The methods disclosed herein incorporate the basic concepts and methodologies of a new general rock-bit interaction model useful in predicting and controlling drilling trajectories in directional (and deep vertical) wells. It accounts for the anisotropic drilling characteristics of both the formation and the bit. The model is developed in a 3-D geometry. Therefore, it is capable of predicting the walk tendency and the build-drop tendency of a given BHA (bottomhole assembly) under any drilling condition. The model can be used in the forward mode to predict the drilling direction; in the inverse mode to generate the rock and bit anisotrophy indices; and in the log-generation mode to generate drilling logs, such as a drilling dip log.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Field of the Invention 
     This invention relates, generally, to methods of predicting and controlling the drilling trajectory, in directional oil and gas wells, and specifically, to methods which provide a three-dimensional analysis of such a drilling trajectory, and the control of such trajectory, characterized by accounting for the anisotropic drilling characteristics of both the formation and the bit. 
     2. Description of the Prior Art 
     Many drillers have sometimes observed rather severe deviations. Deviation angles of up to 60° have sometimes been observed in supposedly vertical wells. Such phenomena were semi-qualitatively explained by several concepts, including the "miniature whipstock theory," which attributed them to the effect of different formation drillabilities. 
     A. Practices in the control of directional drilling 
     Improvements in our understanding of the deviation tendencies of various BHA's (Bottomhole Assembly) have come slowly. At the present, there is a heavy reliance on trial and error, though one can use any one of the following existing practices for directional control: 
     1. Prior experience and standard BHA types (building, dropping, or holding); This is the most common approach; 
     2. Bit side force as a qualitative measure of deviation tendency; 
     3. Resultant bit force direction as the actual drilling direction; 
     4. Borehole curvature that induces zero side force as the actual drilling curvature; and 
     5. Rock-bit interaction modeling to define the drilling direction. Additionally, one can use the following: 
     6. Bit axis direction as the projected drilling direction. Methods (2-6) require the use of a suitable BHA analysis program. 
     In method (1), a suitable type of BHA is selected for a depth region to match the planned borehole curvature, e.g., a building BHA for a building section of the borehole. Though simple, such an approach poses two problems. First, though BHA's do generally behave as expected in a straight hole, their drilling tendencies are strongly influenced by the borehole curvature and inclination, and, to a lesser extent, by the WOB (weight on bit). A "building" BHA will become a dropping assembly in a hole that builds at a sufficient curvature, and vice versa. Second, such a practice does not account for the effects of formation, borehole geometry, and operating conditions. As a result, what worked in one well or depth interval may not work in another. The consequence is that frequent correction runs are needed. 
     Method (2) is an improvement over method (1) in that it provides a semi-quantitative means of predicting the deviation tendency of a BHA. 
     Methods (3-6) provide a quantitative prediction of the actual drilling direction. They differ in how the actual drilling trajectory is defined by the known parameters, i.e., by how the "rock-bit interaction" is modeled. The degree of success of each such method lies in how well each model accounts for the relevant parameters affecting the drilling direction. Some of these methods are clearly inadequate because important parameters are neglected. 
     Due to diminishing world oil reserves, future exploration for fossil fuels will gradually shift to more difficult reservoirs, requiring deeper and/or offshore drilling. In either case, rig costs will be much higher than in conventional land drilling of vertical wells. Thus, more and more emphasis will be placed on directional drilling. At the same time, the increased cost of such rigs has also heightened the need to reduce drilling costs (including the tripping time while drilling) and avoid drilling troubles due to unwanted hole deviations. 
     Drilling deviation is the result of rock removal under the complex action of the bit. Research on the fundamental problems of rock removal and deviation involve three approaches: (1) laboratory studies, (2) stress calculations, and (3) simplified analytical ("rock-bit interaction") modeling. The first two approaches examine the actual, if simplified, rock removal and drilling deviation under given bit loads, which must include a deviation side force. Results of the tests or analyses hopefully will lead to useful (even if empirically fitted) relations that describe the deviation tendencies of bits in any particular situation. 
     In terms of the first approach, earlier experimental works dealt primarily with the effects of various drilling conditions on the drilling rate of various bits. Early results confirmed, at least qualitatively, the common observation that both the bit and the formation exhibit anisotropic drilling characteristics. The deviation tendency was found to depend on the bit geometry and dip angle. Early lab drilling tests, using a rock cradle that was subjected to a side force, measured the side and axial penetration rates. Using isotropic rocks, there were cnclusions that bits indeed drill anisotropically. 
     In terms of the second approach, plasticity theory was employed to study the limit (failure) stress state under a single bit tooth, which was idealized as a 2-D wedge or punch. Early works considered the side force generated on the bit tooth, using simplified 2-D (upper bound) analysis in plasticity. Though useful in providing some insights, these static analyses clearly do not simulate actual drilling conditions. The results are also not easily interpreted in terms of quantitative deviation trends. More recently, a large scale computer program was developed to carry out numerical analysis to study the stimulated dynamic response of PDC bits. The modeling and solution processes are extremely cumbersome and require detailed apriori knowledge of the parameters affecting the system. Most of these data are not available at present (and perhaps for a long time to come). This approach is clearly not yet practical. 
     Relevant parameters that affect the deviation tendency of a given BHA may be grouped into the following: (1) the BHA configuration (with or without stabilizers); (2) the borehole trajectory and geometry; (3) the operating conditions; (4) the bit; and (5) the formation being drilled. Each of these groups further contain many parameters. 
