SPE/lADC
spE/-!Ar?c 134s0
Use of the Engineering Simulator for Drilling for Evaluating and
Designing Drilling Rigs
by J .F. Brett, Amoco Production Co., and D.L. Yoder, Drilling Resources Development
SPE Members
Copyright
19S5,
SPE/lAOC
1S85Drilling
Conference
This
papar
waspresented
attheSPE/lADC1985Drilling
Conference
heldinNewOrfeans,
Louisiana,
tion
bytheauthor.
Permission
tocopyiareatrict~
toansbstrati
ofnotmorethan300worda.
75083-3836.
ABSTRACT
Drilling personnel typically base the selection
of a Drilling Contractor and rig on their subjective
evaluation of how well varioue rig components will
meet their envisioned drilling needs. This evaLua-
tion process involves rating the capabilities of the
drawworke, mud and soLids control system, mud pumps,
tubulare, power generation equipment, and ancillary
equipment such as blow-out preventers, choke mani-
folds, automatic driller, and instrumentation. Con-
aideration must aleo be given to the type of geology
that the planner expects to encounter. However, the
true performance or capability of the selected rig
is not known until it is contracted and used to
drill a well. Many times the advertised capability
of the rig is not achieved in the field.
An Engineering Simulator for Drilling (ESD) has
been deveLoped that can simulate the operation of
any SCR type drilling rig in any type of drilling
environment. The simulator has been used to compare
different equipment for specific drilling programs
and hae predicted which rig would be the best rig to
drill the well. The simulator has also been used to
up-grade the deeign of existing rigs to optimize
their performance.
This paper presents an overview of the drilling
rig simulation algorithms and how they are used to
emulate an actual drilling rig. The paper also
givee examples of how the simulator is used to evaL-
uate rig capabilities, and how this ability to eval-
uate rigs, with an unbiased eyetems approach, can be
used by operators to select rige on a performance
basis.
INTRODUCTION
A drilling rig, with all of its many compo-
nenta, should be viewed as a complex machine
designed for producing one product--a useable
References and illustrations at end of paper.
.--
Corp.
March
8-8,1985.
Thematerial
b subject
tocorrec-
Write
SPE,P.O.Box833838,
Richardson,
Texas
wellbore. This complex machine consists of various
components such as hoisting, pumping, and power gen-
eration equipment, and a drillstring. These compo-
nents interact in many ways. For example, each
piece of equipment on a diesel-electric rig makes a
contribution to the total power consumed and to the
apparent power usage. This interaction is a major
factor in determining the overaLL fuel efficiency of
the rig. Another example of this interaction
between components involves the tradeoff between the
uae of drillpipe with a larger inside diameter to
minimize power losses because of friction and the
fact that a Larger (heavier) pipe will increase
po~er usage during tripping and rotation. There are
many other examples of interaction, or cause and
effect reLationships, between the major component
which constitute a drilling rig.
Without the use of a detailed computer simuLa-
tion planners must baee design and selection of
drilling rige on analysis of overall rig capabiLi-
ties. Often this analysis ie as simple as making
sure the drawworke and roCary can handle the aiitici=
pated loads and that the pumps can produce the spe-
cified flowrate and pressure. The reason for this
-~
. h--~
IS tluitthe arm-ur,t .-.14...1
,La,.u
~ .t<nm *am,,4*aA~Q
a.GuA=.Aw...=Y-----
perform a detailed rig cost analyeis for a complete
well is prohibitive. A drilling rig represent both
a complex machine and a complex process. Analysis
of overall capabilities can Lead to less than
optimum results.
Aa MiLLheim, Huggins, Brett, and Summersl234
have reported in recent literature, a significant
effort is underway to develop an engineering simu-
lator for the study of the entire drilling process.
This eimulator uees detaiLed mathematical models of
the processes involved and of the varioua component
of the drilling rig. Simulation is possibly the
only viable means of studying complex eystems. In
the current context, a simulator coneists of mathe-
..,, I-..--:L.
maclcal moaels whicn aescrlue each part of each cricl-
ponent of the drilling rig. These models are
 USE OF TWF ENGINEERING SIMULATOR FOR DRILLING FOR
2 Evaluating AND DESIGNING DRILLING RIGS
formulated for a high 1< J ct fidelity and are
based on the fundamental phvs,cs of the equipment
whenever this is reasonable. These models are
modular in nature and arranged in a total system so
that each component can effect other components in
the system.
STRUCTURE OF ESD RIG MODELS
.
Simulation Process
The functionality ofthe ESD, in a broad sense,
is shown by Fig. 1. The user may select a partic-
ular drilling rig to model, modify an existing rig,
model drilling a well with that rig, or evaluate the
performance of the equipment and operating parame-
ters by investigating the contents of the historical
database.
Each of these functions will now be discussed
in more detail. First, the user must select a rig
to be used in the evaluation. This process is
described in Fig. 2. Operating parameters for a
wide range of drilling equipment have been gathered
and reside in the rig equipment database. To illus-
trate the size of this database, the Appendix pres-
.%(XM~f the inf~rma~i~n required to initialize
e.-.ts
a the mechanical rig equipment on the ESD. This
data base contains the parameters necessary to model
many different brands and types of rig components.
These parameters have been u;ed to model a wide
range of rigs for welL planning purposes. The data-
base can store information on rigs that have previ-
ously been simulated. The user may reuse this
:-.s.. at a!?yCi.Me9or m=y configure a com-
.I..rmatior.
pletely new rig using components of other rigs as
building blocks. A partial description of the pro-
cess is given by the right hand branch of Fig. 2.
As the user proceeds through the configuration
process, the various equipment selections are pre-
sented to him by brand and model number. He may
view the technical specifications and performance
data for each piece of equipment he is considering.
As an exampLe, consider the selection of mud pumps
to be used on the newLy designed rig. First, the
user is presented a list of manufacturers. After
choosing the desired manufacturer, he is presented
with a table giving the specifications for each
model of pump available from that maker. From here,
the user may decide to view performance data which
will give fLow rates and maximum pressures for var-
ious liner sizes and pump speeds. After evaluation,
the user seLects the desired pumps. All data neces-
