stable
Wa (kips)
40
30
20
33 ft
7 ft 3 ft
0.6
BHA
0 1
15 1
0 2
15 2
0.4
0.2
Unstable
Stable
0.2
0.4
103
102
101
(c)
Run 2
Unstable
100
101
Run 1
10
0
28 ft
(a)
(rm)
9 ft
10
20
30
40
50
60
13 ft
(d)
(b)
Fig. 9Directional-stability features of the first studied run: (a) BHA configuration; (b) assessment of the directional stability in
the gWa plane; (c) directional stability as a function of gP; and (d) borehole spiraling for the unstable section detected by an azimuthal density log.
certainly on the safe side because no spiraling was observed for

that run. By choosing a less laterally aggressive bit and by increasing the WOB, an initially unstable system was made stable.
However, a walk of 15 makes gWa js jump to 1,225 kips, and
the model then predicts the system to be directionally unstable
because the critical threshold for the walk (of approximately 8
for this BHA) has been crossed. Although no information on the
bit walk is available, this suggests either that the walk was,
indeed, sufficiently small as to not influence gWa js greatly, that
bit lateral resistance g is underestimated, or that the assumption of
considering the RSS as an extra stabilizer is, in this case, too
strong. This example concretely illustrates the possibly large
influence of the walk for specific ranges of the position of the second stabilizer. (In fact, for this run, k2 2:3 is in the region of the
stability diagram where the influence of the walk is largest.)
60
Field Case 2. The second field case concerns a building run. The
BHA has four stabilizers at 10, 42, 61, and 67 ft behind the bit
(Fig. 11a). Again, the RSS is considered as an extraneous stabilizer, at 2.7 ft behind the bit. The 81=2-in. PDC bit has a relatively
passive gauge of 2.5 in., which is characterized by a relatively
large lateral steering resistance. The downhole WOB ranges
between 20 and 35 kips.
For no walk, gWa js is computed to be equal to 674 kips; the
difference with the previous case is explained by a difference of
diameter, and therefore bending stiffness, for the BHA and a
60
55
Degrees
40
Azimuth
45
40
35
30
30
25
25
20
10 15 20 25 30
Drilled Distance (ft)
(a)
Inclination
50
45
35
55
Inclination
50
Degrees
A simulation, with the same initial perturbation as before, a

walk of - 5 , and gWa 600 kips (gWa js 526 kips) shows
that after a short transient response, the borehole resumes an
almost-straight trajectory (Fig. 10b).
35
20
Azimuth
10 15 20 25 30
Drilled Distance (ft)
35
(b)
Fig. 10Simulations of boreholes by use of the model on the basis of field data. (a) First unstable run for gWa 665 kips. This
value, higher that what was imposed in the field, shows that in comparison with the next run, a higher gWa does not necessarily
mean a more-stable system if BHA configurations differ. (b) After a run drilled with a less laterally aggressive bit and a higher WOB
for gWa 600 kips. The lateral deformation of the borehole is not to scale but presents a realistic picture. In practice, nonlinearities
in the response of the system limit the amplitude of the fluctuation.
443
6 ft
19 ft
Stage:
Page: 444
Total Pages: 15
32 ft
(a)
7 ft
3 ft
WOB (kips)
50
Spiraling
40
30
20
10
0
8500
50
8540
8560
0
25
35
8580
8600
8620
Measurements Depth (ft)
(b)
2,000
8640
8660
8680
8700
Stable
Stable
1,500
Wa (kips)
40
Wa (kips)
8520
30
1,000
20
500
10
0
Unstable
10
Unstable
20
30
(c)
40
50
60
10
15
20 25 30
(degrees)
(d)
35
40
45
Fig. 11Directional-stability features of the second field case: (a) BHA configuration; (b) evolution of the downhole WOB with the
true vertical distance (occurrence of spiraling correlated with a drop in downhole WOB); (c) assessment of the directional stability
in the gWa plane; and (d) directional stability as a function of walk -.
different value of k2 2:74 because of slight differences in the

