A Multiple Regression Approach to Optimal Drilling

and Abnormal Pressure Detection

A. T. BOURGOYNE, JR.
F. S. YOUNG, JR.
MEMBERS SPE-AIME
LOUISIANA STATE U.
BA TON ROUGE, LA.
BAROID DIV. OF N L INDUSTRIES, INC.
HOUSTON, TEX.
DRILLING MODEL
The drilling model selected for predicting the
effect of the various drilling parameters, Xj' on
penetration rate, dD/dt, is given by
where Exp (z) is used to indicate the exponential
function e
Z
The modeling of drilling behavior in a
given formation type is accomplished by selecting
the constants al through as in Eq. 1. Since Eq. 1
is linear, those constants can be determined from a
multiple regression analysis of field data.
has been based on meager laboratory and field data.
We have tried here to (1) combine what is known
about the rotary drilling process into a single
model, (2) develop equations for calculating
formation pore pressure and optimum bit weight,
rotary speed, and jet bit hydraulics that are
consistent with that model, and (3) provide a
method for systematically "calibrating" the drilling
model using field data.
(1)
a.x.)' .
] J
8
1:
j=2
Exp(a
1
+ =
dD
dt
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, a number of drilling models
have been proposed for the optimization of the
rotary drilling process and the detection of abnormal
pressure while drilling. These techniques have
been largely based upon limited field and laboratory
data and often yield inaccurate results. Recent
developments in onsite well monitoring systems
have made possible the routine determination of
the best mathematical model for drilling optimiza-
tion and pore pressure detection. This modeling is
accomplished through a multiple regression analysis
of detailed drilling data taken over short intervals.
Included in the analysis are the effects of
(I) formation strength, (2) formation depth, (3)
formation compaction, (4) pressure differential across
the hole bottom, (5) bit diameter and bit weight, (6)
rotary speed, (7) bit wear, and (8) bit hydraulics.
This paper presents procedures for using the
regressed drilling model for (1) selecting bit weight,
rotary speed, and bit hydraulics, and (2) calculating
formation pressure from drilling data. The application
of the procedure is illustrated using field data.
Operators engaged in the search for hydrocarbon
reserves are facing much higher drilling costs as
more wells are drilled in hostile environments and
to greater depths. A study by Young and Tanner
l
has indicated that the average well cost per foot
drilled is increasing at approximately 7.5 percent/
year. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on
the collection of detailed drilling data to aid in
the selection of improved drilling practices.
At present, many people are using one drilling
model for optimizing bit weight and rotary speed, a
different drilling model for optimizing jet bit
hydraulics, and yet another model for detecting
abnormal pressure from drilling data. Each model
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Nov. 6, 1972. Revised manuscript received Jan. 19, 1974.
Paper (SPE 4238) was presented at SPE-AIME Sixth Conference
on Drilling and Rock Mechanics, held in Austin, Tex., Jan.
22-23, 1973. Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
lReferences listed at end of paper.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257,
which will cover 1974.
EFFECT OF FORMATION STRENGTH
The constant al primarily represents the effect of
formation strength on penetration rate. It is inversely
proportional to the natural logarithm of the square
of the drillability strength parameter discussed by
Maurer.
2
It also includes the effect on penetration
rate of drilling parameters that have not yet been
mathematically modeled; for example, the effect of
drilled solids.
EFFECT OF COMPACTION
The terms a2x2 and a3x3 model the effect of
compaction on penetration rate. x2 is defined by
x
2
= 10,000.0 - D ..... (2)
and thus assumes an exponential decrease In
penetration rate with depth in a normally compacted
formation. The exponential nature of the normal
compaction trend is indicated by the published
microbit and field data of Murray,3 and also by the
field data of Combs
4
(see Fig. 1). x3 is defined by
AlIGUST,1974 371
. (7)
. . (6)
+1200 +800
OWel1 A21
6Well G
21
oWel1 0
21
Berea 4
+400
Differential Into Formation I psi
o
In
-h, .
=
=
3.0
.,
"0
2.0
0::
l:
0
1.0
-0

-
.,
l:
.,
0.4
a.
.,
>
-
0.2
0
.,
0::
0.1
-400
Pressure
EFFECT OF ROTARY SPEED, N
The term a6x6 represents the effect of rotary
speed on penetration rate. x6 is defined by
EFFECT OF BIT HYDRAULIC
The term asxs models the effect of bit hydraulics
on penetration rate. xs is defined by
FIG. 2 - EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL BOTTOM-HOLE
PRESSURE ON PENETRATION RATE. S.6
EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR, h
The term a7x7 models the effect of tooth wear on
penetration rate. x7 is defined by
and thus assumes that penetration rate is directly
proportional to N
a
6 as indicated by several
authors.
4
,S-12 Note that the term e
a6x6
is normalized
to equal 1.0 for 100 rpm. Reported values of the
rotary speed exponent range from 0.4 for very hard
formations to 0.9 for very soft formations. 12
authors.
4
,S-12 Note that the term e
asxs
is normalized
to equal 1.0 for 4,000 lb per inch of bit diameter.
The threshold bit weight, (W/ d)1' must be estimated
with drill-off tests. Reported values of the bit
weight exponent range from 0.6 to 2.0.
where h is the fractional tooth height that has been
worn away. Previous authors
S