sary for the models to accurately represent the
behavior of the chosen pump are provided from the
rig equipment database. This process is repeated
for each piece of rig equipment, a complete list of
which is shown in TabLe 1.
After the rig has been selected or designed and
the geology, mud system, and initial conditions have
been specified, the simulator is ready to be used to
evaluate drilling operations. While the ESD can
simulate many aspects of drilling operations, 1)2,3J4
the the present concern is with rig performance
evaluation. Controls are provided so that the user
can coussandthe performance of the equipment much as
13480
he would on an actuaL rig. tichas compLete control
of the drawworks c~utch, throttle, and brake, the
mud pump speed, soLids control routing and configu-
ration, driLLstring choice, etc. Facilities are
provided to perform certain operations such as trip-
ping the string very quickly while still accounting
r L-: -L:-- .:-n
IOr nu~sc~ug ..,,,=, Cl!ne$~~~, In addi-
Ccr,r.eccioF.
tion, drilling under a given set of operating condi-
tions can be accomplished up to one hundred times
faster than real-time.
While the user is controlling the simulator to
study rig performance concerning tripping times,
fuel usage, hydrauLic capabilities, or any other
reasonable criteria, the time and cost models are
continuously recording and summing all resource
costs. The costs of fuel consumed, mud additives,
Lost mud, bits, and other resources are recorded in
a results database for further study.5 TotaL rig
time is also maintained for all operations. After
any simulator session, the user may request a report
containing alL of the resource costs and associated
elapsed times for the study just performed.
In essence, the user is able to simulate the
performance of virtually any SCR drilling rig under
almost any driLling situation. The user can con-
,... , --....11..
struct drllllng situations slmiiar to those aL~Ua..7
anticipated and compare the bottom Line economic
effectiveness of different equipment and operating
conditions. *_--
lllt! prihca> ---- -c c#A,,...L.-..
L -;-i -t~mm ce= then pro-
vide insight to the key factors that determine rig
efficiency. The user can generate his own rig
effectiveness index that is tailored to the pecul-
iarities of his drilling situation. This rig effec-
tiveness index wouid measure cne economic value cf
using a particular suite of equipment and operating
conditions. ExampLes of actual ESD use to investi-
gate drilling rig performance will follow a brief
section describing the ESD rig models.
Model Descriptions
Any analysis of drilling rig performance,
whether of capability, time required, or costs, is
only as good as the fidelity of the models used in
the simulation. The common procedural training
simulators contain models of sufficient fidelity to
provide a reasonabLe emulation of the drilling pro-
ce5503 ~ engineering simulator, however, con-
tains mathematical modeLs with the highest leveL of
fideLity practical for all equipment and processes.
This is true of the engineering simulator for
drilling discussed here. Conceptually, each model
in the simulator can be considered a black box.
Each accepts a given set of inputs and produces out-
puts consistent with what would be obtained if the
actual piece of equipment (or process) were given
the same inputs. Whether the model is theoretical
or empirical is of secondary importance to the fact
that the model produces accurate results for aLl
reasonable inputs. Sometimes, models can be derived
from basic physicaL principles, for example, the
drawworks model. For other modeLa, e.g., diesel
engines, the odel is based on empirical data. A
very important advantage of this modular design is
that any individual model can be changed or improved
without disrupting the rest of the system.
 J. F. 8RETT 4ND D. L. YODER
13480
Fig. 3 depi[cs the general relationships
between the various rig equipment models, the u~~:,
the downhole models, and the various databaaes.
Because the primary concern here is with rig per-
formance, each of the rig models wiLl be briefly
described.
Mud Handling System
The mud handling system consists of the tank
system and soLids control equipment. As described
previously, the user has control of tank and com-
partment sizing, equipment selection, and routing of
equipment. The tank model allows equalization
k---------
--..-...-.
IJCLW=CAA amt. ~YPe~~ f~~~ ~~= a ~r~\Jgh.f~OW
L..,,ya.
dk.ak=, ,
over compartment boundaries, and dumping of mud.
Solids control models include all common devices
such as shale shakers, hydrocyclone, centrifuges,
etc. A mud hopper model provides capability to add
mud additives at a specified rate into the system.
ConsiderabLe detail is included in the solids con-
trol models. For example, it is possible to change
the impeller size on a centrifugal pump and observe
the change in feed head and separation efficiency.
In operation, the surface mud handling model
accepts cuttings laden mud from the downhoLe models
and processes it in a manner consistent with the
equipment and routing set up by the user. Mud
constituents are tracked through the complete
system. Mud properties and mud constituents are
available at any point in the system. Skidmore and
Anderson6 provide a more detailed description of the
ESD solids control system.
Power Generation System
The power system consists of diesel engines,
AiCgeileEatOFS,Z @rD
CWm ---.+.-al
,
w.=:+
LLJLLL.UL ..., m- .mnl-,-,P.
... ..... ~p.~
V .
AC motors. Diesel engines are modelled using empir-
ical relationshipa for fuel consumption as a func-
tion of the output power of the engine. A different
reLationship is given for each engine in the data-
base. Elevation effects are also accounted for.
A/C generators are similarly modeled to give input/
output power relationships. The system is limited
both by KW and KVA. The SCR control and DC motor
models work together to provide complete user con-
trol of the various DC motors. Motors may be series
or shunt with either speed or torque control. They
may be operated independently or run in electrical
series. A/C motors used for solids control equip-
ment and other miscellaneous rig equipment are
modeled based on an efficiency factor relating input
and output power.
Operationally, the user has complete control of
the motors which are driving the various rig compo-
nents; that is, motors can be turned on or off,
their operating speed or torque can be controlled.
Each motor interacts with the model associated with
the driven components. For example, the motors for
the mud pumps work with the mud pump model which in
turn communicate with the pressure loss models. At
any point in time, the total power, both real and
apparent, can be determined for all power consuming