design of the bit and the RSS. In the post-well report, spiraling
was reported between measured depths of 8,600 and 8,640 ft. This
region almost perfectly correlates with the WOB measurements,
because spiraling occurs in the region where the WOB drops (Fig.
11b). No particular observation was given for the (short) region
between 8,655 and 8,660 ft where a similar drop occurs. By
assuming the bit to have a neutral walk tendency (- 0 ) and
requiring the system to be directionally stable for the higher
WOB and unstable for the lower ones (Fig. 11c), the lateral steering resistance of the bit was estimated to be between 20 and 30
(Marck et al. 2014). This value is consistent with the general bit
features. The wear of the bit at the end of the run (assessed at 1-2CT) may have influenced the active weight, however.
Fig. 11d shows the variation of gWa js with the walk for this particular BHA, with the critical walk - estimated to be approximately
29 . Because - is here larger than plausible field values of -, the
influence of the walk is deemed negligible from a directional-stability point of view and the 2D analysis is sufficient to assess the directional stability. This BHA exemplifies a walk-robust design.
Conclusions
The 3D borehole-propagation model presented in this study can
be used to predict the occurrence of borehole spiraling. The model
is formulated as a system of two coupled DDEs governing the
spatial evolution of the borehole inclination and azimuth. The
equations are coupled by the bit walk and become uncoupled for
bit with a neutral walk tendency (in which case, the equations
degenerate to the 2D model.) They capture, by means of the spatially delayed terms, the effect of the interaction of the stabilizers
with the borehole, which has been shown to be the original mechanism behind borehole spiraling. A linear stability analysis of the
governing equations for a perturbation around quasistationary
borehole trajectories provides the conditions for which borehole
propagation is directionally unstable. We have shown that, under

these conditions, perturbations to the borehole trajectory take the
form of helices that have an exponentially growing radius. Furthermore, we have shown that the pitch is approximately equal to
the distance between the bit and the first stabilizer, as long as the
walk remains small; for large walks, pitches sometimes increase
up to twice that distance. Nonlinearities such as saturation of the
bit tilt or extraneous contacts between the BHA and the borehole
eventually limit the radius of the helices; such nonlinearities have
not been considered in this study.
Stability conditions have been formulated in terms of a critical
value gPjs of dimensionless group gP. This group is proportional
to the lateral steering resistance of the bita parameter that
mainly depends on the bit-gauge geometryand on the active
weight, a reduced downhole WOB that accounts for the wear of
the bit and the rock strength. When the field conditions are such
that this group is larger than its critical value, the system is directionally stable, and borehole spiraling is not expected. In practical
terms, a sharp bit with a long passive gauge and a large downhole
WOB improve the directional stability. These criteria must be balanced with other requirements, however. For instance, a large
WOB may induce stick/slip, or a bit with a longer gauge may not
meet directional requirements.
The critical value gPjs depends predominantly on the configuration of the BHA (the positions of the stabilizers) and on the bit
walk. Because two-stabilizer BHAs provide a good estimation of
the critical value gPjs for any system, the dependence of gPjs
on the BHA configuration essentially is captured by the relative
position of the second stabilizer along the BHA. The bit walk
has a destabilizing effect on the drilling system; above a certain
threshold, its influence on the directional stability becomes
dominant, although its effect could be reduced by tuning the stabilizer positions.
The stability analysis has two principal applications: estimating a lower limit for the WOB to prevent borehole spiraling given
444

