Proceedings of the Twenty-first (2011) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

Maui, Hawaii, USA, June 19-24, 2011

Copyright 2011 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-96-8 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set); www.isope.org

Investigation of Drill Bit Heave Response to Drill Rig Heave Excitation

Liqing Huang, Galin V. Tahchiev and Yusong Cao
MARINTEK USA Inc
Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT

vessels.

Managing bottom hole pressures within acceptable limits when drilling

from a floating drill rig has become one of the facing challenges for the
Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) in deep waters. When adding a new
segment to the drill string, the drill string is set on the slips and the
entire drill string moves vertically with the heave of the rig. This can
cause high surge and swab pressures in the borehole and may lead to
lost circulation of drilling fluid or an influx of formation fluid. The drill
string is very long (up to several thousand meters) and is surrounded by
the drilling fluid. In addition to the material properties of the drill
string, the frictional drag along the string, as well as the reaction of the
fluid to the motion of the drill bit at the borehole, will have significant
influence on the vertical motion response of the drill bit to the heave of
the drill rig. This paper presents an investigation on the vertical motion
of the drill bit to the heave motion of the floating drill rig using a
simplified elastic string model. The computer software RIFLEX and
SIMO are employed in conducting the nonlinear dynamic response
analysis of the drill string dynamic system and sensibility study of the
important factors (parameters) on the response of the drill string. The
drill bit heave Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) curves obtained
would reveal the relation between the motion of the drill bit and the
heave motion of the floating rig.

Maintaining constant bottom hole pressure or managing bottom hole

pressure within acceptable limits when drilling from a floating rig (such
as a semi-submersible rig) is more complicated due to the heave caused
by ocean waves. During drilling and tripping mode the heave
compensators located on these rigs control the altitude of the drill
string. However, during connections, the drill string is set on the slips
and the entire drill string moves vertically with the heave of the rig.
This can cause high pressure surge and swab at the borehole, which
will affect the bottom hole pressure and may in turn lead to lost
circulation or an influx of formation fluid (Sensoy and Roy, 2009;
Sylty, 2008). The faster the drill string moves with the drill rig, the
higher the surge and swab pressure will be (refer to APPENDIX). The
motion of the drill string depends on the frequency and amplitude of the
heave motion of the drill rig, the material properties of the drill string,
the frictional drag along the string, the viscosity of the drill fluid, as
well as the reaction of the fluid to the motion of the drill bit at the
borehole.

INTRODUCTION

The heave caused by ocean waves that have an average time period of
more than 5 seconds, creates surge/swab pressure in wellbore while the
drill string is sitting on the slips (Grusso, 1972). Studies (Wagner et al.,
1993) show that pulling the pipe with a velocity of 0.5 m/s creates swab
effect of 150 300 psi (1034 2068 kPa) depending on the Bottom
Hole Assembly (BHA), casing, and drilling fluid configuration. For
example, pressure surge due to heave effects ranging between 75 150
psi (517 1034 kPa) depending on the BHA and casing sizes has been
observed in Kristin Deepwater Field in North Sea (Solvang et al.,
2008). Especially, harsh weather conditions in the North Sea amplify
the heave effects on wellbore dynamics.

Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) and early kick detection applications

have been successfully applied on many onshore and offshore drilling
operations. In deepwater drilling and depleted reservoirs, one of the
main limitations is the narrow margin between pore and fracture
pressure gradients. MPD may be a solution to this but one of the
challenges faced in offshore managed pressure drilling operations,
especially when trying to hold constant bottom hole pressure, and also
in early kick detection operations is the heave motion of the floating

The objective of this study is to conduct an investigation on the vertical

motion of the drill bit to the heave motion of the floating drilling rig
using a simplified model of a vertical drill string. The heave RAO
curves of the drill bit obtained from the dynamic analysis of the drill
string would provide the information on the relation between the
motion of the drill bit and the heave motion of the floating rig. The
motion information can then be used by the drilling contractors for
more accurate determination of the surge and swab pressure due to the

KEY WORDS: Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD); surge and swab

pressures; drill bit motion; floating drill rig; Finite Element Method
(FEM); heave Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) curve; parametric
study.