processes. These powers are then used by the engine
and generator models to determine fuel consumption.
,A-
4CXI
3
Thus, the user may investigate the effect various
operations have on fuel consumption. Also, the sim-
ulator can help plan how many engine-generator pairs
are required m-line for various operations.
Rotary System
The rotary table and associated drive are
modeled in a manner consistent with the basic phy-
sits of the mechanism. Gear ratios and efficiencies
are modeled. When coupled with the models for the
driving device and the drill string models, the
rotary system allows the determination of surface
torque for various operating conditions.
Mud Pumps
Mud pumps are modeled by using the stroke,
piston diameter, volumetric and mechanical efficien-
ties, internaL and external gear ratios, and pump
wear. Pump liners can be changed to suit the appro-
priate operating conditions. Working with the
driving motor and the model for system pressure
Losses, the user can study the hydraulic system per-
formance for any particular set of operating condi-
tions.
Drawworks and Hoisting System
Up to this point, the model descriptions, of
necessity, have been brief. To provide insight into
the level of modeling required, and the way that the
models interact, the hoisting system will be dis-
cussed in some detail. Fig. 4 shows the relation-
ships between the models associated with the
hoisting system.
There is no interaction between the database
and che models in real-time. All data required to
characterize the equipment are loaded into active
memory at the time the rig is selected or designed.
Behavior and function of the models will be
described by stepping through the process of lifting
the string as follows:
L. After selecting the correct setting of the
transmission clutch, the user engages the
clutch, increases motor power, and releases the
brake--much Like the actual process on the rig.
2. Motor control circuitry senses that the actual
motor speed is not yet to the desired speed.
This results in a torque deLivered by the motor
to the input of the drawworks.
3. The drawworks model increases the torque con-
sistent with the gear ratios associated with
the specified path through the drawworks.
-----:-. dllu
CiuiGh GapUGIUY .-2 ....lI-..
.=.=..+=
a =..cL.!.
.i..#*.r,aA.
y=~wc.
~r~
monitored to allow clutch sLippage when appro-
priate. Efficiency reductions between gears is
taken into account. Finally, the model pro-
ducea a torque at the drum which is converted
to a fastiine tension.
4. FastLine tension is used by the hoist model to
produce an effective upward force for Lifting.
 USE OF THE ENCINEERING SIMULATOR FOR DRILLING FOR
--------------
4 EVALUATING AND UttSltiNINb
This is done by using the number of lines
strung and an associated efficiency. From a
previous execution, the drillstring model,
(having taken into account pipe weight, mud
weight, wellbore shape, and friction effects)
provides the effective mass to be accelerated
and the hookload.
5. Given the effective lifting force, surface com-
ponent weights, hookload, and effective mass,
the equation of motion is solved to obtain a
value for hook acceleration. From this, a new
hook position and velocity are obtained.
6. This new velocity is taken back through the
hoist and drawworks models to produce a new
speed for the DC motor. In turn, the motor
control circuitry uses the difference between
actual and desired speeds to produce a new
torque. The process repeats itself. At
steady-state speed, the torque from the motor
is just sufficient to compensate for system
losses and maintain Lifting the string.
As mentioned above, the models for power gener-
ation keep track of fuel consumption as the simu-
lator runs. Thus, the fuel consumed in the hoisting
operation just described has been taken into
account. And, because the simulation is taking
place in real-time, the actual time to trip out a
given string can be determined.
EXAWPLE USES
Since the ESD models almost every aspect of the
drilling system, users can predict the performance
of any particular SCR rig in any drilling situation.
With this technique a number of interesting prac-
tical problems can be investigated. One useful
study, especially for deep holes, deals with
deciding when diesel generator sets may be pulled
off-line in an effort to improve fuel efficiency.
It can be used to investigate the performance of the
complete hydraulics system when drilling with a mud
motor, or be used to compare the economic perform-
ante of particular rigs or drilling programs. The
examples included below are meant to demonstrate the
way that detailed simulation can help solve drilling
problems.
Selecting the Proper Drawworks
SeveraL useful things can be accomplished with
the simulators hoist modeling capabilities. One
obvious possibility is to check if a given drawworks
is powerful enough to hoist the deaired drill string
in the proposed wellbore. It is also possible to
study the cost-effectiveness of using different size
drawworks. This example is discussed in more detail
below.
A simulator study was performed to investigate
the relative merits of different sizes of drawworks.
The well chosen is an actual field directional well
plan with a modified S shape, as shown by Fig. 5.
Total departure is 9000 ft with a TVD of lL,000-ft,
and a measured depth of 15,000 ft. Maximum inclina-
tion angle is 56 degrees. The drillstring consists
.me
409
..--, ,Y..,.
l-n 1 a/LRn
..-.-
lJKILLLNb mLba
of six to eight collars (6 or 8. in. OD, depending on
hole size), 35 joints of 5-in. heavy weight drill-
pipe, and the remainder being 5-in., 19.5 lb/ft
drill pipe. Casing points are 20 in. at 1600 ft,
13-3/8 in. at 6300 ft, and 9-5/8 in. at 15,000 ft
measured depth. A total of thirty-two trips are
planned. Operational constraints, considering swab
effects, call for a hoisting time of no less than 35
seconds until the bit is well within casing.
Another constraint is that the number of lines
strung will not be changed until it is time to run
casing.
Drawworks chosen for this study are rated for
16,000, 20,000, and 25,000 feet, with input horse-
power ratings of 1500, 2000, and 3000, respectively.
For the remainder of this example the drawworks will
be identified as DW#l, DW#2, and DW#3. While it is
obvious with rudimentary calculations that drawworks
number one (DW#l) will not handle the last casing
string; however, a casing jack could be used there-
fore it is instructive to study it over the various
hole depths. The study was accomplished by timing
the hoisting of one stand at various depiiis. 1%
satisfy the requirement that the number of lines
strung would not be changed until casing was run,
the drawworks were tested at 15,000 ft. Allowing
