IADC/SPE
IADC/SPE 11406
Shock Absorbers-Are They Necessary?
by S.W. Warford and P.G. Craig, Security Div., Dresser Industries
Copyright 1983. IADC/SPE 1983 Drilling Conference
This paper was presented at the IADC/SPE 1983 Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, February 20-23,
1983. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206.
ABSTRACT
The economic benefits of running a shock absorber
seem evident from their growing use in oil and gas
drilling operations. However, some controversy still
exists over when they should be used, how to get the
greatest benefit from them, and whether there are some
negative effects such as hole deviation associated
wi th the usage of some shock absorbers. Extensi ve
experience in recent years has included results with a
wide variety of shock absorber designs in the full
range of hole depths and sizes. The results show that
lateral stiffness of the tool, the type of spring or
other energy absorption system, and tool length have a
significant influence on shock absorber performance.
The energy absorption system and its location in the
drill string, in conjunction with the type of bottom
hole assembly design, bit selection, and formation
characteristics, determine whether the maximum
benefits possible from the shock absorber are attained.
Major benefits from proper use of the appropri-
ate shock absorber are longer bit life, higher
drilling rates, longer drill-string life, reduced
hazard from bending fatigue of the threaded connec-
tions in the dri.ll string, and reduced wear on the
rig equipment. These all result in a significant
reduction of the overall drilling costs. Guidelines
for shock absorber selection, placement in the
drill str~ng, and operating practices which yield
the greatest overall benefit from the use of a shock
absorber in oilfield drilling are described. Ulti-
mately, the decision to use a shock absorber will be
based on economics. Does the use of a shock absorber
reduce the overall drilling cost?
INTRODUCTION
An ever increasing important goal of the drilling
industry today is to reduce the costs of drilling a
well. One approach to reducing the drilling costs has
been the application of optimum drilling programs. A reasons cited for not using a shock absorber, such as
key element of an optimum program involves the use
References and illustrations at end of paper.
383
of appropriate drilling tools - specifically, shock
absorbers.
Shock absorbers have gained considerable ac-
ceptance in the last five years. Their increased
use is evidenced by the fact that the number of
companies marketing the tool have more than quad-
rupled. The reason for the increase is based on
drilling economics. The cost of drilling a well can
be greatly improved by using a shock absorber to
prevent bit and drill string damage, permitting
increased penetration rate.
A shock absorber is a tool which is run in the
lower portion of the drill string to reduce shock
loading and absorber vibrations produced during the
drilling operation. The shock absorber is used to
reduce the high dynamic loads transmitted between
the bit and the drill string, and to change the
harmonic frequencies generated ~n the drill string.
These vibrations, if not minimized by the shock
absorber, can result ~n damage to the drill string,
derrick, block, swivel, wireline, and other surface
drilling equipment. In addition, the shock absorber
allows optimum application of the parameters af-
fecting the energy levels (bit weight and rotary
speed) applied to the bit.
The properly designed shock absorber not only
m~n~mizes drill string vibration, but also helps keep
the rock bit on the bottom of the hole.
Even though the popularity of the tool has
grown, its usage has been generally confined to
"straight-hole" drilling. There has been minimal
appl icat ion in areas where deviat ional prob lems are
anticipated or in the drilling of directional wells.
The flexibility of the shock absorber (or lack of
rigidity), is cited by some ~n the industry as cre-
ating a higher risk of hole-control problems, negating
the potential benefits of the tool. There are other
increased probability of fatigue failure and added
drill string connections. But the major objection is
the possible contribution to hole deviation.
2 SHOCK ABSORBERS - ARE THEY NECESSARY
DESIGN CONSIDERATION
Downho le shock absorbers provide dri 11 string
protection in much the same way as the shock absor-
ber and spring systems in automotive suspensions.
Automotive suspension systems reduce dynamic loads,
allowing greater vehicle control, achievement of
desired vehicular speeds, and elimination of struc-
tural damage from shock loads. Design of downhole
shock absorbers must accomplish the same basic