     Because of the large numbers of parameters involved, a more fundamental understanding can be achieved only by reducing the number of immediate parameters by rational synthesis and grouping of the contributing effects. Use of a BHA analysis program is required. The pioneering work in this respect was by Lubinski and Woods (Lubinski, A. and Woods, H. B.: "Factors Affecting the Angle of Inclination and Doglegging in Rotary Bore Holes," API Drilling & Prod. Pract., 1953, pp. 222-250; and Woods, H. B. and Lubinski, A.: "Use of Stabilizers in Controlling Hole Deviation," API Drill. & Prod. Pract., 1955, pp. 165-182.) The Lubinski model includes two elements: a 2-D BHA analysis program using a semi-analytic method to predict the side (build/drop) force on the bit in slick assemblies, and a formation anisotropy effect model to account for the commonly experienced up-dip tendency in directional drilling. The Lubinski model defines a rock anisotropy index to account for the different drillabilities parallel and perpendicular to the formation bedding plane. This model assumes bits to be isotropic. A comparison between the existing 2-D analysis and the 3-D methods described hereinafter provides an indication of a significant advance in this art. 
     Some existing models utilize a 2-D analysis, resulting in only a build/drop prediction. As an example, in assessing the formation effect, I have recently shown that, due to the difference in the apparent dip angle (seen in the common vertical plane) and the true dip angle (tilting away from the vertical plane), the predicted drilling direction (in the common vertical plane) will change. This will affect the result of build/drop prediction. It may also mask the bit anisotropy effect. Parallel arguments exist when one examines only the bit effect. 
     In a 2-D model, where the entire well bore and drill string are assumed to lie in the same vertical plane, the formation dip is seen as the apparent dip and not the true dip. These angles are equal only when the relative strike angle of the dipping plane is 90°. Otherwise, the apparent dip angle is always smaller than the true dip angle. In the extreme case when the relative strike angle is zero, the apparent dip angle is always zero, even when the true dip angle is 90°. 
     In a 2-D analysis, all relevant vectors are assumed to lie on the common vertical plane, which is the base plane. The formation normal vector is E da  ; the bit force is decomposed into the normal and parallel components OB a  and AB a . Anisotropy of the formation would cause the apparent drilling vector E ra  to pass through the point C a . The ratio C a  B a  /AB a  describes the degree of anisotropy of the formation, which is an anisotropy index. Vector E ra  also lies in the same base plane. Thus, no walk is predicted. 
     In a 3-D analysis, one uses the true formation normal vector E d , which in this particular case points above the base plane. The similar bit force components are OB and AB, and the drilling direction E r  passes through the point C. The ratio CB/AB is again the anisotropy index, which is also the same as C p  B p  /AB p  (where the subscript p denotes the projection onto the base plane) due to parallel projections. We can then conclude that the line C a  C p  is parallel to the vector E da , and therefore cannot be parallel to the vector E ra . In other words, the vector E r  does not project into the vector E ra . Additionally, the 3-D analysis also results in a walk component of E r  pointing above the base plane. 
     Using 3-D vector analysis, one can derive the in-plane build-drop deviation angle A a  (from 2-D analysis) and A p  (from projected 3-D analysis), relative to the bit force vector, as follows: ##EQU1## Here A fda  is the angle between the bit force and the 2-D formation normal, and A dn  is the angle between the 3-D and 2-D formation normal vectors. A a  is always greater than A p , A a  and A p  being the angles between E f  and E ra , and E f  and E rp , respectively. 
     It is conceivable that the true drilling direction might have a building tendency while the apparent drilling direction might show a dropping tendency, or vice versa. In anisotropic formations, there are only two exceptions to the above conclusion: when the relative strike angle A r  is 90° or 0°. 
     1. If A r  is 90°: Then the 2-D and 3-D analyses in fact coincide. A subsidiary case of this is when the true dip angle is zero. Then, the strike direction of the bedding normal is arbitrary, and can be set to 90°. 
     2. If A r  is zero: Then formation anisotropy causes only walk deviation but no build/drop deviation. 
     Nevertheless, since its inception in 1953, the Lubinski model has stood for a long time as the only rationally derived rock-bit interaction model. 
     Recently, Brett et al developed a bit effect model. (Brett, J. F.; Gray, J. A.; Bell, R. K. and Dunbar, M. E.: "A Method of Modeling the Directional Behavior of Bottomhole Assemblies Including Those with Bent Subs and Downhole Motors," SPE/IADC conference, February 1986, Dallas. SPE Paper 14767.) Their model accounts for the anisotropic effects of the bit, but assumed the formation to be isotropic. Others have developed a bit effect model that is coupled with BHA analysis, though their model in effect assumes the drilling direction to be coincident with the bit force. 
     It is therefore the primary object of the present invention to provide new and improved methods for predicting the drilling trajectory in a directional well. 
     It is another object of the present invention, used in the inverse mode, to provide new and improved methods for determining the anisotropic rock and bit indices involved in drilling an earth borehole through an earth formation. 
     It is still another object of the present invention to provide new and improved methods for producing drilling dip logs. 
     It is yet another object of the invention to provide new and improved drilling bit wear logs and drilling lithology index logs. 
     It is still another object of the invention to provide methods of controlling the drilling trajectory in directional wells. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The objects of the invention are accomplished, generally, by methods which take into account both the anisotropic rock and bit indices, in conjunction with the dip of the formation, in determining the drilling trajectory in a directional well. 
     As an additional feature of the invention, methods are provided which produce the true dip of the formation based upon making a first determination of the anisotropy index of the formation, a second determination of the anisotropy index of the drill bit being used to drill the borehole through the formation, and a third determination of the instantaneous drilling trajectory of the drill bit. 
     The methods of the present invention are also used to produce an indication of the anisotropic indices of the drill bit and of the formation traversed by a well bore resulting from a drill bit based upon making a first determination of the dip of the formation and a second determination of the instantaneous drilling trajectory of the drill bit. 
     The invention also makes use of the anisotropic indices of both the rock and the bit to generate new and improved lithology logs and drilling bit wear logs. 
     The invention also provides new and improved methods for controlling the drilling trajectory in directional wells. 
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     These and other objects, features and advantages of the present invention will be readily apparent from reading the following detailed specification, taken in conjunction with the drawings, in which: 
     FIG. 1 is a schematic view, in side elevation, of a drill bit and drill string in a directional borehole, illustrating the vectors involving the bit force, the bit axis, the drilling direction and the formation normal; 