for a 100,000 lb overpull capability, it was deter-
...
mined that DW#l required twelve lines, DW#Z required
ten lines, and DW#3 required eight lines, for the
final hole section.
Typical results from some of the simulator runs
are shown in Table 2. These results include the
effects of the power required to accelerate the
drill string to the specified speed, the system
losses due to friction in the surface equipment, and
the friction of the drill string caused by the
7*S
normal forces produced by the deviated hole.
Conditions at each specified depth were consistent
for each case. Using data from the simulator runs
one can calculate the time to complete each of the
required trips. All hoisting was done in the min-
imum time possible given the constraint of drawworks
capacity and the specified maximum allowable
hoisting speed. Total hoisting time for all trips
planned for the well is shown in Fig. 6 for each
drawworks. These times account only for actual
hoisting time during trips. They do not include
other time requirements such as making and breaking
connections.
As indicated, there are significant differences
in the hoisting times when comparing among the three
sizes of drawworks. Using DW#3 in place of DW#l
would reasonably save one and a haii days of rig
time for the example well. If the well required
more trips than pLanned the time savings would be
even higher. Whether the difference is significant
enough to justify a Larger rig with the more pow-
erful drawworks would depend on the the relative
economics of the situation. Assuming that there was
a difference of $1,000 per day in the cost of a rig
with the DW#3 and a rig having DW#l, a 65 day well
with operations costing $25,000 per day would almost
justify a rig having DW#3 drawworks due to reduc-
tions in hoisting time alone. ALternatively, Less
expensive daily operations might be able to economi-
 13480 J. F. BRETT AND D. L. YODER
tally justify the smaller rig even with the
increased hoisting time. In this example the ESD
has helped the planner place an economic value on
each of the three drawworks. Finally, it should be
pointed out that different conditions, such as well-
bore shape, or maximum allowable tripping speed
would alter the results of any study of this type.
Impact of a Top Drive
The ESD can be used to investigate the positive
effects of a top drive mechanism on drill string
drag. A second set of simulations was conducted
using the same hole conditions, drill string! and
drawworks that were used in the example above. How-
ever, instead of hoisting normally, the situation
was modeled where the rig was able to hoist and
rotate the string simultaneously. The ESD models
compound friction and can be used to quantify some
of the benefits of using a top drive mechanism. The
phenomena of compound friction explains how drag
is reduced while translating a rotating drillstring.
Fig. 8 presents the results of hoisting simula-
tions identical to those in the example above with
the exception that the drill string was rotating at
40 RPM while it was being hoisted. The ESD pred-
icted that the rotation would reduce the maximum
hookioad from 5i5K co 4iflKpounds at i5,800 feet.
The drag was aLso reduced by lower amounts in dif-
ferent parts of the hole. This reduced drag pro-
vided the benefit of reduced hoisting times. For
the three test drawworks the hoisting times were
reduced by 11.2 hours for DW#l~ 9.4 hours for DW#2s
.A ?*g ~Q~~~ fQ~ ~w#3,
.1..-
Top drives can also provide advantages of
drilling 90 feet at a time, promoting hole cleaning,
and facilitating reaming. ( The ESD can help quan-
tify these advantages with similar simulations).
Any benefits gained by using such a mechanism have
to be weighted againat cost and availability fac-
tors. The important point is that use of a detailed
engineering simulator allows quick determination of
the effects of equipment changes on rig operations.
Sizing a Power Generation System
For the rig finally chosen in the example
above, it would be necessary to insure that suffi-
cient power and torque could be delivered to the
rotary tabLe while drilLing. Significant torque
would expected in a welL of this type, and the ESD
can be used to predict the value of the torque whiLe
drilLing.89 These downhole predictions are coupLed
with the rig surface modeLs so that the user can
eaaily determine if the rig in question can meet the
anticipated downhole drilling requirements.
While drilling the above mentioned 12-1/4 in.
hole at 15,800 feet, the simulator predicted total
rig power of approximately 2340 horsepower with a
rotary load of 590 horsepower. Table 3 provides
detaiLed information. The ESD also predicted that
the torque required while drilling waa 33,000 ft-Lb.
This large torque couLd not be delivered by the L500
horsepower drawworks, and the 2000 horsepower draw-
works is marginal.. The decision must be made to go
with the larger rig.
5
At this point, the large torque should also
wave a red fLag to a pLanner in the area of drilL
string design. 33,000 ft-lbs near the limit of the
recommended make up torque for any connection on 5
in. 19.5 lb/ft drilL pipe. Safety considerations
would dictate that consideration be given to alter-
nate plans. The ESD could be used to investigate
different drill string designs or operating condi-
tions in an effort to reduce the required torque.
8ecause the simulator provides the capability of
actually driLling under a proposed environment, the
user can study the effect on torque of
weight-on-bit, rotary speed, string design, friction
reducing agents, aluminum drill pipe, different well
paths, and unplanned dogLegs.
Extending the Depth Rating of a Rig with Smaller
@
As a finaL example, consider a situation where
it would be desirable to extend the depth rating of
an 8,000 foot rig to 12,000 feet. For this example
a rig with a 650 HP drawworks, a 300,000 lb. mast,
and an 600 HP mud pump is nominally rated to 8,000
feet when using 4-1/2 in. drill pipe. Simple calcu-
lations show that if 3-1/2 in. drillpipe is used to
in pLace of the 4-1/2 in. string, then the hookload
expected for a 12,000 ft. string would be within
the nominal capabilities of the drawworks and mast.
If unusuaL conditions were expected or directional
work were to induce considerable drag, then a simu-
lator study might be necessary to determine the fea-
sibility of using the rig and 3-1/2 in. drill pipe
to drill to 12,000 feet. However, if the rig were
t~ I.a..ea~
= U.=u for ~leer~y.ra*F+eslw-l1c
.e,...-e..---., ~~.~rius
.
hoisting system would adequately meet the need. The
3-L/2 in. pipe would allow the small rig to extend
its depth rating to 12,000 feet.
It is the intention of this study to consider
the possibility of using this depth extended rig to
drill a series of development wells with 8-1/2 in.