9
have used more
complex expressions to model tooth wear. However
those expressions were not ideally suited for the
multiple regression analysis procedure used to
evaluate the constant a7 from field data. Fig. 3
shows a typical comparison of the previously
published relations and e
a7
X7. The value of a7
depends primarily on the bit type and, to a lesser
extent, the formation type. When carbide insert bits
are used, penetration rate does not vary significantly
with tooth wear. Thus the tooth wear exponent,
a
7
, is assumed to be zero, and the remaining
exponents, a1 through a
6
and as, are regressed.
Note that e
a7x7
is 1 when either h or a7 is zero.
20,000
9.0).. (3)
10,000
w
d
In =
=
0.1 L--1-_.l...-......L._.L--......L._i.-....._i.-.................
o
(w)
d t
( . . . . (5)
4. 0
Q t
and thus assumes that penetration rate IS directly
proportional to (W/dt
s
as indicated by several
x 4 D (g p). . . . . . . (4)
P c
and thus assumes an exponential decrease in
penetration rate with excess bottom-hole pressure.
Field data presented by Vidrine and Benit
S
and by
Combs,4 and laboratory data presented by
Cunningham and Eenink
6
and by Garnier and
van Lingen
7
all indicate an exponential relation
between penetration rate and excess bottom-hole
pressure up to about 1,000 psi (see Fig. 2). Vidrine
and Beni t also noted an apparent relation between
the effect of differential pressure on penetration
rate and bit weight. However, no consistent
correlation could be obtained from the available
data, so no bit weight term was included in Eq. 4.
EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE
The term a4x4 models the effect of pressure
differential across the hole bottom on penetration
rate. x4 is defined by
,
,
,
,
,
EFFECT OF BIT DIAMETER
AND BIT WEIGHT, Wid
The term asxs models the effect of bit weight
and bit diameter on penetration rate. xs is defined
by
:5
..
o
..
..
0.5
CD
a..
CD
>
.. 0.2
o
CD
a:
! 2.0
o
a:
5.0
Vertical Depth, ft.
FIG. 1 - EFFECT OF NORMAL COMPACTION ON
PENETRATION RATE.
DO.
69
(
gp
and thus assumes an exponential increase in
rate with pore pressure gradient. The
exponential nature of the effect of undercompaction
on penetration rate is suggested by compaction
theory, but has not yet been verified experimentally.
Note that the effect of compaction on penetration
a
2
x + a3 x 3 .
rate, e 2 , has been normalized to equal
1.0 for a normally compacted formation at 10,000 ft.
372
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGIl\"EERS JOURl\"AL
Gal./Min. Diameler
Q
~ ~
3i1;
0