     FIG. 2 is a schematic view, in side elevation, of a drill bit and drill string in a directional borehole, illustrating the vectors involved with an isotropic bit; 
     FIG. 3 is a schematic view, in side elevation, of a drill bit and drill string, in a directional borehole, illustrating the vectors involved with an isotropic formation; 
     FIG. 4 is a prior art schematic representation of a normalized drilling efficiency factor f N  involved with the use of a roller cone bit in drilling a directional borehole; 
     FIG. 5 is a prior art schematic representation of a normalized drilling efficiency factor r N  involved with the use of a PDC bit in drilling a directional borehole; 
     FIG. 6 is a schematic representation of a normalized drilling efficiency factor r N  involved with the methods according to the present invention in predicting the drilling trajectory of a directional borehole; 
     FIG. 7 is a schematic representation of the relative sensitivities of the build-angle deviation of a borehole, measured from the bit force, due to the rock anisotropy index I r  and the bit anisotropy index I b .; 
     FIG. 8 is a schematic representation of the relative sensitivities of the right-walk deviation of a borehole, measured from the bit force, due to the rock anisotropy index I r  and the bit anisotropy index I b  ; 
     FIG. 9 schematically illustrates a family of curves describing the deviation angle, measured from the bit force as a function of the rock anisotropy index I r  and A fd , the angle between the bit force and the formation normal; 
     FIG. 10 schematically illustrates a comparison of the vectors involved in a 2-dimensional prediction of borehole trajectory with a 3-dimensional prediction of the borehole trajectory in accordance with the present invention; 
     FIG. 11 illustrates, in side elevation, an MWD tool suspended in an earth borehole on a drilling string which is used to generate various signals indicative of some of the parameters used in the present invention; and 
     FIG. 12 illustrates in block diagram the downhole sensors and processing circuitry which are used in practicing the present invention. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
     Referring first to FIG. 11, a borehole 12, shown generally in the vertical axis, extends from the earth's surface 13 and penetrates the earth formations 14. The borehole is being made by a drill string 16 principally comprised of a drill bit 18, drill collars 20 and sections of drill pipe 22 extending to the earth's surface. A telemetering sub assembly 26 is used for telemetering data to the surface in a conventional manner, for example, by using positive or negative pressure pulses in the mud column in the drill pipe, and is used for telemetering data to the earth's surface indicative of various parameters measured downhole. At the earth's surface, the telemetry receiver 28 provides a means for outputting the telemetered data up the pipe string for passage of such data to a data processing unit 32, whose outputs are connected to a recorder 34. 
     Also included in the drill string is a downhole sensor and data processing unit 24, illustrated and described in greater detail in FIG. 12. Although the borehole 12 is illustrated as being vertical (non-directional) for convenience sake, the borehole is typically deviated from vertical in accordance with the present invention. However, the methods of the invention work equally well in deep vertical holes where the formation dip is other than horizontal, such as is illustrated in FIG. 11. 
     Referring now to FIG. 12, there is illustrated in greater detail the downhole sensor and data processing unit 24. The unit 24 includes the azimuth sensor 40 and the inclination sensor 42, each of which is conventional, for example, as illustrated and described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,163,324. The unit 24 also includes a dip meter 44 which measures, in a conventional manner, the dip of the formation as the borehole is being drilled, for example, as illustrated and described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 824,186, filed Jan. 30, 1986. The unit 24 also includes a WOB (weight-on-bit) sensor 46, as well as a TOB (torque-on-bit) sensor 48, each of which is conventional, for example, as discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,662,458. 
     A conventional mud weight sensor 50, for example, as illustrated and described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 734,963 filed May 16, 1985, which describes a measurement of the density of the mud, is also located in the unit 24. If desired, the mud weight can be key punched into the data processor 32 at the earth's surface, assuming the mud weight is known. 
     The unit 24 also includes one or more lithology sensors 52, also conventional, for example, as described and illustrated in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 654,186, filed Sept. 24, 1984. The caliper sensor 54 is also conventional, for example, as described and illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,599,904. If it is desired to use the COF (coefficient of friction) in the calculations herein, that value can be key punched into the data processor 32 at the earth's surface. 
     It should be appreciated that the outputs of the various sensors shown in the unit 24, each of which is conventional, are processed as needed in the downhole data processing circuitry 58 and coupled into mud pulse telemetry section 26 for transmission to the earth's surface. The data can also be stored in a downhole recorder, not illustrated, for retrieval from the drill string during a tripping operation. 
     In practicing the process according to the present invention, one has only to use the values measured in the downhole sensor unit 24 (or key punched into the surface data processor 32), done in conjunction with the conventional BHA analysis as above described, to establish the drilling direction vector E r  hereinafter described. 
     Thus, for the first time in this art, through the use of known formation dip, and the use of both rock and bit anisotropy indices, there is provided herein a new and improved method for providing the instantaneous drilling trajectory of a directional well. 
     Inversely, through the use of known formation dip and the instantaneous drilling direction, there is provided herein a new and improved method for indicating the rock and bit anisotropy indices. By one monitoring the rock anisotropy index, one provides a lithology index log. By monitoring the bit anisotropy index, one provides a bit wear log. Thus, the anisotropy index logs provide lithology discrimination and bit wear indications. 
     Finally, through the use of known anisotropy indices and the instantaneous drilling direction, there is provided herein a new and improved method for generating a drilling dip log, one which will provide the true dip angle and the true dip direction. 
     A 3-D rock-bit interaction model according to the present invention will now be described. Referring to FIGS. 1-10, it should be appreciated that the model of FIG. 1 accounts for the simultaneous effect of rock and bit anisotropics in the drilling direction, in the following manner. 
     The drilling direction vector E r  is thought of as a linear function of the following three vectors: the resultant bit force E f , the bit axis E a , and the normal vector to the formation bedding E d , as follows: 
     