42

horizontally, so that they are only allowed to move in the vertical

direction;

heave motion of the rig, ultimately having a better control of

maintaining the bottom hole pressure.

(8) The hydrodynamic force by the drill fluid on the drill string in the
axial direction is assumed to be composed of two components, one is
proportional to the square of the local vertical velocity of the string and
the other one is proportional to the vertical acceleration. The
hydrodynamic force can be expressed as,
Fz (s ) = Cd z& 2 (s ) + Ca &z&(s )
(1)

SOFTWARE
The nonlinear dynamic response analysis of the drill string is performed
by using the commercially available computer software: RIFLEX, a
time domain simulation program for static and dynamic analysis of
slender marine structures, such as mooring lines, umbilicals, and also
for steel pipelines and conventional risers; SIMO, a time domain
simulation program for dynamic analysis of motions and stationkeeping behavior of complex systems of floating vessels and suspended
loads. Coupled analysis (Stansberg, 1999) is performed following a
procedure using the software above. Compared to traditional separated
two-step global response analyses of floating structures, the coupled
analysis introduces the total loads (dynamics included) from the slender
body members (mooring lines/risers) as a force directly into the large
body model of the floater in the time domain. The forces on the floater
include (among others) frequency dependant 1st and 2nd order wave
forces. In this way, the full interaction is taken into account, and
accurate floater motions and dynamic loads in the mooring lines and
risers are obtained simultaneously.

where z& (s ) is the vertical velocity of a point on the string at location s

(distance from the top of the string) and &z&(s ) is the vertical
acceleration of the point. Cd and Ca are referred as drag coefficient
and added-mass coefficient, respectively.

(9) The load on the drill bit by the fluid Fbz can be decomposed and
expressed as,
Fbz = k (zb zbo ) Bb z&b Ab &z&b
(2)
where zb is the vertical position of the drill bit and zbo is the vertical
position of the drill bit at the static equilibrium. The first term
represents the hydrostatic restoring force (to be further explained later),
the second term is the damping force and the third term is the inertial
force. k , Bb and Ab are referred as the hydrostatic stiffness, damping,
and added mass, respectively, for the drill bit.

NUMERICAL MODELING

The assumptions above are only applied to the vertical drilling cases or
close to vertical (slightly inclined) drilling cases. For curved drilling,
some of the assumptions need to be lifted, and more sophisticated
model has to be used.

Modeling Assumptions
For the present investigation of the drill bit motion, the whole drill
string dynamic system is simplified as a vertical slender elastic rod with
a lumped point mass (representing the BHA) attached to the bottom of
the rod. The rod is subjected to a prescribed harmonic heave excitation
at the top. The following assumptions and modeling are used

FEM Models
Based on the assumptions above, three FEM models from the simplest
to the most complicated (shown in Fig. 1) are introduced and compared
in this study: (a) One vertical drill string with distributed buoyancy
force, (b) One vertical drill string with concentrated buoyancy force at
the bottom end, (c) One vertical drill string with pipe-in-pipe contact
with the well casing and concentrated buoyancy force at the bottom
end.

(1) Vertical drilling is considered. The slightly curved drill string and
well casing can be stretched to be vertically straight without
introducing additional bending moments and torque, and the drill string
initially stays at the central axis of the well casing without any pipe-inpipe contact;
(2) The strengthening effect of the connecting joints of the drill string is
small and can be neglected and the whole drill string can be simplified
as a long homogeneous pipe with the same geometric shape and
material properties;

MODEL (a)
In MODEL (a), the whole drill string/ BHA system is totally
submerged in the drilling fluid. The concept of weight in fluid (=
weight in air the buoyancy) is used to account for the hydrostatic load
on the string.