the BHA design and the bit, and helping design drilling systems
that are intrinsically more stable. Furthermore, the model has
identified the parameters that control the directional stability of
the drilling system. It suggests that improving our ability to predict the domain of stability for a particular system is predicated
on determining the lateral drilling resistance g, the bit walk -,
and the component of WOB, G1, associated with the bit bluntness.
Although G1 could be determined by systematic drilloff tests, bit
parameters g and - could be assessed through laboratory experiments and/or advanced numerical simulations. Mitigation of borehole oscillations should ultimately be addressed, however, by
control of the RSS. Control strategy for that purpose is currenly
under development (Kremers et al. 2015).
Nomenclature
A; B; ; G coefficients of the propagation equation
C1 chord between the bit and the first stabilizer
d drilling direction at the bit, tangent to the borehole
d1 ; d2 ; d3 axial and lateral penetrations per revolution
(ex ; ey ; ez ) Cartesian coordinates system
EI flexural rigidity of the BHA
F characteristic force
F1 ; F2 ; F3 axial and lateral components of the force at the bit
F , M coefficients of influence for the lateral force and
moment at the bit
G1 part of the WOB mobilized in contact forces
Hi coefficients of the bit/rock interaction
(i1 ; i2 ; i3 ) system of reference attached to the bit
(I 1 ; I 2 ; I 3 ) system of reference attached to the borehole
(Î 1 ; Î 2 ; Î 3 ) system of reference attached to the first chord
(~I 1 ; ~I 2 ; ~I 3 ) local system of reference for the perturbation
1 distance between the bit and the first stabilizer
L* characteristic length
M2, M3 components of the orthogonal moment at the bit
n number of stabilizers
r vector position of the BHA
R vector position of the borehole
s curvilinear coordinate along the BHA
S curvilinear coordinate along the borehole
W weight on bit
Wa active weight (reduced WOB)
a characteristic root
C scaled RSS force
~ borehole pseudoazimuth
D
e small dimensionless number characterizing the bit
behavior
g bit lateral steering resistance
gP key dimensionless group depending on the field
conditions
gPjs critical value of dimensionless group, only function
of the BHA configuration
gWa key group depending on the field conditions
gWa js critical value of gWa , only function of the BHA
configuration
h bit inclination
H borehole inclination
~ borehole pseudoinclination
H
hHii average inclination of a section of the BHA
ki scaled length of section i of the BHA
K scaled position of the RSS pads
n scaled curvilinear coordinate along the borehole
ni scaled positions of the stabilizer i behind the bit
P scaled active weight
1 bit flip
! scaled weight of the BHA
/ azimuth of the bit; phase between pseudoinclination and pseudoazimuth
U azimuth of the borehole
u2 ; u3 angular penetrations per revolution
v bit angular steering resistance
w2 ; w3 bit tilts
Stage:
Page: 445
Total Pages: 15
- bit walk
~ average pseudoazimuth of section i of the BHA
hDi
i
- critical bit walk
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Theodore W. Bennett Chair
in Mining Engineering and Rock Mechanics at the University of
Minnesota for financial support.
References
Boualleg, R., Sellami, H., Menand, S. et al. 2006. Effect on Formation Anisotropy on Directional Tendencies of Drilling Systems. Presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 2123 February.
SPE-98865-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98865-MS.
Chen, S., Collins, C. and Thomas, M. 2008. Reexamination of PDC-Bit
Walk in Directional and Horizontal Wells. Presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, 46 March. SPE-112641-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/112641-MS.
Detournay, E. 2009. Mathematical Model of the Near-Bit Region of an
Advancing Drilling System. Presented at the First International Colloquium on Non-Linear Dynamics of Deep Drilling Systems, Liege, Belgium, 1213 March. http://hdl.handle.net/2268/13952.
Detournay, E. and Defourny, P. 1992. A Phenomenological Model for the
Drilling Action of Drag Bits. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 29 (1): 1323.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(92)91041-3.
Detournay, E. and Perneder, L. 2011. Dynamical Model of a Propagating
Borehole. Presented at the 7th EUROMECH Nonlinear Oscillations
Conference, Rome, 2429 July. http://w3.uniroma1.it/dsg/enoc2011/
proceedings/pdf/Detournay_Perneder_6pages.pdf.
Detournay, E., Richard, T. and Shepherd, M. 2008. Drilling Response of
Drag Bits: Theory and Experiment. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 45 (8):
13471360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.01.010.
Downton, G. C. 2007. Directional Drilling System Response and Stability.
Proc., 16th IEEE International Conference on Control Applications,
Singapore, 13 October, 15431550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCA.
2007.4389456.
Downton, G. C. and Ignova, M. 2011. Stability and Response of Closed
Loop Directional Drilling System Using Linear Delay Differential
Equation. Proc., IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Denver, 2830 September, 893898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
CCA.2011.6044454.
Dupriest, F. E. and Sowers, S. F. 2009. Maintaining Steerability While
Extending Gauge Length to Manage Whirl. Presented at the SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 1719 March.
SPE-119625-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119625-MS.
Erneux, T. 2009. Applied Delay Differential Equations. SpringerVerlag.
Franca, L. F. P. 2010. Drilling Action of Roller-cone Bits: Modeling and
Experimental Validation. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 132 (4): 043101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4003168.
Gaynor, T., Chen, D., Stuart, D. et al. 2001. Tortuosity versus Micro-Tortuosity Why Little Things Mean a Lot. Presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 27 February1
March. SPE-67818-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67818-MS.
Hale, J. K. 1977. Theory of Functional Differential Equations. New York
City: Springer Verlag.
Ho, H.-S. 1987. Prediction of Drilling Trajectory Wells Via a New RockBit Interaction Model. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2730 December. SPE-16658-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/16658-MS.
Kremers, N., Detournay, E. and van de Wouw, N. 2015. Model-Based Robust Control of Directional Drilling Systems. IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology. PP (99): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
TCST.2015.2427255.
MacDonald, G. C. and Lubinski, A. 1951. Straight-Hole Drilling in
Crooked-Hole Country. API-51-080.
Marck, J. and Detournay, E. 2014a. Estimation of the Spiraling Tendency
of Drilling Systems. Oral presentation given at the 3rd International
Colloquium on Nonlinear Dynamics and Control of Deep Drilling Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2931 May.
445
Marck, J. and Detournay, E. 2014b. Perturbation to Borehole Trajectory