hole from 8,000 to 11,500 feet. The main questions
left to be answered are: what is the limiting
effect of the 3-1/2 in. pipe on the available bit
hydraulics? and; what is the economic impact of the
reduced hydraulics on drilling between 8,000 and
11,500 feet? The ESD was used to compare the effec-
tiveness of the depth extended rig with what couLd
be expected from a normaL 13,800 foot rig through
a set of simulations. Table 4 presents a summary of
the capabilities of the two rigs.
~he rnnahilities
--r--------- of both driLling rigs were
modeled, and the driLLing environment of the pro-
posed development area was simulated b,{ the con-
struction of a Geologic Drilling Log. A series of
preliminary shulations used this log (with the
ESDS enetration rate and hydraulics
modelsY1$2$3) to optimize the drilling of the
interval from 8,000 to 11,500 feet. Table 5 shows
the results of these simulations which provided the
operating conditions used for the evaluation of the
depth extended drilling rig.
After the preliminary simulations helped deter-
mine the operating conditions to be used, the ESD
was used to directly compare the effectiveness of
the depth extended ilg with the larger rig. The
same geologic Interval was driiled with both rigs
from 8000 to 11,500 feet. The same bit types, mud
properties, and solids control practices were used
for both simulations. The only difference was that
the smaller rig was able to average 2.5 hydraulic
horsepower per square inch (HHPSI) through the
interval, while the Larger rig was able to maintain
an average of 3.9 HHPSI. Because of this difference
in hydraulics, the ESD predicted that the smalLer
rig would require 250 rotating hours, 5 bits, and 14
days to drill the interval, while the larger rig
could drill the interval in 220 hours, 4 bits, and
12 days. Table 6 presents these results in detail.
The attractiveness of deciding in favor of the
smaller rig would depend on the relative costs of
the daily operations of the two rigs, and on the
effectiveness of the two rigs in drilling the hole
to 8,000 feet. A second set of simulations could
predict the costs of drilling the first 8,000 feet,
and a planner could assign a bottom line cost to
each rig. A well planner could also use the
existing information to quickly show that, in this
situation, it would be possible to use this partic-
ular depth extended rig to drill to 11,500 feet
without drastic reductions in performance. Data
show that reductions in penetration rate of 14%
could be expected by using the 3-1/2 in. drill pipe
at depth. Having defined the real costs of the
alternatives, planners could calculate a bottom Line
value of for each piece of rig equipment.
It should be emphasized that the the results of
this simulation depend heavily on the specific situ-
ation and would be different if the rig capabili-
ties, the geology, or the proposed operating
conditions were changed. The example does not pro-
vide the baais for a blanket recommendation pro-
moting smaller (or larger) rigs. It does, however,
demonstrate the ESDS capability of rating the eco-
nomic performance of different rigs in the context
of the actual drilling problem at hand. Existing
methods of evaluating rig performance are helpful,
but they depend on the planner having access to his-
toric inf~rmation about rig performance. 14 Usually,
this data is available onl~ if the rig has already
been under contract far sciiie
time. AS a nul~-
.---., Che
methods do not lend themselves to evaluating rigs
that have not been recently under contract by the
operator faced with the choice. They also do not
help planners rate the capabilities of rigs for well
programs different from those for which performance
data is available. Since the ESD allows planners to
test the performance of rigs in drilling conditions
very similar to those actually anticipated, and
because the predictions are based on physical meas-
urements of rig capabilities, the ESD can give plan-
ners insight into rig performance without detailed
historical rig performance data. Detailed simula-
tion can be used a basis for improving drilling
plans and rig design.
SUMUARY
One real value of detailed simulation is that
it allows planners to compare the best estimates of
performance and costs of drill equipment or oper-
ating plans. Planners can build a cost index for
Fk.=;-n.-r~e,.la~~i~uation
-*
-=..Y--------- and weigh the benefit of
the possible alternatives. They no longer must rely
on historical data to make informed decisions
regarding rig selection. Before a contract is let
it is possible to examine the particular capabili-
ties of different rigs in a systematic, technically
grounded, and easy way. The chances of selecting
the proper equipment for the proper job are
increased.
The ESD is still under development with additions of
floating vessel dynamics expected soon. Only a por-
tion of its future capability is described here.
REFERENCES
1. Millheim, K. K., and Huggins, R. L., The Engi-
neering Simulator for Drilling (Part 1), SPE
Paper 12075 presented at the 58th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in
San Francisco, CA, October 5-8, 1983.
2. Millheim, K. K., and Huggins, R. L., The Engi-
neering Simulator for Drilling (part 2), SPE
Paper 12010 presented at the 58th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in
San Francisco, CA, October 5-8, 1983.
3. Millheim, K. K., The Role of the Simulator in
Drilling Operations, SPE Paper 11170 presented
at the 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME held in New Orleans, LA, Sep-
tember 26-29, 1982.
4. Brett, J. F., and Summers, M. A.,, Planning and
Practical Problem Solving Using an tm~~ineering
Simulator for Drillinq, SPE Pape~r 1jLu6
-- pre-
sented at the 59th Annual1 Fall Technical- Cnn-
----
ference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in Houston,
TX, September 16-19, 1984.
5. Keynoifis,w. ii.,Economic Analysis of Briiling
Plans and Contractors using an Engineering Sim-
ulator for Drillin IADC/SPE Paper 13466 pre-
sented at the IADC PE Drilling Conference held
in New OrLeans, Louisiana, March 6-8, 1985.
6. Skidmore, D. B., and Andersen, C. T., Solids
Control Analysis and Design Using an E-
neering Simulator for Drilling, IADC/SPE Paper
13438 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Con-
ference held in New Orleans, Louisiana,March
6-8, 1985.
7. Millheim, K. K., Jordan, S., and Ritter, C. J.,
Bottom-Hole Assembly Analysis Using the
Finite-Element Method, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1978) 265-274.
8. Johancsik, C. A., Friesen, D. B., and Dawson,
-- -
R., Torque and Drag in Directional Well~
Prediction and Measurement, J. Pet. Tech.
(Jun. 1984) 987-992.
 13480 J. F. BRETT AND D. L. YODER 7