(3) The BHA at the bottom of the drill string can be simplified as a
lumped point mass without the geometry shape. As the drill bit moves,
the axial load on the drill bit due to the drilling fluid (mud) pressure
change is applied;

MODEL (b)
In MODEL (b), the load at the bottom of the drill bit due to the
hydrostatic pressure is modeled as a concentrated force using a Global
Spring or External Force. This force varies linearly with the depth of
the drill bit. It acts like a linear spring providing a restoring force to the
motion of the drill bit. Note that due to the modeling of the
concentrated buoyancy force at the drill bit, the true weight (weight in
air) rather than the weight in fluid should be used in the modeling of the
whole drill string dynamic system. The schematic diagrams for the two
methods are shown in Fig. 2.

(4) The well casing can also be simplified to a homogeneous pipe with
a relatively thicker pipe wall. The pipe is assumed to have the same
material properties as the drill string;
(5) The drill string and the well casing are assumed being totally
submerged in the drilling fluid (mud), and the interior of the drill string
is also filled with the drilling fluid;
(6) The internal drilling fluid (mud) within the drill string is assumed to
move with the same velocity/acceleration as the drill string, so that the
internal fluid is modeled as additional mass attached to the drill string;
(7) Both ends of the drill string and the well casing are constrained

43

Modeling in air
Depthdependent
Pressure
p = gA

(RIFLEX
Default
Buoyancy
Model)

(RIFLEX/SIMO
Coupling with
External
Functions)

dF = pdz

Concentrated
Buoyancy
Force,
FB = gAL

MODEL (a)

MODEL (b)

Pipe-in-pipe
Contact

Equivalent system

Concentrated
Buoyancy
Force,
FB = gAL

Global spring
force, Fs

External
force, Fe

MODEL (c)

Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of the two equivalent systems for MODEL

(b)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of the three FEM models

The restoring force (Fs) in the Global Spring is expressed as:

(3)
Fs = k ( z z0 ) Fs 0
where z and z0 are the current depth and initial depth of the drill bit
respectively, Fs0 the initial force of the Global Spring.

SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE
Sample Data
The MPD design data and the drill string properties used for the present
numerical study as listed in Table 1 and Table 2 are close to those of
some practical vertical drilling well located in Norwegian North Sea.

The External Force (Fe) is expressed as:

(4)
Fe = gA( z z0 ) gAz0
where is the density of the drilling fluid (mud), g the acceleration of
gravity, and A the cross-section area of the drill string including the
mud inside.

Table 1. MPD design data

For the two equivalent systems, we have the spring stiffness (k) and
initial force (Fs0) for the Global Spring as follows:
(5)
k = gA
(6)
Fs 0 = gAz0

Drill 8 1/2" MPD

Activity:
Water Depth:
190 m
Bit Depth:
5215.42 m
Water Density:
1025 Kg/m^3
Air Density:
1.205 Kg/m^3
Steel Density:
7874 Kg/m^3
Steel Elastic Modulus: 2.10E+11 Pa
Steel Shear Modulus: 7.93E+10 Pa
CsK Formate mud
Drilling Fluid:
Mud Density:
1820 Kg/m^3
Dynamic Viscosity: 7.000E-03 Pa.s
Kinematic Viscosity: 3.846E-06 m^2/s
Pump Pressure: 2.450E+07 Pa
Bit Pressure Loss: 9.972E+06 Pa
Bit Pressure: 1.453E+07 Pa
Flow Rate: 2.013E-02 m^3/s

Note that the hydrodynamic parameters for MODEL (b) modeled in air
should be times of those for MODEL (a) modeled in drilling fluid,
and the specific ratio is defined as:

(7)
=
air
MODEL (c)
In Model (c), the well casing is also modeled as one ideal pipe (slave
pipe) outside the drill string (master pipe). The axial friction coefficient
between the drill string and well casing is set to zero in order to have an
equivalent model as the previous two simplified models. Thus, the well
casing in MODEL (c) can only constrain the lateral motion of the drill
string and has no effect on the heave motion of the drill string. Further,
the FEM model (c) could be extended to include the swab and surge
pressure model to conduct the dynamic-hydraulic coupled analysis
under the real sea states.