Across a Rock Interface. Presented at the 48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Minneapolis, 14 June. ARMA-2014-7479.
Marck, J. and Detournay, E. 2014c. Spiraling Tendency of Deep Drilling
Systems. Presented at the 8th European Nonlinear Dynamics Conference, Vienna, Austria, 611 July. Paper-ID 515.
Marck, J. 2015. A Nonlinear Dynamical Model of Borehole Spiraling.
PhD Thesis. University of Minnesota.
Marck, J. and Detournay, E. 2015. Influence of Rotary Steerable System
Design on Borehole Spiraling. SPE J. SPE-174554-PA (in press;
posted June 2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/174554-PA.
Marck, J., Detournay, E., Kuesters, A. et al. 2014. Analysis of SpiraledBorehole Data by Use of a Novel Directional-Drilling Model. SPE
Drill & Compl 29 (3): 267278. SPE-167992-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/167992-PA.
Menand, S., Sellami, H., Simon, C. et al. 2002. How the Bit Profile and
Gages Affect the Well Trajectory. Presented at IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, 2628 February. SPE-74459-MS. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/74459-MS.
Michiels, W. and Niculescu, S.-I. 2007. Stability and Stabilization of
Time-Delay Systems: An Eigenvalue-Based Approach. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Neubert, M. 1997. Richtungsregelung beim Tiefbohren. PhD dissertation,
Technische Universitat Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Neubert, M. and Heisig, G. 1996. Mathematical Description of the Directional Drilling Process and Simulation of Directional Control Algorithm.
Zeitschrift fur angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 76: 361362.
Pastusek, P. and Brackin, V. 2003. A Model for Borehole Oscillations. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
58 October. SPE-84448-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84448-MS.
Pastusek, P., Brackin, V. and Lutes, P. 2005. A Fundamental Model for
Prediction of Hole Curvature and Build Rates with Steerable Bottomhole Assemblies. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 912 October. SPE-95546-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/95546-MS.
Perneder, L. 2013. A Three-Dimensional Mathematical Model of Directional Drilling. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (January 2013).
Perneder, L. and Detournay, E. 2013a. Equilibrium Inclinations of Straight
Boreholes. SPE J. 18 (3): 395405. SPE-160335-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/160335-PA.
Perneder, L. and Detournay, E. 2013b. Steady-state Solutions of a Propagating Borehole. Int. J. Solids Struct. 50 (9): 12261240. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2012.12.011.
Perneder, L., Detournay, E. and Downton, G. 2012. Bit/Rock Interface
Laws in Directional Drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 51 (April):
8190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.01.008.
Richard, T., Dagrain, F., Poyol, E. et al. 2012. Rock Strength Determination from Scratch Tests. Eng. Geol. 147148 (12 October): 91100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.07.011.
Sugiura, J. 2009. Novel Mechanical Caliper Image While Drilling and Borehole Image Analysis. Pesented at the SPWLA 50th Annual Logging
Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 2124 June. SPWLA-2009-49451.
Sugiura, J. and Jones, S. 2008. The Use of the Industrys First 3-D Mechanical Caliper Image While Drilling Leads to Optimized Rotary-
ew
n
Stage:
Page: 446
Total Pages: 15
Steerable Assemblies in Push- and Point-the-Bit Configurations. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 2124 September. SPE-115395-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
115395-MS.
Tweten, D., Lipp, G., Khasawneh, F. et al. 2012. On the Comparison of
Semi-Analytical Methods for the Stability Analysis of Delay Differential Equations. J. Sound Vib. 331 (17): 40574071. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsv.2012.04.009.
Wu, Z. and Michiels, W. 2012. Reliably Computing All Characteristic
Roots of Delay Differential Equations in a Given Right Half Plane
Using a Spectral Method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 236 (9): 24992514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2011.12.009.
Zhou, Y. and Detournay, E. 2014. Analysis of the Contact Forces on a
Blunt PDC. Presented at the 48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
Symposium, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 14 June. ARMA-2014-7351.
Appendix ABit/Rock-Interaction Law for an