.
DC MOTOR PARAMETERS
9. Warren, T. M., Factors Affec:ing Torque for a
J. pet. ~Sc& (SePt 11384)
Roller Cone Bit, - Typical
1500-1507. Description Units
. Value

0. Onyia, E. O., GeoLogy Drilling Log (GDL) - A Efficiency 0.95

Computer Database System for Drilling Simula- SCR controller internal
tion, SPE Paper 13113 presented at the 59th current limit amps 1500.0
~aL Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition Backvoltage constant amp-ohms 0.0
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME Controller proportional gain amps 12.0
held in Houston, TX, September 16-19> 1984 Controller integral gain amp/see 1.0
Motor constant ft-lb/amp 4.0
Il. Warren, T. M., Drilling Model for Soft Forma- Inductance henry 0.03
tion Bits, J. pet. Tech. (Jun. 1981) 963-970 Power factor 0.6
Motor resistance ohms 0.10
!!The~ffac~
-..-..
L2. Warren, T. M., and winters, M. ~., .M8XF.ctcr speed radjsec 120.0
of Nozzle Diameter on Jet Impact for a Tricone Motor inertia slug-ft2 75.0
Bit, SOC. pet. Egnr. J. (Feb. 1984) 9-18.
HOIST PARAMETERS
13. Millheim, K. K., and Tulga, s.> Si~lat~~e f
the Wellbore While Drilling, Including Typical
Effects Gf Fluid Influences and Losses and Pipe Description Units Value
Washouts, SPE Paper 11057 presented at the 57th
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition Hoist efficiency 0.84
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME Weight of block lbf 35000.0
held in New Orleans, LA, September 26-29, 1982. Maximum hoisting height ft L1O.O
Length of elevators ft 3.0
14. SheikhoLeslami, B. A., MilLer, J. D.> and Rig floor height ft 43.0
Strong, R. E., A Practical Method for Evalu-
ating Rig Performance,~J. Pet. Tech. (Mar. MUD PUMP PARAMETERS
1984) 489-494.
Typical
APPENDIX Description Units Value