results.
The basic operation or damping mechanism (or
energy absorption system), though probably the most
important, is not only the consideration in shock
absorber design. Torque systems, joint design,
interval stabilization, clearances, and stiffness
are important factors which must be adequate to
accommodate the wide range of operational require-
ments.
The basic shock absorber design types available
today are:
Pneumatic - The pneumatic approach is based upon the
compressibility of gas. Nitrogen is commonly used
in a pneumatic shock absorber, in which the gas
operates as the damping or spring mechanism. The
compressibility of the gas or effective spring rate
is dependent upon the charge pressure. The perform-
ance of the tool is greatly affected by operating
depth and corresponding hydrostatic pressure.
Hydraulic - Hydraulic shock absorbers generally
utilize a fluid metering mechanism. Designs of this
type are dependent upon a mechanical or pump pressure
actuated fluid-return system. The principle is much
like the shock absorber/spring design used in automo-
tive suspension systems. The hydraulic approach is
usually accomplished by constricted flow of the
drilling fluid and pump pressure.
Mechanical The mechanical spring approach is by
far the most widely used in shock absorbers. The
spectrum of mechanical shock absorbers covers an
array of design approaches, which include:
-helical springs
-ring springs
-Belleville springs
-elastomers
-compressible materials
Of the mechanical designs, the Belleville
spring and elastomeric damping mediums are the most
common. These approaches to design are more popular
because they are not operationally dependent on seal
effectiveness.
The damping medium must be the primary design
consideration. A shock absorber must be capable of
accommodating a variable range of bit weights.
Frequently, the bit type selected is required to
drill more than one type of formation. In order to
maximize the drilling rates, frequent changes are
required in both the rotary speed and bi t weight.
As indicated in several reports based on downhole
measurement, impact loads can be as high as three to
five times bit weight. In addition, the frequency
of these vibrations will be a factor of three times
the rotary speed. Damping mechanisms must be
384
SPE 11406
capable of handling these weight ranges, and capable
of response time adequate to accommodate the fre-
quency of the vibrations. Figure 1 illustrates
typical weight/deflection capabilities (spring rate)
of a common disc spring arrangement.
Since the influence of the shock absorber on
hole deviation is direct ly related to lateral
stiffness and design clearances, these are major
design considerations. Stabilization of components
through the use of bushings or bearings greatly
increase stiffness. Overall tool length is another
factor affecting stiffness. The shorter the overall
length, the greater the improvement in lateral
stiffness, which in turn reduces stabilization-
related problems.
Since, in general, shock absorbers are less
rigid than dri 11 collars, they may act as a flex
joint between unstabilized collars. Any reduction
in bending resistance can result in an increase in
stress concentration factors which will reduce the
fatigue life of the stressed components of the shock
absorber. It is especially critical at section
changes and in the design of threaded connections.
When considering connection design, each joint must
be eva 1 uat ed; box and pi n component s mus t be
balanced. Stress relief features along with
cold rolling or shot peening are usually incorpor-
ated to increase the fatigue life of the threaded
connections.
In addition, torque transmission systems should
be considered. Generally, two types of torque
systems are prevalent in today's shock absorber
designs. Both are a form of spline system - the
involute spline system being the most popular of the
two. This incorporates mating the male and female
spline section on both mandrel and outboard spline
member. The second approach is a replaceable
element spline system which features female spline
groove configurations on both mandrel and outboard
spline member with a matching, full-configuration
(e.g., round, square) replaceable bar or rod which
transmits the torque.
In general, both systems are capable of torque
transmission, regardless of location in the drill
string, and unless they are heavily worn, fewi
prob lems should resul t from the torque sys tem. One,
exception is designs featuring elastomeric damping,
mediums, which require the elastomer to damp vibra-'
tions and transmit torque to the drill string. In
this instance a loss of the bond between the elasto-
mer and internal components will result in a loss of