10
1
/2
a

10
!
8
A

aS:
6 V

&'
+- ~ - - - : t
.,
. L
o ~ c 10
"11 - ':"1
6'
W-IOOO Lb. N-75RPM
I
I I It.r
50
I
O
PSI' I I 1-
2
10
8
6
4
20
100
80
60
40
0060.1 0.2 04 0.6 1.0 2 4 6 10 20 4060100150
Eqs. 1 through 7 define the general functional
relations between penetration rate and the other
drilling variables, but the constants a2 through as
must be determined before these equations can be
applied. The constants a2 through as are determined
through a multiple regression analysis of detailed
drilling data taken over short depth intervals.
The idea of using a regression analysis of past
drilling data to evaluate constants in a drilling rate
equation is not new. For example, it was proposed
by Graham and Muench
lO
in 1959 in one of the first
papers on drilling optimization. This approach was
used by Combs
4
in his work on the detection of
pore pressure from drilling data. However, much of
the past work in this area has been hampered by
the difficulty in obtaining large volumes of accurate
field data and because the effect of many of the
drilling parameters discussed above were ignored.
Recent developments in onsite well monitoring1
have made it possible to routinely regress the more
complex drilling equation (Eq. 1).
A derivation of the multiple regression-analysis
procedure is presented in detail in Appendix A.
Theoretically, only eight data points are required
MULTIPLE REGRESSION TECHNIQUE
Ta is calculated from a dull bit grading. Note that
Eq. 10 is normalized so that the abrasiveness factor
TH is numerically equal to the hours of tooth life
that would result if a Class 1 bit were operated at
"standard conditions", i.e., a bit weight of 4,000 lb
per inch of bit diameter and a rotary speed of 100
rpm. Likewise, Eq. 11 is normalized so that the
bearing constant Ta is numerically equal to the
hours of bearing life that would result if the bit
were operated at standard conditions. By normalizing
the bit wear equations in this manner, field
personnel can attach a physical meaning to the bit
wear constants and thus more easily detect
anomalous bit gradings.
Estes
14
has pointed out that the rate of bit wear
will be excessive if too great a bit weight is used.
His recommended maximum bit weights are shown
in Table 3. The recommended maximum bit weights
are based on bearing capacity for milled-tooth bits
and on cutting structure for insert bits.
1.0 0.8
..... (10)
0.6 0.4
pq (8)
350 11d
n
0.2
11 + T /20 . . . . . . . . (9)
P Y
BIT WEAR MODEL
=
=
=
=
0.0 '--__..I.-__....I....__....L..__--'-__--'
0.0
0.8
c::
0
...
u
c::
0.6
:>
l.L.
...
0
Q)
~
0.4
.c
...
0
0
I-
0.2
dh
dt
dB
dt
In addi tion to a penetration rate model, equations
are also needed to estimate the condition of the
bit at any time. Tooth wear was modeled using
(W) -4
d
[ max ]
(W) _ ~
d max
1.0 r-----------------,
and is based on microbit experiments performed by
Eckel.
13
As shown in Fig. 4, Eckel found that
penetration rate was proportional to a Reynolds
number group (-.!!!!.-) raised to the 0.5 power. Since
fl d
n
fl' the apparent viscosity at 10,000 sec -1, is not
routinely measured and recorded it must be estimated
using the relation
where the constant b depends upon bearing type
and mud type (see Table 4) and the bearing constant
where the constants HI, H
2
, H
3
, and (W/d)max
depend upon bit type (see Tables 1, 2, and 3) and
the abrasiveness constant TH is calculated from a
dull bit grading (see example of Appendix D).
Bearing wear was estimated using
Fractional Tooth Dullness, h
FIG. 3 EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR ON PENETRA-
TION RATE (CHIPPING-TYPE TOOTH WEAR).
Reynolds Number Funclion
FIG. 4 - DRILLING RATE VS REYNOLDS NUMBER
FUNCTION.13
AUGUST,1974 373
TABLE 1 - ROCK BIT CLASSIFICATION GUIDE (AFTER ESTESI4).
DRESSER - SECUR ITY HUGHES G. W. MURPHY SM ITH
MILL-
''T'' "G" "5
11
'I"
IIG" I'SII
"SG" IIJ"
'1" "G"
"S't "5Gil
11'1 I'GII 115
11
IISG"
TOOTH
STO GAGE GAGE SEAL STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL BEAR STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL
CLASS
I - 1 S3S S33S OSC3A X3A YT3A S13A OS SOS
2 S3 S3T S33 OSC3 X3 Y13 YT3T S13 OT on SOT
3 S4 S4T S4TG S44 OSCIG CIC OOG XIG XOG YTIA YTlT YTIAG SHAG OG OGT OGH SOG SOGH
4 S6 S6G OSC K2 K2H
I
I
2 - I M4N M4NG M44N OW4 OOV XOV YSI YSIG SSIG V2 V2H SV I SVH
2 OWV xv
I
3 M4L M4LG M44L OWC XC YM YMG SMG 2 T2H
3 - 1 H7 H7T H7TG H77 W7 W07 X7 X07 YH YHG
FHGlJl
L4 L4H SL4 SL4H
2 H7U H7UG H77U W7R2 X7R YHW YHWG SB7
SHG
W4 W4H
3 H7SG H77S
4 - I HC HCG H77C WR WOR XWR XOR J8 YBV YBVG
FVlJl
SBVG WC WCH SWS SWCH
J08
SBV
INSERT tis"
115
11
lIJ" "SH "11J" IlJ" "S" "J"
CLASS REG. SEAL REG. SEAL JOURNAL REG. SEAL FC FBC REG. SEAL SEGMENT
5 - I
2 S84 FCT FBCT
3 S86 J33 SCS5 FCS5 FBCS5 3JS SS3
6 - I S88 X44R J44 SCMS FCM5 FBCMS 4JS SS4
2 J55C SCM FCM FBCM 4-7JS SS4-7
7 - I M88 55R X55R J55R YC5G SCHS FCH5 FBCHS 5 5JS SS5
2 SCH FCH FBCH 7 7JS SS7
8 - I H8 H88 RG7 RG7X YC4G SC4G FCH4 FBCH4
2 RGIX J88 SCG 8 8JS
9 - I HID HIOO RG2B RG2BX YC2G SC2G FCH2 FBCH2 9 9JS SS9
CLASS: D - I I - 2 I - 5 2 - 4
SMITH BHOJ OJ
ORESSER 53SJ OS OM
THE ABOVE TYPES ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN POPULAR SIZES. OBSOLETE TYPES NOT L1STEO MAY ALSO BE AVAILABLE IN SOME SIZES.
DEVIATION CONTROL BITS: NOTES: (j) INOICATES A JOURNAL BEARING MILL-TOOTH BIT.
CLASS 0 BITS ARE TWO-CONE.
*Sealed bearing bits are 8 to 10 percent lower; journal bearing
bits are 10 to 12 percent higher.
**Insert.. bit maximums are based on cutting structure, not
bearing capacity.
Bearing Type Drilling Fluid b
-
Barite mud 1.00
Sulfide mud 1.25
Nonsealed Water 1.90
Clay mud 2.04
Oil base mud 2.55
Seal ed 2.80
to solve for the eight unknowns a 1 through as.
However, in practice this is true only if Eq. 1
models the rotary drilling process with IOO-percent
accuracy. Needless to say, it never happens. When
only a few data points are used in the analysis of
field data, even negative values are sometimes
calculated for one or more of the regression
constants. A sensitivity study of the multiple
regression-analysis procedure indicated that the
number of data points required to give meaningful
results depends not only on the accuracy of Eq. 1,
but also on the range of values of the drilling
parameters x2 through xs' Table 5 summarizes the
recommended minimum ranges for each of the
drilling parameters and the recommended minumum
number of data points to be used in the analysis.
When any of the drilling parameters, Xj' have been
held essentially constant through the interval
analyzed, a value for the corresponding regression
TABLE 4 - RECOMMENDED BEARING WEAR PARAMETER
FOR ROCK BITS (AFTER MARATIERIZ)
(W/dl
max
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