Static Analysis
In the static analysis, the distributed buoyancy force and effective
tension along the length of the drill string are calculated at the static
equilibrium state. Since the static results of the three equivalent models
are the same, only MODEL (a) is shown in Fig. 3 for brevity.

44

minimum dynamic displacements. The RAO of the drill bit could

further be calculated by dividing the average dynamic amplitude by the
prescribed heave amplitude. Table 3 summaries the maximum,
minimum and average values of heave amplitude and RAO of the drill
bit. The RAO versus frequency curve of the drill bit is plotted in Fig. 7.

Table 2. Drill string properties

mm
mm
mm
Kg/m^3
mm

Displ z-dir INODE 1

Displ z-dir INODE 1

Kg
Kg
KN/(m/s)2
KN
KN/m

0.3
0.2
Amplitude

Drill Pipe:
Outer Diameter:
127.00
Inner Diameter:
108.61
Thickness:
18.39
Equivalent Density:
13.483
Hydrodynamic Diameter:
127.000
BHA
Total Mass: 7.65E+04
Vertical Added Mass: 2.35E+03
Vertical Drag Coefficient:
8.33E-02
Hydrostatic Force: 6.64E+02
Global Spring Stiffness:
3.68E-01
Well Casing
Outer Diameter:
716.00
Inner Diameter:
216.00
Thickness:
500.00
Equivalent Density:
8.865
Hydrodynamic Diameter:
716.000

mm
mm
mm
Kg/m^3
mm

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

T ime

S tatic forces, line 1

After load step 20

Fig. 4. Prescribed harmonic heave excitation applied at the top end for
MODEL (a)

EFF. TENSION
2600
2400

Displ z-dir INODE2711

Displ z-dir INODE2711

2000
1800

0.3

1600

0.2

1400

Amplitude

Effective tension [KN]

2200

1200
1000
800
600

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

-0.3

Line length [M]

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

T ime

Fig. 3. Effective tension along line length at static equilibrium state for
MODEL (a)

Fig. 5. Dynamic displacement time history at drill bit for MODEL (a)

Dynamic Analysis

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 1 Hz )
0.1

In the dynamic analysis, a prescribed harmonic heave excitation with

amplitude of 0.2 m and frequency of 0.01 Hz (shown in Fig. 4) is
applied to the top of the drill string/ BHA system. Fig. 5 shows the
dynamic response time histories at the drill bit for MODEL (a).

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.08
0.06

Amplitude (m)

0.04

Time histories of the drill bit motion were obtained using MODEL (a)
for various excitation frequencies ranging from 0.01Hz to 1 Hz with the
rig heave excitation amplitude fixed at 0.2m. The plots of the time
histories are shown in Fig. 6. The analyses were performed using
hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1. The value of Ca
(added-mass coefficient along the axial direction) is chosen empirically
based on the experimental results of circular cross-section riser and
mooring line, for the cross-section of drill pipes are usually circular,
they should have similar hydrodynamic parameters with circular crosssection riser and mooring line. The value of Cd (drag coefficient along
the axial direction) is randomly picked based on the following sensitive
study of hydrodynamic parameters. Ignoring the initial transient
response, the dynamic amplitude of the drill bit motion could be
calculated by the average of the absolute values of the maximum and

0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1

10

20

30
Time (s)

(a) f = 1 Hz

45

40

50

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.066667 Hz )

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.5 Hz )

0.4
Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.3

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.3
0.2

0.1

Amplitude (m)

Amplitude (m)