Ideal Cylindrical Bit
The theoretical background to derive the bit/rock interaction used
in this study relies on a single cutter/rock-interaction law (Detournay and Defourny 1992) abundantly validated by experiments
with a single cutter (Richard et al. 2012) and with a full bit
(Detournay et al. 2008). This law relates the force acting on a single cutter to the depth of cut. Two ductile regimes can be identified: the first when both the contact and cutting forces (along the
wearflat and the cutting face, respectively) are proportional to the
depth of cut p, and the second where the contact forces have saturated and only the cutting forces increase with p. The resultant
force is assumed to be proportional to the cutter width; the normal
and tangent components of force on the cutter (for a unit cutter
width) are given by (Fig. A-1)
0
fn f ip;
00
fw f ip;
fn r l fip;
p < p
fw lr l ip;
n or w
l
l
Regime 2 ;
where i is the intrinsic specific energy of the rock, or the amount

of energy necessary to drill a unit volume of rock without any
frictional contribution (expressed in J/cm3 or MPa); r is the maximum contact stress at the cutter wearflat; l is the length of the0
wearflat;
l is the coefficient of friction at the wearflat; and f, f ,
00
and f are coefficients that define the single cutter/rock bilinear
law and mainly depend on the relative inclination of the wearflat
and of the cutting face on the cutter velocity, V (Zhou and Detournay 2014).
The passage from the single cutter/rock interaction to the general bit/rock interaction follows the steps introduced by Perneder
et al. (2012). Because of the complex cutter distribution around
PDC bits, it is unpractical to derive a single interaction for each
bit, at least in the context of this research. However, the average
response of any PDC bit can be captured, in principle, by four
numbers: its lateral steering resistance, g; its angular steering resistance, v; its walk, -; and its flip, 1.
n
w
p > p
A-2
Regime 1 ; . . . . . A-1
Fig. A-1Single cutter/rock bilinear-interaction law (Perneder 2013).

446

Stage:
Page: 447
Total Pages: 15
The general derivation of these parameters is presented here

for the case of an ideal cylindrical PDC bit of radius a and height
2b. The bit face is assumed to drill in Regime 2 and the gauge to
interact with the rock in Regime 1. The force (and especially the
moment) acting on a bit must be computed with respect to an arbitrary point of reference along the bit axis. Technically distances
along the BHA are measured with respect to the point of reference. For practical purposes, these distances can be taken from
the center of the cutting structure.
In the case of a cylindrical bit with its reference point chosen
to be at the center of the bit face, the general bit/rock-interaction
law is given by Perneder et al. (2012). However, if this point is
translated to be in such a way that the averaged moment with
respect to that point is cancelled when the entire gauge interacts
with the rock, the bit/rock interaction reduces to
8 9
8
9
F1 >
rak >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
F
0
>
>
>
>
2
< =
<
=
F3
0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
M2 >
0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: ;
:
;
M3
0
3
2
af 0
0
0
0
78 9
6
1
7> d1 >
6 0 1 bf0 1 bf00
a2
0
7>
6
>
2
2
4
> >
>
7>
6
>
>
d
>
>
7
6
2
00
0
1
1
1
2
7< =
60
bf
bf
a
0