         r.sub.N *E.sub.r =I.sub.b *I.sub.r *E.sub.f +I.sub.r *(1-I.sub.b)* cos A.sub.af *E.sub.a +(1-I.sub.r) *r.sub.N cos A.sub.rd *E.sub.d. (1) 
    
     Here, I r  and I b  are the rock and bit anisotropy indices which describe the anisotropic drilling characteristics of the rock and bit; r N  is the "normalized" drilling efficiency under general situations; and A rd  is the angle between the drilling direction and the formation normal. As used herein, the following symbols have the noted definitions: 
     A=A E A  : Vector A, with magnitude A, and unit vector E a  ; 
     (A1,A2,A3): Components of vector A in (X,Y,Z) directions; 
     (E1,E2,E3): Unit base vectors along (X,Y,Z) directions; 
     E a  : Unit vector along bit axis direction; 
     E d  : Unit vector normal to formation bedding; 
     E f  : Unit vector along the resultant bit force on formation; 
     E r  : Unit vector along the drilling direction; 
     F: Resultant bit force on the formation; 
     A af , etc.: Angle between E a  and E f , etc. 
     h: Lubinski's rock anisotropy index=1-I r  ; 
     I b  : Bit anisotropy index; 
     I r  : Rock anisotropy index=1-h; 
     R(): Drilling rate along direction (); 
     r(): Drilling efficiency along direction (); =R()/F; 
     (X,Y,Z): Fixed global coordinate system, X→East, Y→North, Z→Vertical up; 
     θ: Inclination angle; 
     φ: Azimuth angle, measured c.w. from north. 
     Subscripts (): 
     o: Base quantities, referring to situation when both rock and bit are isotropic; or when E f , E a , E d  all coincide; 
     a: Bit's axial direction; 
     d: Formation normal direction; 
     f: Bit force direction; 
     l: Bit's lateral direction; 
     n: Bedding's normal direction; 
     p: Bedding's parallel direction; 
     N: "Normalized" quantity; 
     r: Drilling direction. 
     *NOTE* When two subscripts appear, that pertains to bit direction comes first. 
     Two degenerate cases of this model are now described. 
     SPECIAL CASES OF THE GENERAL MODEL 
     A. Isotropic Bits 
     This case degenerates essentially into the Lubinski model, though the latter was derived specifically only for a 2-D situation, namely the bit force, drilling direction, and the formation normal vectors all lie in the same vertical plane as the well trajectory. The Lubinski model does not account for any walk tendencies, while this isotropic bit model does. Note that the rock anisotropy index h as defined by Lubinski is related to the current definition I r  by the following relation: 
     