0.2

0
-0.1

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

-0.2

-0.4

-0.3
0

20

40

60

80

-0.5

100

100

200

300
Time (s)

Time (s)

(b) f = 0.5 Hz

400

500

600

(e) f = 0.066667 Hz

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.2 Hz )

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.05 Hz )

0.5
0.3

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.4
0.3

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.2

Amplitude (m)

Amplitude (m)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

0.1
0
-0.1

-0.2
-0.2

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

-0.3

50

100
Time (s)

150

200

100

200

(c) f = 0.2 Hz

300

400
500
Time (s)

600

700

800

(f) f = 0.05 Hz

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.1 Hz )

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.04 Hz )

0.8
0.3

Displ z-dir INODE2711

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.6
0.2

Amplitude (m)

Amplitude (m)

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

0
-0.1
-0.2

-0.6
-0.8

0.1

-0.3
0

50

100

150

200
250
Time (s)

300

350

400

200

400

600
Time (s)

(d) f = 0.1 Hz

(g) f = 0.04 Hz

46

800

1000

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.033333 Hz )

Table 3. Summary of nonlinear dynamic response analysis for MODEL

(a) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.3

Amplitude (m)

0.2

Case Amplitude Period Frequency Max Heave Min Heave Avg Amplitude
(m)
(sec)
(Hz)
(m)
(m)
(m)
1
0.20
1.00
1.000
0.073436
-0.07343
0.073434
2
0.20
2.00
0.500
0.233537
-0.23354
0.233537
3
0.20
5.00
0.200
0.305909
-0.30591
0.305909
4
0.20
10.00
0.100
0.428997
-0.429
0.428997
5
0.20
15.00
0.067
0.266323
-0.26633
0.266328
6
0.20
20.00
0.050
0.234462
-0.2344
0.234429
7
0.20
25.00
0.040
0.220892
-0.22083
0.220859
8
0.20
30.00
0.033
0.214856
-0.21521
0.215031
9
0.20
50.00
0.020
0.208822
-0.2084
0.208612
10
0.20
100.00
0.010
0.205784
-0.20425
0.205017

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

RAO
0.367171
1.167683
1.529544
2.144986
1.33164
1.172146
1.104296
1.075154
1.043062
1.025086

-0.3
0

200

400

600

800

Heave RAO of Drill Bit ( A = 0.2 m )

1000

2.2

Time (s)

INODE2711
2

(h) f = 0.033333 Hz

1.8
1.6

0.25

Heave RAO

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.02 Hz )
Displ z-dir INODE2711

Amplitude (m)

0.2

1.4
1.2
1

0.15

0.8

0.1

0.6

0.05

0.4

0.2
0

0.2

-0.05
-0.1

0.4
0.6
Frequency (Hz)

0.8

Fig. 7. RAO curve of drill bit for MODEL (a) with hydrodynamic
parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

-0.15
-0.2
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (s)

Table 4. The results summary of nonlinear dynamic response analysis

for MODEL (b) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

(i) f = 0.02 Hz

Case Amplitude Period Frequency Max Heave Min Heave Avg Amplitude
(m)
(sec)
(Hz)
(m)
(m)
(m)
1
0.20
1.00
1.000
0.245083
0.102581
0.071251
2
0.20
2.00
0.500
0.267472
-0.13517
0.201321
3
0.20
5.00
0.200
0.31431
-0.29728
0.305793
4
0.20
10.00
0.100
0.437225
-0.42019
0.428709
5
0.20
15.00
0.067
0.27468
-0.25765
0.266167
6
0.20
20.00
0.050
0.242854
-0.22577
0.23431
7
0.20
25.00
0.040
0.229177
-0.21209
0.220635
8
0.20
30.00
0.033
0.223107
-0.20638
0.214745
9
0.20
50.00
0.020
0.217033
-0.19955
0.20829
10
0.20
100.00
0.010
0.214332
-0.1956
0.204964