7 d3 :
i6
2
2
4
7> >
6
>
7>
6
1 3
5 3 0
5 3 00
u >
>
>
7>
60
>
a
b
b
0
0
f

f
f
> 2>
>
7
6
:
6
9
9
7 u ;
6
3
4
5 3 00
1 3
5 3 05
a f b f
0
0
0
b f
9
6
9
A-3
Appendix BCoefficients of Influence

The coefficients of influence, F and M, are given here for BHAs
with two stabilizers: uniform distributed weight and bending stiffness. The coefficients are given in a dimensionless form; i.e., the
first stabilizer is at a distance n1 k1 1 behind the bit, and the
second at n2 k1 k2 . The pads of the RSS are at K 2 0; 1
behind the bit.
The assumption for the general bit/rock-interaction law (3)

assumed in this study neglects only two possible relevant terms:
those which relate the lateral force to the angular penetration of
the bit. These terms arise, however, from the interaction of the bit
face with the rock and, consequently, cannot be estimated accurately without further investigation.
For illustration purposes only, the properties of this ideal cylindrical bit can be obtained:
s
3
2
0
q
3a f
00 2
3
b

f
f ;
02
00 2
10b3
1b f f
5
2
; 1 v
g
af
2
9
af
A-4
0
1
5 3 00
!
00
B 9b f
C
f
C : . . . A-5
- arctan 0 ; 1 arctanB
3
@
a f 5 3 0A
f
b f
6
9
Appendix CCoefficients of the Propagation

Equation
The coefficients for the DDEs (16) driving the propagation of the
borehole in a relative reference system attached to the borehole at
the bit are given here again for a system with a two-stabilizer
BHA. These coefficients can be obtained from the coefficients of
influence, and the general expressions for the lateral force and the
moment at the bit, derived from both the bit/rock interaction (3)
and the model of the BHA (10 through 13).
In the particular case where the effects of the bit face not related
to the axial
penetration are neglected, - 1. Also, e v=g
O b2 =21 is usually a small parameter, except in the case of a bit

with a particularly long gauge and a first stabilizer close to the bit.
All the parameters also are independent of the intrinsic specific
energy, i. It should be noted, however, that these parameters generally depend on the downhole field conditions, when, for instance,
the rock is not isotropic or homogeneous, or when the borehole is
overgauged (Chen et al. 2008). In practice, a fair estimation of
these parameters can be obtained, however, by systematic bit testing or by numerical simulations designed to compute the behavior
of the bit while accounting for its complex cutter distribution.
The notion of lateral steering resistance and bit walk, both connected to the lateral force, are well-established parameters defining bit behavior. These are extended naturally here for the
moment at the bit by means of the angular steering resistance and
the bit flip.
Fb
4k2 6
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
4k2 3
3k32 10k2 6
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
16k2 12

2k2 K3 3K2 2 32K 1K 12

;
Fr
4k2 3
B-3
Fw
Fk
6
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
4k2 3
Mb
4k2 1
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
4k2 3
Mw
k32 2k2 1
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6
44k2 3
Mr
K 1K2k2 K 2 3K 1
; . . . . . . . B-7
4k2 3
Mk
2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8
4k2 3
Equations for H .
AH~ H~
BH~ H;1
~
F b ecos- F k ecos- Mb cos1

;
gP
C-1
ecos-F b k2 F k k2 F k
; . . . . . . . . . C-2
gPk2
BH~ H;2
~
CH~ H;1
~
CH~ H;2
~
DH~ H~
F k ecos-
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
gPk2
F b Mk cos1 - F k Mb cos1 -
gPMb cos1 gPMk cos1
; . . . C-4
gP2
F b Mk cos1 - F k Mb cos1 -
gPMk cos1
;
gP2
C-5
F b Mw cos1 -
F w Mb cos1 - gPMw cos1

; . . . . C-6
gP2
447
E H~ H~
F w ecos-
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
gP
F H~ H~
GH~ H~
AH~ D~
cos1 -F r Mb F b Mr gPMr cosr
;
gP2
C-8
F r ecos-
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9
gP
F b esin- F k esin- Mb sin1

; . . . . C-10
gP
BH~ D;1
~
esin-F b k2 F k k2 F k
; . . . . . . C-11
gPk2
BH~ D;2
~
F k esin-
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12
gPk2
CH~ D;1
~
F b Mk sin1 - F k Mb sin1 -
gPMb sin1 gPMk sin1