torque transmission through the shock absorber.
Finite element analysis has been used to obtain
more accurate estimates of lateral stiffness than
simple comparisons of cross-sectional areas. In
recent studies, utilizing finite element analysis,
it has been proved that properly designed and
internally stabilized shock absorbers are capable of
achieving a lateral stiffness equal to 85 percent of
that exhibited by an equivalent size drill collar.
This is not characteristic of all shock absorber
designs. It is estimated that some of the existing
marginal designs achieve stiffness levels of only
half that of equivalent size drill collars.
SPE 11406 STEPHEN WORFORD
In review, shock absorber design parameters
which will affect performance are listed below:
-damping mechanism
-capabilities of the damping mechanism
-torque system
-internal component support
-tolerances and clearances
-lateral stiffness
SHOCK ABSORBER BENEFITS
Drill string vibration, or bouncing, is a
condition that can develop during the drilling
operation. Frequencies of longitudinal vibration
are usually three times the rotary speed as gener-
ated from the three-lobe shaped bottomhole patterns
characteristic of three-cone rock bits. When
drilling at shallow depths, this movement can be
readily observed at the rig floor as vertical
movement of the kelly. As depth increases, it is
also possible to have damaging vibration of the
drill string without visible evidence at the surface.
In this condition, the damping effect of the drill
pipe obscures vibration occuring in the lower
portion of the drill string. The impact loads on
the bit and drill string may be of sufficient
magnitude to damage components without being evident
at the surface.
Vibration can develop during the drilling
operat ion for several reasons. There is an energy
level combination, dependent on hole condition, in
which the rotary speed causes a natural resonance to
occur in the drill string. Most vibration, however,
is the result of a reaction between the bit and the
formation. The vibration frequently occurs when
drilling medium to hard formations due to the
crushing, grinding drilling mechanism. This is
especially true if the formations are fractured or
broken. However, vibration can develop when drill-
ing softer formations. In this condition, the
vibration is a result of drilling non-uniform
intervals of the well (Le., sand and shale se-
quences), where one formation is harder or softer
relative to the other formation.
Measurements have been made that show the bit
can actually move off the bottom of the hole from
a fraction of an inch to as much as 1.7 inches.
As a result of this movement the actual weight on the
bit varied from 0 to 3.5 times the weight indicated
at the surface. It is this movement and changes in
momentum that cause the damage to the drill string,
bit, and other rig components.
When excessive vibration occurs, the standard
procedure to minimize the potential damage is to
reduce the energy levels applied to the bit.
However, penetration rate is related to both the
bit weight (Fig. 2) and the rotary speed (Fig. 3).
Thus, any reduction in the energy levels applied to
the bit results in a decreased penetration rate.
Use of shock absorber will damp vibration,
allowing optimum energy levels while reducing the
dynamic loads on bit and drill string. The effect of
the shock absorber is two-fold. First, it keeps the
bit in contact with the formation, reducing the
impact loads and the resulting axial displacement of
bit and drilling components. This helps protect the
cutting structure of the bit by minimizing tooth or
385
insert breakage. Also, the reduction in impact
loading improves bearing life. Since the bit cuts ne
rock when it is momentarily off the bottom, average
penetration rates are lower when a shock absorber is
not used. Alternatively, the same penetration rate
can be obtained with lower bit weight, thus prolong-
ing bearing and cutting structure life. Second, the
insertion of a shock in the bottomhole assembly will
result in a change in the natural frequency of the
drill string; again allowing optimum rotary speed and
bit weight. This has been demonstrated in studies by
Kreisle and Vance (Fig. 4).
If optimum energy levels can be obtained for the
hole condit ions present and rig limi tat ions, whi Ie
minimizing the drill string vibration, then favorable
economic conditions should exist.
The basic benefits derived from using a shock
absorber are as follows:
-Minimize drill collar and drill pipe
damage due to reduced bouncing of the
drill string.
-Minimize damage to the derrick, block,
swivel, wireline, and other surface
equipment.
-Increase bit life due to reduced shock
loading which protects both the cutting