See Table 3
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.48
0.36
0.26
0.20
0.18
0.02
HI
1.90
1.84
1.80
1. 76
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.50
1.50
TABLE 2 - RECOMMENDED TOOTH WEAR PARAMETERS
FOR ROCK BITS
Hz
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
TABLE 3 - MAXIMUM DESIGN WEIGHT ON BIT,*
1,000 LB/IN. (AFTER ESTESI4)
BIT CLASS-SUBCLASS INSERT BITS**
Bit 21
Size 1 1 12 13 14 22 23 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
- - - - ---
6 lie 5.6 6.0 6.6 6.9 7.9
6';. 5.7 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.2 8.5 3.1 4.4 4.5 5.2 4.0
7 'Ie 6.0 6.2 6.6 7.0 7.5 7.6 8.7 9.4 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.7 4.5
8';. 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.2 7.8 8.0 9.5 10.0 3.7 5.1 5.2 5.8 4.7
9 'Ie 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.0 7.6 7.7 8.9 3.6 5.1 5.1 5.9 4.6
10% 6.4 7.0 8.8 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.8 4.5
12 I;. 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.3 7.4 8.5 3.5 4.9 4.9 5.6 4.4
14';.
5.3 5.8 6.3 7.4 3.4 4.7 4.8 5.4 4.3
.15
17 V;, 5.0 5.7 7.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.8 3.8
Bit Class
11 to 12
1.3 to 14
21 to 22
23
3.1
3.2
33
4-1
Insert
374 SOCIETY OF PETROI.ElTM E:'\GI:'\EERS JOUR:'\AL
constant, aj' should be estimated from past studies
and the regression analysis should be carried out
for the remaining regression constants. As the
number of drilling parameters included in the
analysis are decreased, the minimum number of data
points required to calculate the remaining regression
constants is also decreased (see Table 5). In many
applications, data from more than one well had to be
combined in order to calculate all eight regression
constants.
The penetration rate, bit weight, and rotary speed
should be monitored over shorr depth intervals to
insure that most of the information recorded is
representative of a single type of formation. A
depth interval of 2 to 5 ft was found to give
representati ve data and still keep the volume of
data required within reasonable limits.
Field data taken in shale in an offshore Louisiana
well are shown in Table 6. Note that the primary
drilling variables required for the regression
analysis are depth, penetration rate, bit weight per
inch of bit diameter, rotary speed, fractional tooth
wear, Reynolds number parameter, mud density, and
pore pressure gradient. To calculate the best
values of the regression constants a 1 through as
using the data shown, the parameters x
2
through Xs
must be calculated using Eq. 2 through 8 for each
data entry. Eight equations with the eight unknowns
al through as can then be obtained from x2 through
Xs using the procedure described in Appendix A.
For example, the first of the eight equations defined
in Appendix A is given by
na
1
+ a
2
EX
2
+ a
3
EX
3
+ a
4
EX
4
+ as Ex
S
+ a
6
EX
6
+ a
7
EX
7
dD
+ as Ex
S
= E In dt
TABLE 5 - RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DATA RANGES FOR
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
*Maximum observed value less minimum observed value
included in regression analysis.
Number of Minimum
Parameters Number of Points
5
x 10 a
2
+ 0.94 0.89
x 10
5
a
3
- 0.36 x 10
6
a
4
20 a - 7.4 a
6
-
12 a
7 5
6.3 as = SS
30 a -
1
Thus, using the 30 data points of Table 6 In this
equation yields
When the resulting system of eight equation IS
solved for the eight unknowns, the constants, al
30
25
20
15
10
7
4
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Minimum*
Range
2,000
15,000
15,000
0.40
0.50
0.20
0.50
Parameter
TABLE 6 - EXAMPLE DATA FOR MUL TIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
(Taken in shale, Offshore Louisiana area)
Drilling Rotary Reynalds Pore
Data Depth Bit Rate Bit Weight Speed Tooth Number ECD Gradient
Entry (ft) Number (ftlhr) (l,OOOlb/in.) (rpm) Wear Function (Ib/gal) (Ib/gal)
1 9,515 7 23.0 2.58 113 0.77 0.964 9.5 9.0
2 9,830 8 22.0 1. 15 126 0.38 0.964 9.5 9.0
3 10,130 9 14.0 0.81 129 0.74 0.827 9.6 9.0
4 10,250 11 10.0 0.95 87 0.15 0.976 9.7 9.0
5 10,390 12 16.0 1.02 78 0.24 0.984 9.7 9.0
6 10,500 19.0 1.69 81 0.61 0.984 9.7 9.1
7 10,575 13.0 1.56 81 0.73 0.984 9.7 9.2
8 10,840 13 16.6 1.63 67 0.38 0.932 9.8 9.3
9 10,960 15.9 1.83 65 0.57 0.878 9.8 9.4
10 11,060 15.7 2.03 69 0.72 0.878 9.8 9.5
11 11,475 15 14.0 1.69 77 0.20 0.887 10.3 9.5
12 11,775 18 13.5 2.31 58 0.12 0.852 11.8 10.1
13 11 ,940 21 6.2 2.26 67 0.2 0.976 15.3 12.4
14 12,070 22 9.6 2.07 84 0.08 0.993 15.7 13.0
15 12,315 15.5 3.11 69 0.40 1. 185 16.3 14.4
16 12,900 23 31.4 2.82 85 0.42 1.150 16.7 15.9
17 12,975 24 42.7 3.48 77 0.17 1.221 16.7 16.1
18 13,055 38.6 3.29 75 0.29 1.161 16.8 16.2
19 13,250 43.4 2.82 76 0.43 1. 161 16.8 16.2
20 13,795 25 12.5 1.60 81 0.56 0.272 16.8 16.2
21 14,010 26 21.1 1.04 75 0.46 0.201 16.8 16.2
22 14,455 28 19.0 1.76 64 0.16 0.748 16.9 16.2
23 14,695 18.7 2.00 76 0.27 0.819 17.1 16.2
24 14,905 29 20.2 2.35 75 0.33 0.419 17.2 16.4
25 15,350 30 27.1 2.12 85 0.31 1.29 17.0 16.5
26 15,740 14.8 2.35 78 0.81 0.802 17.3 16.5
27 16,155 32 12.6 2.47 80 0.12 0.670 17.9 16.5
28 16,325 14.9 3.76 81 0.50 0.532 17.5 16.6
29 17,060 34 13.8 3.76 65 0.91 0.748 17.6 16.6
30 20,265 40 9.0 3.41 60 0.01 0.512 17.7 16.6
AUGUST,1974 375
C
r
=
[J
1
J
2
H2
[1 +
a
7
+
(U-1)
. 2 H
2
a
7
a
7
] . . . . . (13)
Exp (-- + U)]
H
2
the use of such systems is prohibited by economics.
Previous authors have published techniques for
computing a variable bit weight and rotary speed
schedule as well as the best constant weight-speed
schedule. Galle and Woods
9
have reported that
the simpler constant weight-speed schedule results
in only slightly higher costs per foot. A recent paper
by Reed
1
? indicates a difference of less than 3
percent in the cost per foot between the variable
weight-speed and constant weight-speed schedules
for the cases studied.
Combining Eq. 1, an integrated form of Eq. 11,
and Eq. 12 leads to the following expression for
cost per foot for a given bit weight per inch of bit
diameter, W/ d, rotary speed, N, and rotating time,
tb'
where
OPTIMAL DRILLING
through as, given for Well 1 in Table 7 are obtained.
Results obtained for shale using several other
wells in the same general offshore Louisiana area
are also shown in Table 7 for comparison. Wells 2
and 3 of Table 7 were drilled from the same platform.
The term "drilling optimization" was applied
first to procedures for selecting jet bit hydraulics.
The term was later expanded to include procedures
for selecting bit weight and rotary speed,S,9 and
recently has been used to refer to a broad plan for
the selection of mud types and mud properties,
bit types and operating conditions, and' casing