         h=1-I.sub.r. 
    
     Equation (1) can be reduced to the following simple form: 
     
         r.sub.N *E.sub.r =I.sub.r *E.sub.f +(1-I.sub.r) cos A.sub.fd *E.sub.d 
    
     This relation is shown in FIG. 2 in the general situation when E f  and E d  do not lie in the same vertical plane, and thus requires a 3-D spacial description. 
     FIG. 8 shows a series of curves describing the deviation angle (measured from the bit force) as a function of the rock anisotropy index I r , and A fd , the angle between the bit force and the formation normal. In all cases, the maximum deviation occurs when A fd  is 45°, while no deviations exist when A fd  is zero (normal drilling) or 90° (parallel drilling). 
     B. Isotropic Rocks 
     In this case, Equation (1) reduces to the following: 
     
         r.sub.N *E.sub.r =I.sub.b *E.sub.f +(1-I.sub.b) cos A.sub.af *E.sub.b 
    
     and is illustrated in FIG. 3. For "normally anisotropic" bits, I b  is less than unity. 
     Curves similar to FIG. 8 can be used if one replaces I r  and E d  by I b  and E a , respectively. 
     First, if the bit is isotropic (FIG. 2), the model in effect reduces to the Lubinski model if the bit force, bit axis and formation normal all lie in the same vertical plane of the borehole (i.e., the 2-D case). Secondly, if the rock is isotropic (FIG. 3), the model then reduces to the Brett model for a linearly dependent drilling efficiency on the bit force. 
     Since this model accounts for both the bit and the formation effect, it has the potential to provide accurate predictions of drilling trajectories. Other operating parameters are considered implicitly by carrying out the BHA analysis program (to generate the bit force and the bit axis vectors). In addition, effects of RPM and hydraulics are deemed as unimportant. These affect both the lateral and forward drilling and will be cancelled out, since the anisotropy indices are ratios of two drilling efficiencies. These indices are better defined as follows: 
     A. Rock Anisotropy Index I r   
     The rock anisotropy index I r  is directly definable if the bit is isotropic, or if the resultant bit force is along the bit axis. Under these situations, we can define the normal and parallel drilling efficiencies, r n  and r p , as: ##EQU2## 
     The rock anisotropy index is then: 
     
         I.sub.r =r.sub.p /r.sub.n. 
    
     It has the following ranges: 
     I r  =0: drilling only perpendicular to bedding; 
     <1: faster drilling along normal to bedding (up-dip tendency); 
     =1: isotropic rock, no formation effect; 
     >1: slower drilling along normal to bedding (down-dip tendency); 
     →: drilling only parallel to bedding. 
     B. Bit Anisotropy Index I b   
     If an anisotropic bit is drilling into isotropic rock, we can define the axial and lateral drilling efficiencies, r a  and r l , as: ##EQU3## 
     The bit anisotropy index is then: 
     
         I.sub.b =r.sub.1 /r.sub.a. 
    
     It has the following ranges: 
     I b  =0: drilling only along axial direction; 
     <1: faster drilling along bit's axial direction; 
     =1: isotropic bit, no bit effect; 
     >1: slower drilling along bit's axial direction; 
     →: drilling only lateral to bit's axis. 
     The normalized drilling efficiency factor r N  as defined in this model is used to define the true "base" rock penetration rate. It is dimensionless, and independent of the units of measurements used. This r N  should not be confused with the normalized drilling rate sometimes used to define the D-exponent. In common practice, effects of deviation from such a "base" condition are not accounted for. In fact, r N  is the additional normalization one needs to carry out in order to filter out the effects of formation dip and bit on the drilling rate. 
     Some have previously postulated such an r N  to be less than unity, and having different patterns for roller cone bits and PDC bits (FIGS. 4 and 5), respectively. According to the present model, r N  is merely described by the bit anisotropy index I b  (if I r  =1), and has the pattern shown in FIG. 6. The situation when I b  >1 is unlikely. Interestingly, this model for the PDC bits coincides with the present model when I b  =0. 
     APPLICATONS OF THE ROCK-BIT INTERACTION MODEL 
     The rock-bit interaction model can be used in the following ways, when a true 3-D BHA analysis program is used to define the bit force and bit axis: 
     1. Inverse Modeling: With known formation dip and instantaneous drilling direction, the model computes the rock and bit anisotropy indices. This process is required to generate the anisotropy indices for the next application. 
     2. Forward Modeling: With known formation dip, and rock and bit anisotropy indices, the model predicts the instantaneous drilling direction. 
     3. Modeling to Generate Drilling Logs: With known anisotropy indices and the instantaneous drilling direction, we can, in principle, generate a "drilling dip log." This drilling dip log will provide both the true dip angle and the true dip direction. 
     APPLICATION OF INVERSE MODELING 
     Generating Rock and Bit Anisotropy Indices 
     The first application of this rock-bit interaction model has been that of inverse modeling by evaluating some old well data. Only limited application has been made so far. 
     To this end, well data were first screened for suitability. The following information are needed: 
     1. Detailed information about the BHA assembly; 
     2. Survey data; 
     3. Operating conditions: WOB (weight on bit), TOB (torque on bit), and mud weight; 
     4. Bit type/size and bit trip (and/or daily) report; and 
     5. Formation dip. 
     In addition, a lithology log and caliper log are useful. 
     Data are first screened to select suitable depth points. For each depth point, a BHA analysis program was used to define the bit force and the bit axis. The actual drilling direction is defined by the tangent vector to the borehole centerline, which is obtained from interpolating the survey data (using the circular arc method). Finally, the normal to the formation bedding is provided by 3-D formation dip information. The rock-bit interaction model is then used to generate the rock and bit anisotropy indices. 
     Use of the dip information requires some care. Dipmeter logs, which directly provide the dip angle and dip direction, are available only for a few wells. Even then, many depth sections exhibited erratic dip data. In this case, only sections with reasonably smooth dip data were used. In other wells, only regional dip information was available. In the Gulf Coast, such regional dip data may be acceptable if no localized structures, such as salt domes, are present in the particular well (or depth region) being analyzed. Otherwise, results may not be reliable. 
     Another important factor that can significantly influence the data interpretation is the borehole caliber (and similarly, the stabilizer wear). A change in borehole diameter, be it overgage due to washouts or instability, or undergage due to borehole creep, can significantly influence the BHA deformation which may not be accounted for in the model, particularly if this occurs near the bit or the first couple of stabilizers. In such situations, the bit axis and the bit force directions obtained from the BHA analysis may be inaccurate. 
     In this case, unreasonable anisotropy indices (such as negative numbers) may be obtained. This problem points out the importance of knowing the borehole conditions accurately. The use of MWD surveys will alleviate this problem to some extent due to more timely and more frequent data collection. 
     Our limited results show the following average values: 
     