Dynamic Displacement of Drill Bit

( A = 0.2 m; f = 0.01 Hz )
0.25

Displ z-dir INODE2711

0.2

Amplitude (m)

0.15
0.1
0.05

RAO
0.356256
1.006603
1.528966
2.143545
1.330834
1.17155
1.103174
1.073726
1.041452
1.024819

0
Heave RAO of Drill Bit ( A = 0.2 m )

-0.05

2.2
INODE2710

-0.1

-0.15

1.8

-0.2

1.6

200

400

600

800

1000

Heave RAO

Time (s)

(j) f = 0.01 Hz
Fig. 6. Dynamic displacement time histories at the drill bit for MODEL
(a) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

The summary tables of the maximum, minimum and average values of

heave amplitude and RAO of the drill bit for MODEL (b) and MODEL
(c) are given in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. The heave RAO
versus frequency curves of the drill bit for MODEL (b) and MODEL
(c) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1 are plotted in
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 respectively.

0.2

0.4
0.6
Frequency (Hz)

0.8

Fig. 8. RAO curve of drill bit for MODEL (b) with hydrodynamic
parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

47

Heave Peak RAO of Drill Bit ( Ca = 0.1 )

Table 5. Summary of nonlinear dynamic response analysis for MODEL

(c) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

2.2
INODE2711

RAO

Heave Peak RAO

Case Amplitude Period Frequency Max Heave Min Heave Avg Amplitude
(m)
(sec)
(Hz)
(m)
(m)
(m)
1
0.20
1.00
1.000
0.86162
0.499181
0.181219
2
0.20
2.00
0.500
0.968792
0.431438
0.268677
3
0.20
5.00
0.200
0.314311
-0.29728
0.305793
4
0.20
10.00
0.100
0.437226
-0.42019
0.428709
5
0.20
15.00
0.067
0.27468
-0.25765
0.266167
6
0.20
20.00
0.050
0.242854
-0.22577
0.23431
7
0.20
25.00
0.040
0.229178
-0.21209
0.220635
8
0.20
30.00
0.033
0.223107
-0.20638
0.214745
9
0.20
50.00
0.020
0.217033
-0.19955
0.20829
10
0.20
100.00
0.010
0.214333
-0.1956
0.204964

0.906097
1.343383
1.528966
2.143544
1.330834
1.17155
1.103175
1.073726
1.041452
1.02482

Heave RAO of Drill Bit ( A = 0.2 m )

2.1

1.9

1.8
0

2.2
INODE2711

0.2

0.4

0.8

Fig. 10. Effect of drag coefficient on the heave peak RAO for MODEL
(a) with added-mass coefficient Ca = 0.1

1.8
Heave RAO

0.6
Cd

1.6
1.4

Heave excitation amplitude effect

1.2

In order to investigate the effect of the heave excitation amplitude on

the RAO curves, the heave excitation amplitude at the top of the drill
string for MODEL (a) is varied from 0.1 m to 5.0 m while fixing all the
other parameters. Table 7 shows the peak RAO values changes with the
varying heave excitation amplitude for the 18 cases. Fig. 11 indicates
that the peak RAO value decreases slowly from 2.15 to 1.42 with the
increasing of the heave excitation amplitude from 0.1 m to 5.0 m,
showing a strong nonlinearity of the system.