structure and the bearings.
-Keep the bit on the bottom of the hole.
-Increase drilling rates from application
of optimum energy levels.
-Reduce the amplitude and displacement of
vibration in the entire drill string.
DEVIATIONAL/DIRECTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
When deviational problems or direction drilling
is anticipated, various design aspects of a shock
absorber must be considered. A general claim is
that a shock absorber contributes significantly to
hole deviation as a result of lateral stiffness and
a lack of tool stability. There are more shock
absorbers removed from the drill string for this
particular objection than for any other.
It is a fact that the probability for hole
deviation does increase when a shock absorber is
placed in the drill string. This occurs since the
rigidity of a shock absorber is less than for a
drill collar. It is possible, however, to minimize
this probability.
Selection of the proper tool design is the
first step in minimizing the potential problem. The
clearances and tolerances between component parts of
the shock absorber are critical in determining the
relative stiffness of the tool. Excessive clear-
ances will allow wobble within the tool, and will
react in a similar manner as a bent drill collar.
In addition, excessive clearance can act as a
fulcrum on the bit as well as on the tool. This
results in aggravated bending loads, which can add
to deviation or directions 1 control problems and
increased s tresses on critical components. These
design 1 imitat ions do, however, vary between shock
absorber manufacturers.
The next step involves bottomhole assembly (BHA)
designs. By designing the proper bottomhole assembly
for the specific hold condition anticipated, the
4 SHOCK ABSORBERS - ARE THEY NECESSARY
potential for deviation can be minimized. A "packed-
hole assembly" (Fig. 6) with the shock absorber
immediate ly above the bottom reamer/stabilizer has
been used successfully.
The length of the shock absorber used in the
packed-hole assembly is a factor in the successful
application of the drill string design. It is a well
known fact that length of drill collars is directly
related to their stiffness; the shorter the collar
the greater its rigidity. This principle also
applies to a shock absorber.
The final decision whether to use a shock
absorber when deviational or directional considera-
tions are present is a compromise. By placing the
shock absorber in the drill string where normally a
drill collar would be present does increase the
probability for hole directional control. However,
by selecting the properly designed tool and using the
proper bottomhole assembly, these limitations
can be overcome. In other words, the questions must
be asked, "Will the anticipated benefits from utiliz-
ing a shock absorber have a greater impact on the
drilling cost than does the impact of the limitations
If the answer to this question is "yes," then the
tool should be utilized. If the answer is "no," then
it should not be placed in the drill string.
DETERMINING EFFECTIVENESS
In order to determine the effectiveness of a
shock absorber it is necessary to assess the impact
the tool has on the overall costs required to drill
the well. The determination of beneficial effects
of a shock absorber in reducing the wear on the drill
collar, drill pipe, and other drilling equipment is
difficult due to the relatively long wear life of the
various components. The actual increase in the bit
life is also difficult to measure since there are
many variables other than shock loading which can
affect bit life. An excellent criterion is the
anlysis of the shock absorber's effect on the pene-
tration rate. It has been shown that small percen-
tage increases in penetration rate require signifi-
cantly larger percentage increases in bit life in
order to effect the same cost reductions.
Generally, the increased penetration rates
obtained by using optimum bit weight and rotary
speed resul t in a lower cost per foot of hole
drilled. In evaluating the effect of a shock
absorber on drilling costs, the cost per foot was
calculated for subject wells in which a shock
absorber was used. This cost was compared to
offset wells that did not utilize a shock absorber.
In order to accurately compare the drilling
costs between the subject wells and the offset
wells, the cost of the shock absorber must be
included in the rig cost figues. Since the tools
are generally a rental item, the hourly cost of the
shock absorber was added to the hourly rig cost.
The cost per foot for the offset well was
calculated with the equation:
386
SPF: 1140,
C/Fl =B + R] (T + t)
F
Where: B Bit Cost
Rl Rig Cost Per Hour l
T Total Rotating Time