         I.sub.b =0.194; 
    
     
         I.sub.r =0.999. 
    
     The bits used are soft-formation roller cone bits, and are shown to be very anisotropic. The formation is only slightly anisotropic. Table 1 summarizes a portion of the data upon which the averages are based. These data are obtained in the depth interval using the same building BHA as described in the following Table 1: 
     
                       TABLE 1______________________________________WELL ANALYSIS SAMPLE ##STR1##                    ANISOTROPYDIP         DIP          INDICESCASE   ANGLE    DIRECTION    ROCK (I.sub.r)                                BIT (I.sub.b)______________________________________D       4.0     125.0        1.0009  0.0689E      18.0     119.5        1.0006  0.3606G      12.0      77.0        0.9964  0.5500H      42.0     201.0        1.0002  0.1774K       5.6     126.0        1.0008  0.1261M      12.6     104.5        1.0001  0.0873P      15.2     124.0        1.0006  0.2873Q      12.1     125.0        1.0006  0.2245______________________________________ 
    
     APPLICATION OF FORWARD MODELING 
     Prediction of Drilling Directions 
     The model can also be used to predict the instantaneous drilling direction with a single analysis, or the drilling trajectory with repeated analyses. Using the average I r  and I b  obtained from the inverse modeling, the rock-bit interaction program recomputes the predicted survey data, using the same BHA for the same depth interval as in the example above. 
     Table 2 summarizes the result. 
     
                       TABLE 2______________________________________EXAMPLE OF FORWARD MODELING APPLICATION      PREDICTED       ACTUALDEPTH (FT)   DEV.    AZIM.     DEV.  AZIM.______________________________________6166         33.97   -88.76    34.00 -88.816178         33.97   -88.88    34.00 -88.946218         34.13   -89.00    34.18 -89.006278         34.56   -89.36    34.60 -89.416318         34.57   -89.38    34.61 -89.436348         34.65   -89.69    34.69 -89.756372         34.71   -89.95    34.75 -90.006406         34.72   -90.00    34.75 -90.006410         34.72   -90.00    34.75 -90.006481         34.77   -90.00    34.83 -90.00______________________________________ 
    