DRAWORKS PARAMETERS Number of chains driving the pump - 3.0

Suction pressure at which cavi-
Typical tation begins lbf/ft2 0.0
Description Units Value Strength of individual chain lbf 15000.0
Chain wear factor 1.7 E-13
Air pressure to clutches Lbf/ft2 14400.0 Diameter of sprocket on pump ft 1.0
Maximum torque from electric Gear ratio - motor to pump 10.0
brake ft/lbf 50000.0 Maximum input power to pump ft-lbf/s 400000.0
Diameter of countershaft clutch ft 3.0 Pump mechanical efficiency 0.9
Inner diameter of drum clutch ft 3.0 Pump mechanical wear factor 0.1
Outer diameter of drum clutch ft 4.0 Wear constant - normal conditions - 1.3 E-13
Diameter of cathead ft 2.0 Pump piston diameter ft 0.5
Drum diameter ft 3.0 Ratio of rod Length to stroke 3.0
Diameter of hand brake ft 4.8 Suction pressure below which
Diameter of main clutch ft 3.0 efficiency is reduced lbf/ft3 0.0
Efficiency to cathead 0.98 Pump stroke ft 1.0
Efficiency to high drum 0.98 Initial Volumetric efficiency 0.95
Efficiency to low drum 0.98 Number of chains or rotary drive - 3.0
Efficiency to main clutch 0.96 Strength of one chain lbf 15000.0
Gear ratio - output shaft to Chain wear factor 3E-12
drum shaft-Low 0.223 Diameter of rotary drive sprocket ft 1.0
Gear ratio - Low drum to cathead - 1.733 Gear ratio - Low speed 10.0
Gear ratio - output shaft to drum Gear ratio - high speed 5.0
shaft-high 0.476 Power rating for table ft-lbf/sec 500000.0
Gear ratio - motor to output Rotary wear factor 3E-12
shaft - high 0.542
Gear ratio - motor to output TANK PARAMETERS
shaft - Low 0.406
RPM at which electric brake Typical
torque Levels RPM 5.0 Description Units Value
Coefficient of friction for brake - 0.6
Coefficient of friction for clutch - 3.0 Tank height in 96
Width of countershaft clutch ft 0.4 Tank length in 360
Width of main clutch ft 0.4 Tank width in 120

I
.-.
 WE OF THE ENGINEERING SIMULATOR FOR DRILLING FOR 13480
EVALUATING AND DESIGNINGDRILLING RIGS

COMPAR~ENT PARAMETERS
Typical
Units Value
Description
in. 90
Height of partition 84
in.
Height of weir
in. 12
Height of equalization valve in2 LOO
Area of equalization vaLve 120
in.
Length of compartment 2
60
in
Area of dump door
ftz 100
Area of compartment base

CENTRIFUGAL PUMP PWETERS

tulr, ~ ~ ~
Description
in. 10.0
[repellerdiameter
in. 6.0
Suction size
in. 5.0
Discharge size ~.~
ft
Suction height
ft 2.0
pump height
ft 10.0
Device height fj.~
i~,.
Suction pipe diameter 5.0
in.
Discharge pipe diameter 10.0
ft
Effective Length of suction line 10.0
-r J:--l....--
I <na
L A..-
fc
Effective length or UL5U1-.E= 0.0004
Roughness factor for discharge line ft 0.0004
Roughness factor for suction line ft
Coefficients for pump head equation -
Coefficients for pump power
equation (hp)

HOTOR PARAMETERS
Typical
Units Value
Description
volts 440.0
Motor suppLy voltage 30.0
hp
Motor horsepower rating 0.95
Motor efficiency
rpm 1750.0
Motor speed

DIESEL/GENERliTORP-ETERS
TypicaL
Units Value
Description
hp 1200.0
Engine power rating
Fuel consumption equation
coefficients
Fuel consumption equation
coefficients
KU 820.0
Generator KW rating 1025.0
KVA
Generator KVA rating
Performance equation coefficients -

o
DC MOTORS WELL CONTROL
Series Accumulators
Parallel Blowout Reventors
Choke Manifold
SCR CONTROLLER DRAWWORKS
MUD SYSTEM
DEPTH #1 #2 #3
DRAWWORKS Tanks System
Transmission Fluid Mixing 4000 45 sec. 41 sec. 28 Sec.
clutches Fluid Routing
8000 69 Sec. 60 Sec. 39 sec.
Mechanical Brakes Shale Shakers
Electric Brake Hydrocyclone 15000 106 Sec. 90 sec. 64 Sec.
Automatic Driller Centrifuge
Centrifugal Pumps
TM Speed Was Only Allowed After Casing Was Set At 6800.
HOISTING SYSTEM
Blocks and Line MUD IPUMPS
Movement Algorithm
DIESEL ENGINES Table 2
ROTARY SYSTEM T- Required To Hoist One Stand
Rotary Table AC GENERATORS
Movement Algorithm
POWER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK

8,000 FT. RATED RIG

Tabla 1
ESD Modalled Rii Equipment MAST 300,000 LBS. WITH 8 UNES

DRAWWORKS 650 H.P.