types and setting depths,1S At present, however,
only a limited number of drilling variables can be
handled using formal mathematical optimization
procedures. Equations derived from the drilling
model of Eq. 1 are presented in this paper for the
optimization of bit weight, rotary speed, and jet
bit hydraulics. The derivations of the optimization
equations are given in Appendixes Band C. It was
assumed in the derivation that the drilling cost per
foot, C
I
, could be expressed in terms of the bit
cost, C
b
, the hourI y rig cost, C" the trip time, t t'
the connection time, t
c
' the drilling time, tb' and
the footage drilled, /}.D. The cost equation assumed
is given by
=
C
b
+ Cr(tt + t
c
+ ~ )
6D
=
Exp
6
L:
j=2
a.x.
J J
(12)
Thus risk factors, hole deviation problems, hole
washout problems, and variable pump costs were
ignored. Also inherent in the use of Eq. 1 are the
assumptions that roller-type rock bits are used and
that bit balling does not occur. Drilling variables
not included in Eq. 1 such as mud type and percent
solids were also ignored. These limitations should
be kept in mind when using the optimization
equations listed below.
=
. . . . . (14a)
BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
As discussed in a previous paper,16 optimum bit
weight and rotary speed can be determined
automatically at the well site with a computerized
drilling control system. However, in many cases,
U
. . . .04b)
TABLE 7 - RESUL TS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR GULF COAST AREA
02 03 04
Well Depth Range 01 (l0-
3
) (l0-
3
) (l0-
4
) aS 06 07 08
1 9,500 - 20,000 3.78 0.17 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.41 0.16
2 9,000 - 14,000 3.55 0.18 0.20 0.61 1.05 0.5* 0.20 0.52
3 9,000 - 15,000 3.33 0.21 0.18 0.52 0.91 0.72 0.23 0.48
4 11,000 - 14,000 2.71 0.25 0.40 0.46 1.2 0.5* 0.3* 0.5*
5 10,000 - 13,000 3.09 0.15 0.20* 0.50* 0.82 0.5* 0.25 0.5*
6 12,000 - 16,000 3.69 0.28 0.37 0.85 0.94 0.50 0.3* 0.61
7 9,000 - 14,000 2.89 0.10* 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.43 0.3* 0.22
*Volue assumed rather than calculated because carresponding drilling param-
eter did not vary Over a wide enough range to be included in the regression
onalysi s.
376 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
If it is assumed that bit life, lb' is limited by either
tooth wear or bearing wear, then the rotating time,
lb' can be obtained from the integrated forms of Eq.
10 or 11. Thus, the smaller of the two rotating times,
lb' given by either
=
or
N = 100
opt
(
w) (W)
T d d
~ max opt
~ H3[ ( ~ ) -4J
max
. . (16)
and the optimum rotary speed, N
opt
' is given by
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
where the abrasiveness factor, TH, is obtained from
a bit grading and Eq. 10. When using Eqs. 16 through
18 to obtain the optimum bit weight and rotary
speed, the cost per foot should be computed for a
tooth wear, H, of both 1. 0 and 0.95 to insure the
validity of the assumption that bit life is limited
by tooth wear.
Unfortunately, simple analytical expressions for
the best constant bit weight and rotary speed could
not be obtained for the case in which bearing wear
limits bit life. In this case, a cost-per-foot table
should be constructed, using Eqs. 13 through 15b
in an i terati ve mann er.
OPTIMUM HYDRAULIes
The drilling cost equation shown as Eq. 12 does
not properly account for the variable pump cost
associated with the optimization of bit hydraulics.
However, since the variable pump cost is usually
small compared with the hourly rig cost, this is not
a serious limitation. Nelson
lS
has shown that the
variable operating cost of the pump can be related
to the hydraulic horsepower developed by the pump.
For most of the larger rigs, the variable pump cost
is approximately $0.02/hp hr. Thus, if by optimizing
jet bit hydraulics, an additional 500 hp is required
for a 12-hour bit run, the incremental pump operating
cost would be only $120. Since this is usually an
insignificant portion of the total cost, the
optimization of jet bit hydraulics is essentially
achieved by maximizing the penetration rate.
Inspection of Eq. 1 reveals that penetration rate
will be a maximum when the term asxs is a maximum.
As shown in Appendix C, this is achieved by
choo sing nozzle sizes and pump' operating condi-
tions so that the pressure drop across the bit, ~ P b'
is related to the maximum pump pressure, P
p
' by
by
100
[-] ..... (15b)
N
=
=
~
[ ~
tt tel
HI
1], = + +
[-
c
r
a
6
(17)
TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE
Relatively simple analytical equations for the
best constant weight and rotary speed were derived
(see Appendix B) for the case in which tooth wear
limits bit life, using a procedure described by
Maratier.
I2
The optimum bit weight per inch of bit
diameter, (W/ d)opt, is given by
should be used in Eq. 14c. A cost-per-foot table for
various combinations of bit weight and rotary speed
can be generated using Eq. 13 through 14c. Table 8
is a cost-per-foot table for an example problem
gi ven in Appendix D. Note that the cost-per-foot
table can be used to quickly identify (1) the best
combination of bit weight and rotary speed, (2) the
best rotary speed for a given bit weight, and (3) the
best bit weight for a given rotary speed.
where the constants HI and (W/ d)max are obtained
from Table 2 and the constants as and a6 are
obtained from the regression analysis.
The expected bit life is given by
TABLE 8 - EXAMPLE COST PER FOOT
Bit Weight per Inch of Bit Diameter (1,000 Ib/in.)
Rotary
Speed
(rpm)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2.0
$167.83
114.94
95.19
85.77
81.15
79.25
79.07
80.08
81.97
84.52
3.0
$103.51
71.45
59.84
54.61
52.37
51.83
52.38
53.68
55.54
57.83
4.0
$73.67
51.48
43.84
40.77
39.85
40.17
41.29
42.96
45.06
47.48
5.0
$56.88
40.61
35.56
34.08
34.30
35.51
37.37
39.69
42.37
45.32
6.0
$46.67
34.92
32.36
32.80
34.70
37.48
40.86
44.68
48.85
53.29
7.0
$42.82
38.55
42.65
49.76
58.52
68.36
79.01
90.29
102.11
114.39
p
= :+}, (19)
where m is the slope of a plot of parasitic pressure
drop vs flow rate on log-log paper. Note that by
operating in accordance with Eq. 19, the jet impact
force at the bit as well as the Reynolds number
function Xs is maximized. Theoretical considerations
indicate a value of 1.8 for m. However, Scott has
recently reported measuring m values as low as
1.0.
19
An evaluation of the proposed optimization scheme
has indicated that in many cases a considerable
A If (; If ST. I 9 7 4
377
(asx
s
aaxB) ]. . (20)
I--
Density
H't=:
Pore Pressore (Sonic)
: Ofe Pressure (Kp).
:t-
-t:1---1=
-f:'=
8
0
0
0
fC-1----
0
-
,--+---
0
-
-=
1--
1
-
1=1=
/:=:ll;;:: fC=f=
-
1---"-\--
f- f---t-