1
0.8
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Frequency (Hz)

0.8

Fig. 9. RAO curve of drill bit for MODEL (c) with hydrodynamic
parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

Sensitivity Study

CONCLUSIONS / DISCUSSIONS

Hydrodynamic parameter effect

In this preliminary study, a simplified analytical method is introduced

to investigate the heave response of the drill bit to the drill rig heave
excitation. In the numerical modeling, three FEM models are built to
conduct the nonlinear dynamic response analysis of the drill string
dynamic system; the sensitivity studies of some key parameters are also
conducted to obtain a series of the heave RAO curves of the drill bit.
As a result, several conclusions could be reached as follows:

In order to investigate the effect of the hydrodynamic parameter on the

RAO curves, the hydrodynamic coefficients for MODEL (a) are varied
while fixing the heave excitation amplitude and frequency at the top of
the drill string. It is known that the added mass coefficient can greatly
affect the heave peak frequency, while the drag coefficient has more
effect on the heave peak RAO value. Since the drag force is
proportional to the square of velocity, the effect of drag coefficient is
important to be investigated here. Table 6 shows the heave peak RAO
value changes with the varying drag coefficient for the 7 cases. As seen
in Table 6 and Fig. 10, the heave peak RAO value decreases from 2.15
to 1.84 as Cd increasing from 0.05 to 1.0, which indicates that the drag
coefficient plays a significant role in determining the heave peak RAO.

Table 7. Summary of heave excitation amplitude effect for MODEL (a)

with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1
Case Amplitude Period Freq. Max Heave Min Heave Avg Amplitude Peak RAO
(m)
(sec)
(Hz)
(m)
(m)
(m)
1
0.1
10.00 0.100 0.214993
-0.215
0.214995
2.149953
2
0.2
10.00 0.100 0.428997
-0.429
0.428997
2.144986
3
0.3
10.00 0.100 0.641585
-0.64159
0.641586
2.138619
4
0.4
10.00 0.100 0.851891
-0.85189
0.851892
2.12973
5
0.5
10.00 0.100 1.059039
-1.05904
1.059039
2.118079
6
0.6
10.00 0.100 1.262404
-1.26241
1.262405
2.104008
7
0.7
10.00 0.100 1.462913
-1.46291
1.462913
2.089875
8
0.8
10.00 0.100 1.658811
-1.65881
1.658811
2.073514
9
0.9
10.00 0.100 1.849855
-1.84986
1.849855
2.055395
10
1.0
10.00 0.100 2.037944
-2.03795
2.037945
2.037945
11
1.5
10.00 0.100 2.909868
-2.90987
2.909868
1.939912
12
2.0
10.00 0.100 3.685364
-3.68537
3.685364
1.842682
13
2.5
10.00 0.100
4.38026
-4.38026
4.38026
1.752104
14
3.0
10.00 0.100 5.012313
-5.01231
5.012313
1.670771
15
3.5
10.00 0.100
5.59272
-5.59272
5.592721
1.59792
16
4.0
10.00 0.100 6.129038
-6.12904
6.129039
1.53226
17
4.5
10.00 0.100 6.629865
-6.62987
6.629866
1.473303
18
5.0
10.00 0.100
7.10397
-7.10397
7.10397
1.420794

Table 6. Summary of the effects of the drag coefficient for MODEL (a)
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Amplitude
(m)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

Period
(sec)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00

Freq.
(Hz)
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100

Ca

Cd

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

0.05
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
1.00

Max Heave
(m)
0.429987
0.428997
0.425954
0.420825
0.414738
0.407643
0.368655

Min Heave
(m)
-0.43
-0.429
-0.42595
-0.42083
-0.41474
-0.40764
-0.36866

Avg Amplitude
(m)
0.429992
0.428997
0.425954
0.420826
0.414738
0.407644
0.368655

Peak RAO
2.14996
2.144986
2.129772
2.104128
2.073691
2.038218
1.843277

48

Heave Peak RAO of Drill Bit ( f = 0.1 Hz )

Solvang, S.A., et al. (2008). Evaluation Managed Pressure Drilling

Resolves Pressure Depletion Related Problems in the Development of
HPHT Kristin Field. SPE/IADC Conference Paper No. 113672,
January 2008.
Stansberg, C.T. (1999). VERIDEEP, Act. 2.1, Practical Procedure for
Coupled Analysis of Floating Offshore Structures. MARINTEK
(NORWAY) Report No. 513090.41.02, June 1999.
Sylty, S., et al. (2008). Highly Advanced Multi-Technical MPD
Concept Extends Achievable HPHT Targets in the North Sea, SPE
Conference Paper No. 114484, January 2008.
Wagner, R.R., Halal, A.S. and Goodman, M.A. (1993). Surge Field
Tests Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response. SPE/IADC Conference
Paper No. 25771, February 1993.