     In the table, the "actual" borehole deviation and azimuth angles are computed through survey interpolation using the circular arc method. As can be seen, the model predicts the drilling directions very well. The average difference over a depth interval of about 300' between the predicted and the actual survey data are: 
     Deviation angle difference: 0.037°; (Variance: 0.020°). 
     Azimuth angle difference: 0.031°; (Variance: 0.036°). 
     IMPORTANCE OF BOTH THE ROCK AND BIT ANISOTROPIES 
     Although the rock is found to be much less anisotropic than the bit, this does not mean we can arbitrarily set it to be unity and use the degenerate model for isotropic rocks. There are two reasons: (1) The angle between the bit force and the bit axis is limited by the borehole confinement and drill string deformation, and is therefore very small (on the order of a few degrees). On the other hand, the angle between the bit force and the formation normal is quite arbitrary, and may be as large as 90°. (2) The deviation (measured from the bit force) is much more sensitive to changes in the rock anisotropy index I r  than in I b . FIGS. 7 and 8 illustrate these sensitivies. 
     Furthermore, because the angle between the bit force and the bit axis is generally very small, it is important to have a reliable BHA analysis program. Small errors is the computed bit force and bit axis vectors may cause large errors in the generated anisotropy indices. 
     COMPARISON OF PREDICTION METHODS 
     In this section, comparisons will be made between the drilling directions predicted using several different approaches. The following parameters are held constant: ##EQU4## along with the same "typical" building BHA. 
     Three different well trajectories are examined: 
     (Table 3): straight well; 
     (Table 4): 2-D well building at 2°/100'; 
     (Table 5): 3-D well additionally walking at 2°/100' to the right. For each situation, five prediction methods are presented: 
     1. E r  =E f  (I r  =I b  =1); 
     2. E r  =E a  (I r  =1, I b  =0); 
     3. My model (I r  =0.99, I b  =0.2); 
     4. Isotropic bit model (I b  =1, I r  =0.99); 
     5. Isotropic rock model (I r  =1, I b  =0.2); Results are independent of the formation dip, and shown only once under each table. 
     Tables (3-5) show results for the following dip data groups: 
     a. Dip angles at 0°, 20°, 40° and 60°; 
     For 0 dip angle, results are independent of the azimuth angle, and are shown under the table. 
     b. Formation normal azimuths at 90° (hole nearly perpendicular to bedding), -90° (hole nearly parallel to bedding), 0° (out-of-plane dip) and 45°. 
     
                                           TABLE 3__________________________________________________________________________PREDICTION COMPARISONSSTRAIGHT HOLE ##STR2##Conditions at the bit: ##STR3##                     ##STR4## ##STR5##                     ##STR6##Prediction method number in parenthesisφ.sub.d = 90°         φ.sub.d = -90°                 φ.sub.d = 0°                         φ.sub.d = 45°θ.sub.d θ.sub.r     φ.sub.r         θ.sub.r             φ .sub.r                 θ.sub.r                     φ.sub.r                         θ.sub.r                             φ.sub.r__________________________________________________________________________20° (3) 45.223     90.001         45.227             90.001                 45.191                     89.818                         45.207                             89.838   (4) 47.025     90.004         47.053             90.004                 47.005                     89.833                         47.012                             89.84940° (3) 45.391     90.001         45.400             90.001                 45.277                     89.720                         45.334                             89.685   (4) 47.187     90.004         47.231             90.004                 47.090                     89.741                         47.134                             89.70060° (3) 45.585     90.001         45.594             90.001                 45.374                     89.754                         45.479                             89.612   (4) 47.382     90.004         47.422             90.004                 47.187                     89.773                         47.281                             89.626__________________________________________________________________________  (3)   (4) (5)  My model        I.sub.b = 1            I.sub.r = 1θ.sub.d = 0:θ.sub.r  45.158        46.972            45.446φ.sub.r  90.001        90.004            90.001 
    
     
                                           TABLE 4__________________________________________________________________________PREDICTION COMPARISONS2-D Hole (+2°/100' CURVATURE) ##STR7##Prediction method number in parenthesisφ.sub.d = 90°         φ.sub.d = -90°                  φ.sub.d = 0°                           φ.sub.d = 45°θ.sub.dθ.sub.r     φ.sub.r         θ.sub.r              φ.sub.r                  θ.sub.r                       φ.sub.r                           θ.sub.r                                φ.sub.r__________________________________________________________________________20°   (3)44.388     90.000         44.382              90.000                  44.351                       89.812                           44.370                                89.833   (4)42.956     90.001         42.931              90.001                  42.910                       89.803                           42.935                                89.82740°   (3)44.559     90.000         44.551              90.000                  44.436                       89.711                           44.499                                89.678   (4)43.132     90.001         43.095              90.001                  42.995                       89.697                           43.068                                89.66860°   (3)44.752     90.000         44.746              90.000                  44.533                       89.746                           44.644                                89.606   (4)47.322     90.001         43.292              90.008                  43.091                       89.734                           43.211                                89.598__________________________________________________________________________(3)   (4) (5)My model      I.sub.b = 1          I.sub.r = 1θ.sub.d = 0:θ.sub.r44.317      42.876          44.605φ.sub.r90.000      90.001          90.000 
    
     
                                           TABLE 5__________________________________________________________________________PREDICTION COMPARISONS3-D Hole (2°/100' BUILDING & °/100' WALKING RIGHT) ##STR8##Prediction method number in parenthesisφ.sub.d = 90°         φ.sub.d = -90°                  φ.sub.d = 0°                           φ.sub.d = 45°θ.sub.dθ.sub.r     φ.sub.r         θ.sub.r              φ.sub.r                  θ.sub.r                       φ.sub.r                           θ.sub.r                                φ.sub.r__________________________________________________________________________20°   (3)44.359     89.264         44.352              89.259                  44.322                       89.071                           44.342                                89.096   (4)42.959     86.331         42.832              86.305                  42.813                       86.111                           42.841                                86.14940°   (3)44.531     89.268         44.522              89.260                  44.408                       89.968                           44.472                                88.941   (4)43.035     86.348         42.996              86.309                  42.899                       85.994                           42.979                                85.99660°   (3)44.723     89.270         44.717              89.263                  44.505                       89.001                           44.618                                88.869   (4)43.225     86.358         43.192              86.324                  42.996                       86.018                           43.129                                85.924__________________________________________________________________________(3)   (4) (5)My model      I.sub.b = 1          I.sub.r = 1θ.sub.d = 0:θ.sub.r45.158      46.972          45.446φ.sub.r90.001      90.004          90.001 
    