+-. t-
1=1---I---
Log
lO
=
Fig.6 Drillability: and Pore Pr...sure Plot
Hot Wire Gas PressUfe Gradient
8 10 12
(The drillability parameter, which is based on Eq. 1,
is somewhat analogous to the lCd-exponent"
developed by Jorden and Shirley 11 using a more
simplified penetration rate equation.) The drillability
log is then analyzed to determine the type of
formation being drilled. The pore pressure gradient
can be related to the drillability parameter, K
p
' in
a given type of formation by
H+-
cannot be optimized by formal mathematical
techniques. Thus the choice of mud properties, bit
type, casing points, etc., must be based on past
experience and what is known about the down-hole
environment. The most important design parameter
needed to insure a low-cost, trouble-free operation
is the pore pressure of the formations penetrated.
Since the drillability of a given type of formation
is affected by the pressure differential at the
bottom of the hole as well as by the effective
formation compaction, a normalized penetration rate
log can be used to estimate the formation pressure.
The regression constants and the drilling data
are used to compute and plot a drillability parameter,
K
p
, defined by

1--
0
0::

0
LL:
1---'-.
t-
,(
- 0
m: 1.2
:::E
500 1000 100
2Pp
ni+2
Flow Rate, GPM
Optimum
50
+- Path of Optimum
-. Hydroulics
10
5000