MUD PUMP 800 H.P., 3000 psi MAX. DISCHARGE

13,800 tT. RATED RIG

ITEM POWER CONSUMPTION
.
MAST 410,000 LBS. WITH 10 UNES
ROTARY TABLE 590 H.PI.
1340 H.P. DRAWWORKS 950 H.P.
MUD PUMPS
SOUDS CONTROL SYSTEM 260 H.P. MUD PUMP 2 ea.-53O H.P.; 3800 psi MAX. DISCHARGE
MISCELLANEOUS 154 H.P.
.
2344 H.P.

Table 4
Rii Capability Sumrnnafy
 DRILL STRING

SmallRig 3-1 /2, 13.3lb/ft Drill Pipe

Big Rig 4-1/2, 16.6lb/ft IMll Pipe
600 of 6-1/2 x 2-1/2 D.C.
8.5 IADC 5-1-7 Bit
W.O.B. = 40,00Q RPM = 80

MUD PROPERTIES
DEPTH MUDWEIGHT PV
(Feet) (PP9) (CP) (lb/l&2 )

8,000-9,400 9.5-9.6 12 16

9,40&l 1,500 11.4-11.5 16 18

HYDRAULICS
SMALL RIG BIG RIG

Flow HydraulicHP Flow HydraulicHP

Depth Rate perin2 at Oepth Rste perin2at
(Feet) Jats (GPM) en (Feet) Jets (GPM) Bit

8,000 0-11-11 250 3.8 8,000 0-12-12 320 4.7
9,000 0-11-11 240 3.5 9,000 0-13-14 320 3.7
9,500 0-11-12 230 2.8 9,500 0-14-14 320 3.7
10,500 0-12-12 230 2.5 <n El-m
W,.luu &f+~A ~~o 3.7
Il,ooo 0-12-13 230 2.2 Il,ooo 0-14-14 320 3.7

Table 5
Operating Conditions Summary

SMALL RIG

AVERAGE
FLow PENETRATION
BIT DEPTH RATE ROTATING
NUMBER mm (GPM) HOURS I%:R
.JE=
8,000-9,309 0-11-11 250 59.7 21.9
i 9,309-10,000 0-11-12 228 62.7 11.0
3 10,000-10,601 0-11-12 226 58.9 10.2
4 10,601-11,274 0-12-12 223 43.8 15.4
5 11,274-11,500 0-12-13 230 25.2 8.9
250.1

LARGER RIG

AVERAGE
FLOW PENETRATION
BIT OEPTH RATE ROTATING RATE
NUMBER (Em) JETS In%)
(Ur UnlIqs
,,. ., FTI!4R
.
1 8,000-9,363 0-12-12 320 59.1 23.0
9,383-10,055 0-14-14 318 60.2 11.5
: 10,055-10,892 0-14-14 320 58.6 11.25
4 10,892-11,500 0-14-14 320 44.1 18.3
220

Tabia 6
Comparison of DrillingIlrnas

~ 1.3400
RIG
I
SELECTHM OPERATING
PARAMETERS

LM.LINGPROCESS
MOOELS

Fb, 1-S,mulator kmctionality

CCt4TRW CO?4STRNTS CLUTCH DATA

ELECTRICAL CEAR RAT10S
CHARACTERISTICS BRAKE OIMENSIWS COHPL NTS MEICHTS
PWER LIMITATIONS ~UM OIPFSNSIONS

YE
~+rvE
~ET
i
I uSER SELECTS FROM R
LIST OF EXISTINC RICs I

CE R

c+&&&
RIC FLOOR

A h-i=+=+
OPERRTOR
NR$S

HOOKLORO

+,+, [ p+pkl~+,
ENC1NES GENERATORS MOTORS CONFI CURAT10N
I

FQ. 2-Rq select.. Pwsa

E!!!EIF!IIE Fb. 3-Dfilllw rig catmdly

_5y7=-, my-

OPERRTOR CONTROLS

auroh arm

I 4 t

~ 1348.0
 HORIZONTALPLAN VIEW
VERTICAL
SECTION SCALE 1 = 1210.00
NORTH (1000 FT.) /

..A-LAAA.. I.J..4J.JA!J!J...J-J-
12345678910
DISPLACEMENT (1000FT.) EAsT(1OOOFT.)

IW. 5-Drawwks eelechn example wellbore.

901
901 03
80
{ 71.8

70
TIME
TIME (HOURS1
(HOURS) 60

50

40

30
1 2 3

0RAHW3RKS

F@ 7-H01stin9 tirma with tq) drive.

Fb.o-ToM hoistimJ times.