t Total Trip Time 2
F Footage Dri lled
The cost per foot for the subject wells using
a shock absorber was calculated by the equation:
C/F2 =B + R2 (T + t)
F
Where: B Bit Cost
R2 Rig Cost Per Hour + Shock
Absorber Rental Per Hour
T Total Rotating Time
t Total Trip Time
F Footage
1. A representative rig cost was used, reflecting
1982 rig prices based on the depth rating for the
rig.
2. The total trip time was calculated using a
constant of 1.0 hours per 1000 feet required to
make a complete trip.
Data was gathered from wells drilled in various
areas of the United States. A summary of the drill-
ing costs for these wells is presented in the Appen-
dix. Analysis of this data indicates that the use of
a shock absorber was instrumental in reducing the
drilling costs.
OPTIMUM PLACEMENT
The degree to which the shock absorber benefits
are obtained is dependent on the placement of the
tool in the drill string. The proper placement of
the tool depends upon the type of bottomhole assembl~
to be used, the types of formations to be drilled,
and their tendency to cause deviation.
In general, it is recommended that whenever
possible the shock absorber be placed directly above
the bit. This position in the drill string will
provide the maximum benefit from the tool. In
addition, it will minimize the influence of any
design deficiencies which might be associated with
the particular product being used.
When formations which present minimum deviation
tendencies are drilled - negating the requirment for
reamers or stabilizers (slick string) - or when a
pendulum assembly is required, the shock absorber
should be placed directly above the bit (Fig. 5). I
hole conditions are such that a packed-hole assembly
is required then the shock absorber should be placed
directly above the near bit reamer or stabilizer
(Fig. 6). The shock may be placed anywhere in the
drill string; however, the further from the bit the
greater the reduction in effectiveness. To achieve
any significant benefit the tool must be run below
the neutral point and below the anticipated point
where drill collars may contact the wall of the hole,
minimizing the effective torque on the shock absorber.
SPE 11406 STEPHEN wORFoRn
If the tool is placed higher in the drill
string, stabilization of the shock absorber must be
considered. As previously discussed, design and
lateral stiffness of a particular shock absorber
must be also considered. An unstabilized tool may
be exposed to high bending loads which increase the
probability of fatigue failure. If placed imme-
diately above a reamer/stabilizer the probability of
a fat igue fai lure wi 11 be reduced s igni ficant ly. If
placed between two reamer/stabilizers, there is an
even greater reduction in the fatigue failure.
Additionally, the probability for hole directional
problems is also reduced by placing the shock
absorber between two reamer / s tabi 1 izers s 1nce this
isolates the lateral movement of the tool.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of a shock absorber does increase the
service life of the drill string, improves the rock
bit I s performance, and reduces stresses on surface
equipment. These benefits can result in an overall
reduction in the cost of drilling a well.
In order to determine if the shock absorber is
necessary, the cost reductions from these benefits
must be compared to the previously discussed
limitations. Through selection of the properly
designed tool and proper placement in the bottomhole
assembly for the formation conditions drilled, their
limitations can be overcome and the benefits ob-
tained. If this condition does exist, then the
387
,
shock absorber is necessary and becomes a vital tool
in reducing the overall drilling economics.
REFERENCES
1. F. H. Deily, D. W. Dareing, G. H. Paff, J. E.
Ortloff, R. D. Lynn, "Downhole Measurements of
Drill String Forces and Motions," Journal
of Engineering for Industry, Trans. ASME, Vol.
-----9-0, Series B, No.2, May 1968.
2. Dareing, D. W. and Livesay, B. J. "Longitudinal
and Angular Drill String Vibrations and Dampen-
ing," Journal of Engineering for Industry,
Trans. ASME, Vol. 90, Series B, Vol. 4, Nov.
1968.
3. Worford, S. W., "The Effects of a Shock Absorber
on Drilling Economics," ASME Workshop and
Conference, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Oct. 1979.
4. Willcox, M. G., Karle, A. P., Chaver, H. R.,
"Downhole Shock Absorbers," Dri lling Technology
Conference of the International Association of
Drilling Contractors, March 1977.
5. Kreisle, Leonard F., Vance, John M., "Mathema-
tical Analysis of the Effect of a Shock Sub on
the Longitudinal Vibrations of an Oilwell Drill
String," Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
(Dec. 1970) 349-356.
 APPENDIX