o
lJ..
o
c: 0::
30 00 I-_M_ax_._P_u_m..:.p_p_'e_s_s_u'_e :::E,- ---i
200
i. 1000
::>
III
III
500
a.
'" 'iii
Co
PORE PRESSURE DETECTION
At present, the remalOlng drilling variables
reduction in drilling cost could be achieved by
drilling optimization. Estimated reductions in drilling
cos t on several wells varied from a few percent to
to 30 percent and averaged about 10 percent. This
value is in agreement with other reported
studies. 9, IS However, where bit life is limited by
tooth wear, the proposed optimization scheme is
much easier to apply than previously published
techniques
8
, 9,16,17 because the optimum conditions
can be calculated from analytical expressions rather
than by trial and error or by involved graphical
procedures.
An example bit run optimization is shown in
Appendix D. Note that the optimum bit weight and
rotary speed are very sensitive to the regression
constants as and a
6
. Thus, the accuracy of the
optimization should systematically improve as
experience is gained in an area.
As shown in Appendix D, bit hydraulics is
optimized using a technique outlined by Scott.
19
The standpipe pressure is measured at both a normal
circulating rate and a reduced circulating rate. The
pressure drop through the bit is then estimated at
both circulating rates using the orifice equation or
a Hydraulic Slide Rule. The total parasitic pressure
los s is then determined as the difference between
the standpipe pressure and the pressure drop through
the bit. Knowing the parastic pressure drop at two
rates allows the graphical estimation of the exponent
m (see Fig. 6). The optimum flow rate and pressure
drop across the bit can then be calculated with
Eq. 19. Since the pressure drop at a reduced
circulating rate is normally recorded twice a day
to aid in "kick" control calculations, the optimum
bit hydraulics can usually be calculated without
making any additional measurements.
FIG. 5 CALCULATION OF OPTIMUM BIT
HYDRAULICS.
FIG. 6 - DRILLABILITY AND PORE PRESSURE PLOT.
378
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
paper. We also wish to acknowledge all those who
assisted in its preparation, and particularly Wesley
Carew for his assistance in developing software
and preparing data.
NOMENCLATURE
formation strength parameter
exponent of the normal compaction trend
undercompaction exponent
pressure differential exponent
bit weight exponent
rotary speed exponent
tooth wear exponent
hydraulic exponent
bearing constant
fractional bearing wear
cost of bit, dollars
drilling cost per foot drilled, dollars/ft
cost of rig, dollars/hour
bit diameter, in.
bit nozzle diameter, In.
well depth, ft
pore pressure gradient of the formation,
lb/gal
regression index of correlation
fractional tooth height worn away
constants that depend on bit type
summation index for ith data point
summation index for frh drilling
parameter
a function of bit weight per inch and
rotary speed
normalized drillability parameter used
for graphical presentation
a constant
friction loss - flow rate exponent
number of data points used in regression
analysis
rotary speed, rpm
optimum rotary speed, rpm
pump pressure, psig
pressure drop across the bit, psi
parasitic pressure drop, psi
flow rate, gal/min
residual for regression analysis
time, hours
rotating time during bit run, hours
nonrotating time or connection time,
hours
trip time during bit run, hours
a function of bit weight per inch, rotary
speed, and rotating time
weight on bit per inch of bit diameter,
1,0001b/in.
J
n
K
m
u
N
Wid
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To smooth out minor lithology variations, a 25-ft
average value of pore pressure gradient is usually
plotted. After formation cuttings are obtained at
the surface, the formation pressure is also estimated
on the basis of the density of the cuttings. However,
the normalized penetration rate log provides the
most current information.
At the present time, this approach has been
tested only in the Gulf Coast area. The response of
drillability to an increasing pore pressure should
be a maximum in this type of geologic environment
because the zones of high pore pressure are
undercompacted. Also, since the lithology of this
area is relatively simple, formation types are more
easily determined. An example drillability log and
pore pressure plot is shown in Fig. 6. Also shown
for comparison are the pore pressure gradients
obtained from a sonic log. In general, a comparison
between pore pressure gradients computed from a
drillability plot and pore pressure gradients computed
from a sonic log yields a standard deviation of
about 1.0 Ib/gal. As the number of wells drilled
in an area increases and the regression constants
become better defined, rhe accuracy of the pore
pressure calculation should improve. This was
observed in Wells 2 and 3 of Table 7. A comparison
of pore pressures computed from a sonic log
yielded a standard deviation of 1.1 Ib/gal after the
first well was drilled and a standard deviation of
0.9 Ib/gal after the second well was drilled.
The new procedure described here was applied
on several wells in the Gulf Coast area. The
following conclusions resulted from this evaluation.
1. When modern well monitoring equipment is
used, a regressional analysis procedure can be
used to systematically evaluate many of the
constants in the penetration rate equation.
2. In many cases, data must be obtained from
more than a single well before all the regression
constants can be evaluated.
3. The regression analysis procedure IS more
easily applied in young geologic strata such as
those on the Gulf Coast.
4. The use of relatively simple drilling opti-
mization equations can reduce drilling costs by
about 10 percent.
5. Formation pressure can be estimated from
drilling data with a standard deviation of about 1
Ib/gal.
=
We wish to thank the management of Baroid Div.,
N L Industries, Inc., for permission to publish this
Ali G [: , T. I 9 7,\
379
REFERENCES
SUBSCRIPTS