2.2

Heave Peak RAO

INODE2711
2

1.8

1.6

1.4
0

1
2
3
4
Heave Excitation Amplitude (m)

APPENDIX
Swab/Surge Pressures (Kelly, 2008)

Fig. 11. Effect of heave excitation amplitude on the heave peak RAO
for MODEL (a) with hydrodynamic parameters Ca = 0.1 and Cd = 0.1

The movement of the drill string when pulling out of the borehole
causes the pressure decrease on the bottom of the borehole due to the
friction between the movement of the pipe and the stationary drilling
mud. This is referred to as swab pressure, Pswab . The reverse is also
true, running in the borehole the pressure will increase due to the pipe
movement, this is called surge pressure, Psurge . The swab and surge

(a)The nonlinear dynamic response results obtained from the three

FEM models using the simplified method are quite close to each other,
which indicates that the distributed buoyancy model is accurate enough
to predict the dynamic responses of the concentrated buoyancy model
which has more physical meanings than the former.

pressure need to be control so the well does not form a kick or break
down the formation.

(b) The drag coefficient of the drill pipe plays a significant role in
determining the nonlinear dynamic response of the drill bits heave
motion to the drill rigs heave motion. Besides, the drill string dynamic
system shows strong nonlinearity in the relationship between the drill
rigs motion excitation and the drill bits motion response.

For a Newtonian fluid, the friction gradient caused by the pipe

movement using the slot flow approach to laminar flow can be derived
va 0.5v p
(a)
Pfsp =
1000 d h d p

The effect of the damping and added mass of the drill bit on the
dynamic response of the drill bit remains to be examined. In the future
work, a sensitivity study should be performed. The drag coefficients
and added-mass coefficients of the drill string, as well as the damping
and added mass of the drill bit, should be calibrated based on the
available test data to provide more accurate estimation of the drill bits
heave response. Additionally, the modeling should be extended for
analysis of curved drilling with centralizers inserted to analyze and
assess the real drilling operations.

)
)

where is the dynamic viscosity of the drilling fluid, va the flow

velocity of drilling fluid in the annulus of pipe, v p the velocity of drill
pipe in the hole, d h and d p the diameters of the hole and the drill pipe.
For the closed end pipe, the flow rate in the annulus is equal to the rate
of the fluid being displaced by the pipe
Qa =

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

va =

The authors sincerely thank Knut Steinar Bjrkevoll, senior scientist in

SINTEF Petroleum Research for providing the design data of the
example drill string and helping to build the numerical models.

d 2p v p

(b)

d 2p v p

(c)

d h2 d 2p

Substituting Eq. (c) into Eq. (a), we have

d2

v p 2 p 2 0.5
d d

p
h

Pfsp =
1000 d h d p

REFERENCES

(d)

Thus, for a specific drilling operation ( d h and d p are fixed), the

Grusso, J.A. (1972). An Analysis of Well Kicks on Off Shore Floating

Drilling Vessels, SPE Conference Paper No. 4134.
Kelly, M. Swab/Surge Pressures. http://infohost.nmt.edu/~petro/
faculty/Kelly/Swab.pdf
Sensoy, T. and Roy, A. (2009). Surge and Swab Effects due to the
Heave Motion of Floating Rigs. Draft report of Weatherford
International LTD, pp 1-3.

friction gradient is only depending on the dynamic viscosity of the

drilling fluid and the velocity of drill pipe in the hole. As long as the
dynamic motion of the drill string is known, the swab and surge
pressure can be accurately determined.

49