;
gP2
C-13
CH~ D;2
~
F b Mk sin1 -
F k Mb sin1 - gPMk sin1

;
gP2
C-14
F H~ D~
GH~ D~
sin1 -F r Mb F b Mr gPMr sin1
;
gP2
C-15
F r esin-
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16
gP
Stage:
Page: 448
Total Pages: 15
~ . Because coefficients are related to each other

Equations for D
through the coupling between the two propagation equations,
most of the coefficients of the second one can be related directly
to those of the first. The only exceptions are those related to the
weight on the BHA, because they do not have an equivalent in the
~ is computed. The coefficients within the same
plane where D
expression also can be related by switching cos or sin when
related to the bit walk, -, or bit flip, 1:
DD~ H~
F b Mw sin1 -
F w Mb sin1 - gPMw sin1

;
gP2
C-17
ED~ H~
F w esin-
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18
gP
J H~ H~ J D~ D~ ;
J H~ D~ J D~ H~ ; J A; B; C; F ; G :
C-19
Julien Marck holds a PhD degree from the University of Minnesota. His interests include directional drilling, borehole spiraling,
and drilling optimization. Marck is a member of SPE. He holds
two masters degrees: one in civil engineering from the University of Liege, Belgium, and one in geoengineering from the University of Minnesota.
Emmanuel Detournay is T. W. Bennett Chair Professor in the
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geoengineering at
the University of Minnesota. Before joining the University of Minnesota, he was a senior research scientist at Schlumberger
Cambridge Research in England. Detournays expertise is in
petroleum geomechanics, with a current research focus on
drilling mechanics: bit/rock interaction, self-excited drilling
vibrations, drillstring/borehole interaction, and directional drilling. He serves an associate editor for SPE Journal.
448


Spe 173156 Pa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 173156 Pa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 173156 Pa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J173156 DOI: 10.

2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

Spiraled Boreholes: An Expression of 3D

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

Fig. 1Borehole-spiraling mechanism. Being constrained by

ous resultants of force and moment are then irrelevant when

where EI is the nominal bending stiffness of the BHA; i.e., E is

uniquely defines inclination HS 2 0; p and azimuth US 2

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

reference systems (I 1 , I 2 , I 3 ) and (i1 , i2 , i3 ) is small and described

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

Fig. 3Model of the BHA and representation of the force and

future developments, it is convenient to introduce the scaled

which is of the order O103 101 .

where the small-angle approximation has been used because d2 <<

By use of Eq. 5, components of the lateral force F2 and F3 read

Model of the BHA. Because the borehole radius of curvature is

F k;1 hHii hHii1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

F3 =F F b / hUi1 sinhHi1 F r C3

F k;1 hUii hUii1 sinhHi1 ; . . . . . . . 11

M2 =M Mb / hUi1 sinhHi1 Mr C3

Mk;1 hUii hUii1 sinhHi1 ; . . . . . . 12

M3 =M Mb h hHi1 Mw !sinHw Mr C2

Mk;1 hHii hHii1 ; . . . . . . . . . . . 13

where C2 and C3 are the components of the RSS force along ^I 2

eU0 n FU Hn; Un; Hn ni ;

the positions of the stabilIn Eqs. 14 and 15, delays ni denote P

system. This Cartesian system is chosen most appropriately to be

with N H; D. Because of symmetry in the bit/rock-interaction

These coefficients only depend on the coefficients of influence

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

edN~ n AN~ H~ dHn

are considered, which represent perturbations around the (quasi)s~

Eqs. 20 and 21 have an infinite number of complex roots that

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

strength, or reduced downhole WOB, all which reduce the active

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

because of the emergence of nonlinearities in the response of the

Influence of the Bit Walk on Directional Stability. Fig. 7 also

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

(It translates to gPjs , increasing to 6:95 102 for - 5  from

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

certainly on the safe side because no spiraling was observed for

A simulation, with the same initial perturbation as before, a

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

different value of k2 2:74 because of slight differences in the

propagation is directionally unstable. We have shown that, under

April 2016 SPE Journal

J173156 DOI: 10.2118/173156-PA Date: 1-April-16

(It translates to gPjs , increasing to 6:95 102 for - 5 from