Well A
Point Coupe~h, Louisiana
60-4S-9E

Subject Wells Offset Average Best Offset

With Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber

Number offset wells 4

Hole size (in.) 12-1/4 12-1/4 12-1/4
Interval drilled (ft.) 6664 6462 6384
Average drilling rate (ft/hr) 10.46 9.31 10.21
Average cost per foot $51.58 $65.19 $56.97
(Average savings over offset average $87,948)

Well B
Panola ~, Texas

Subject Wells Offset Average Best Offset

With Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber

Number offset wells 5

Hole size (in.) 8-3/4 7-7/8, 8-3/4 8-3/4
Interval drilled (ft.) 7160 7177 6515
Average drilling rate (ft/hr) 15.12 11.86 13.37
Average cost per foot $24.70 $28.95 $26.17
(Average savings over offset average $30,502)

Well C
Burleson~y, Texas

Subject Wells Offset Average Best Offset

With Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber

Number offset wells 3

Hole size (in.) 7-7/8 7-7/8 7-7/8
Interval drilled (ft.) 3714 3902 4003
Average drilling rate (ft/hr) 30.37 26.25 30.44
Average cost per foot $10.79 $12.61 $11.16
(Average savings over offset average $7,102)

Well D
Blaine C~ Oklahoma
29-l8N-13W

Subject Wells Offset Average Best Offset

With Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber

Number offset wells 9

Hole size (in.) 7-7/8 7-7/8 7-7/8
Interval drilled (ft.) 6135 5698 5482
Average drilling rate (ft/hr) 17 .55 15.39 17.25
Average cost per foot $ 9.82 $11.41 $10.52
(Average savings over offset average $9,754)

Well E
Woods County, Oklahoma
10-25N-13W

Subject Wells Offset Average Best Offset

With Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber No Shock Absorber

Number offset wells 4

Hole size (in.) 8-3/4 8-3/4 8-3/4
Interval drilled (ft.) 4925 3638 3670
Average drilling rate (ft/hr) 23.56 17.16 17.48
Average cost per foot $ 6.65 $ 8.51 $ 8.04
(Average savings over offset average $9,160)

I Ji/O/,
 t
ROP
I
(ASSUMING
ADEQUATE
CLEANING I

g
BIT WEIGHT
o
(j
...J
0: Fig. 2-Penetration rate is directly related to bit
0 w weight.
'" :>
o

£f
0
0

~ 0
<0
C
..:
0
...J

'"

o
N

t-
ROP
I
o~---------------;----------------~----------------+----------------+----------------+-
0.0 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00

DEFLECTION (IN.)

Fig. 1-Weightldeflection capabilities. RPM

Fig. 3-Rotary speed has a direct effect on

penetration rate.
 10,000,----------------------------.

REAMER OR REAMER OR
STABILIZER STABILIZER

- - - N O SUB
- - -WITH SUB
1,000
30 FT. DRILL COLLAR

E
g
....Z 12)30 FT. DRILL COLLARS
w
:::;
w REAMER OR
()
100 STABILIZER
:3
Q.
(/)
i5
iii
()
a:
ou.

SHOCK ABSORBER
10
OPEN
STROKE
SPACE

SHOCK ABSORBE R

OPEN REAMER
STROKE
SPACE

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

ROTATIONAL SPEED N OF BIT (RPM)

Fig. 5-Recommended shock absorber Fig. 6-Recommended shock absorber

Fig. 4-Displacement as related to energy on the bit.
placement. placement.