     For isotropic rocks (I r  =1), results are independent of dip variation. Therefore, only one case is shown in each of the tables. In the tables, the prediction method number is shown in parenthesis. 
     A deviation angle from hole axis of 0.3° will be mild, while 1.0° will be strong. Since this deviation angle is the instantaneous drilling deviation angle, it is not directly translated into the more common notion of change in hole curvature. To compute that, one needs to carry out successive calculations after each finite drilling distance, and then take the average curvature. This incremental approach is probably more realistic than the common notion, as it more closely duplicates the actual drilling process. 
     In Table 3, we see the bit force to be strongly building, while the bit axis is actually slightly dropping. As a result, method (2) would predict a very mild dropping trend, while all other methods predict mild to strong building trends. As expected, methods 3 and 4 predict similar left-walking, but differ very significantly in the build trend prediction. 
     In Table 4, the inherent hole curvature causes both the bit force and the bit axis to be dropping. This is due to the stiffness of the BHA, as pointed out previously. Therefore, all methods predict a dropping trend. Methods 3 and 4 also predict a left-walking trend. The severity of the dropping trend varies according to the methods. Note that, once drilling is allowed to proceed according to the predicted direction (dropping), the hole curvature is reduced, and therefore the inherent dropping tendency of the BHA will also be reduced. This will then change the future drilling direction to be either less dropping, or even return to slightly building. Such repetitive computations and case studies will be presented in later papers. 
     In Table 5, the right-walking hole curvature further causes left-walking trends in both the bit force and the bit axis. As a result, all methods now predict moderate to strong left-walking tendencies. 
     In both 2- and 3-D holes, we see that using the bit force (method (2)) as the predictor of drilling direction actually provides the greatest scatter. Most current practices are in fact based on this method. 
     It is generally agreed that a comprehensive drilling analysis program will include the following elements: 
     (1) a BHA (bottom hole assembly) analysis; 
     (2) a predictive model which relates the drilling direction to the bit used, the drilling conditions, the borehole geometry, and the formation drilled; and 
     (3) a drill ahead/post analysis feature. Many BHA analysis programs have been developed. In my paper to be presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers to be held in Dallas, Tex., on Sept. 27-30, 1987, such paper being incorporated herein by reference, I identify a number of such programs. 
     However, a good BHA analysis program can serve the following functions: 
     (a) Quantitatively describe the deformation of the BHA, including the total bit force (build/drop and walk) components, and the bit tilt direction. These data, alone and/or in conjunction with a rock-bit interaction model, can be used to infer the build/drop and, for a 3-D program, the walk trend(s). 
     (b) Determine the locations and magnitudes of contact forces between the BHA and the borehole wall. These data are useful in estimating the wear rates of tool joints, stabilizers, casings, and boreholes. They are also useful in torque and drag computations (See (e) below). 
     (c) Compute the stresses in the BHA, which can be used to locate the critically stressed sections. This is particularly valuable for the expensive downhole tool subs. 
     (d) Calculate the difference between the survey sub axial direction and the borehole centerline direction, leading to a correction of MWD survey data. 
     (e) Form a part of a torque-drag model program to enable more accurate computation of the torque and drag in a directional and deep vertical well. Such models are useful in optimum well planning; in the designs of surface equipment, drill string and casing; and in the diagnosis and avoidance of drilling troubles. 
     The existing BHA programs use different approaches (semi-analytic method, finite-element method, or finite-difference method), and contain different features. Some of them are 2-D analysis programs. 
     The usefulness of a BHA analysis program depends on its inherent features and capabilities. Selection of a BHA analysis program should be made by matching the user's needs with program features. Other considerations include the quality and rigor in the methodology used in the program, user-friendliness, and the speed of computation, which becomes critical if the program is to be used at the rig site for "real-time" operations. 
     A drill-ahead program allows repeated calculations at different projected bit locations, thus leading to a predicted drilling trajectory. As a companion feature, post drilling analysis allows for a more detailed comparison of actual vs. predicted drilling trajectories, and can provide much other useful information about the well in the form of generated "drilling logs." These, for example, will include drilling formation dip logs; drilling lithology index logs, using I r  ; and drilling bit wear index logs, using I b . 
     It should be appreciated that the methods described hereinbefore to predict the drilling trajectory can be used to actually control the trajectory. Based upon data built up from near, off-set wells having the same or similar dips in the formation, and the same or similar rock and bit anisotropic indices, one can design the BHA to control the trajectory. For example, the drill bit, the stabilizers, the subs (bent or non-bent) and other aspects of the BHA can be selected to take advantage of the knowledge of the dip and the anisotropic indices to thus control the drilling trajectory. This allows the drilling of the well first "on paper," followed by the actual drilling.