C calculated
OB observed
1. Young, F. S., Jr., and Tanner, K. D.: "Recent
Developments in On-Site Well Monitoring Systems,"
Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech U., Lubbock
(April 1972).
2. Maurer, W. C.: "The 'Perfect Cleaning' Theory of
Rotary Drilling," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1962) 1270-
1274; Trans., AIME, Vol. 225.
3. Murray, A. S., and Cunningham, R. A.: "The Effect
of Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rates," Trans.,
AIME (1955) Vol. 204, 196-204.
4. Combs, G. D.: "Prediction of Pore Pressure From
Penetration Rate," Proc., Second Symposium on
Abnormal Subsurface Pore Pressure, Baton Rouge,
La. (J an. 1970).
5. Vidrine, D. J., and Denit, E. J.: "Field Verification
of the Effect of Differential Pressure on Drilling
Rate," ]. Pet. Tech. (July 1968) 676-682.
6. Cunningham, A. J., and Eenink, J. G.: "Laboratory
Study of Effect of Overburden, Formation and Mud
Column Pressure on Drilling Rate of Permeable
Formations," Trans., AIME (1959) Vol. 216, 9-17.
7. Garnier, A. J., and van Lingen, N. H.: "Phenomena
Affecting Drilling Rates at Depth," Trans., AIME
(1959) Vol. 216, 232-239.
8. Edwards, J. H.: "Engineering Design of Drilling
Operations," Drill. and Prod. Prac. API (1964) 39.
9. Galle, E. M., and Woods, A. B.: "Best Constant
Weight and Rotary Speed for Rotary Rock Bits,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac. API (1963) 48.
10. Graham, J. W., and Muench, N. L.: "Analytical
Determination of Optimum Bit Weight and Rotary
Speed Combinations," paper SPE 1349-G presented
at SPE-AIME 34th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Oct.
4-7, 1959.
dD
In
dt
. . . . . (A-2)
a.x. .. (A-1)
J J
a.x.
J J
8
L:
j=2
8
L:
j=2
=
=
r.
~
dD
In
dt
then the problem is to select a 1 through a 8 so that
for n data points, where n is any number greater
than 8, the sum of the square of the residuals,
n
~ r?, is a minimum. Using The Calculus,
i=l
APPENDIX A
11. Jorden, J. R, and Shirley, O. J.: "Application of
Drilling Performance Data to Overpressure Detection,"
]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1966) 1387-1394.
12. Maratier, J.: "Optimum Rotary Speed and Bit Weight
for Rotary Drilling," MS thesis, Louisiana State U.,
Baton Rouge (June 1971).
13. Eckel, J. J.: "Microbit Studie s of the Effect of Fluid
Properties and Hydraulics on Drilling Rate," ]. Pet.
Tech. (April 1967) 541-546; Trans., AIME, Vol. 240.
14. Estes, J. C.: "Selecting the Proper Rotary Rock
Bit," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1971) 1359-1367.
15. Lummus, J. L.: "Acquisition and Analysis of Data
for Optimized Drilling," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1971)
1285-1293.
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 1 yields
16. Young, F. S., Jr.: "Computerized Drilling Control,"
]. Pet. Tech. (April 1969) 483-496; Trans., AIME,
Vol. 246.
17. Reed, R L.: "A Monte Carlo Approach to Optimal
Drilling," S'oc. Pet. Eng. ]. (Oct. 1972) 423-438;
Trans., AIME, Vol. 253.
18. Nelson, J. K.: "What Mud Pump Horsepower Costs,"
Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1965) 71.
19. Scott, K. F.: "A New Practical Approach to Rotary
Drilling Hydraulics," paper SPE 3530 presented at
SPE-AIME 46th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, New
Orleans, La. (1971).
20. Bourgoyne, A. T., Rizer, J. A., and Myers, G. M.:
"Porosity and Pore Press ure Logs," The Drilling
Contractor (May-June 1971) 36.
21. Campbell, J. M., and Mitchell, B. J.: "Effect of
Tooth Geometry on Tooth Wear Rate of Rotary Rock
Bits," paper presented at API Mid-Continent District
Spring Meeting (March 1959).
22. Hebert, W. E., and Young, F. S., Jr.: "Estimation of
Formation Pressure with Regression Models of
Drilling Data," ]. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1972) 9-15.
23. McLean, R. H.: "Velocities, Kinetic Energy and
Shear in Crossflow Under Three-Cone Jet Bits,"
]. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1965) 1443-1448; Trans., AIME,
Vol. 234.
Eq. Al can be checked for validity in a given
formation type at each depth at which data have
been collected. 1 we define the residual error of
the ith data point, ri' by
bit weight per inch of bit diameter at
which the bit teeth would fail instan-
taneously, 1,0001b/in.
optimum bit weight per inch
threshold bit weight at which the bit
begins to drill, 1,000 lb/in.
normal compaction drilling parameter
undercompaction drilling parameter
pressure differential drilling parameter
bit weight drilling parameter
rotary speed drilling parameter
tooth wear drilling parameter
bit hydraulics drilling parameter
the apparent viscosity at 10,000 sec-I,
cp
mud density, lb/gal
equivalent circulating mud density at
the hole bottom, lb/gal
bearing constant or Ii fe of bearings at
standard conditions, hours
formation abrasiveness constant or life
of teeth at standard condi tions, hours
= overbar, designation of mean
P
Pc
(W/d)opt
(W/d)t
(W/d)max
380
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM E'iGI:-iEERS JOrR:-iAL
a.x.
J J
-a
7
h
e dt. . . .(B-2a)
6
Exp(a
1
+ E
j=2
=
OPTIMIZAnON OF BIT WEIGHT
AND ROTARY SPEED
=
=
APPENDIX B
TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE
The cost per foot can be expressed by
then Eq. B-2a becomes
The footage drilled, f\,.D, can be obtained from Eq. 1:
If the symbol] 1 is used to represent a function of
bit weight per inch, W/d, and rotary speed, N,
which is defined by
dO
1n
dt
= E
n
2
d E r.
dr.
i=1
n
E 2r.

=
da. d a.
i=1

J J
n
= E 2r.x. = 0
i=1

J
2
a
1
EX
2
+ a
2
EX
2
+ a
3
Ex
2
x
3
dO
+ + aa
Ex
2x a = Ex
2
1n
dt
2
a
1
EX
3
+ a
2
Ex
3
x
2
+ a
3
EX
3
dO
+ + aa
Ex
3
x
a = Ex
3
1n
dt
for j = 1, 2, 3, ... 8. Thus, the constants al through
as can be obtained by simultaneously solving the
n
system of equations obtained by expanding 2 ,.X.
n i=l t ,
for j = 1, 2, 3, ... 8. Expansion of .2 'ix,' yields
z=l
liD = ....(B-2b)
The tooth-wear equation can be rearranged to
yield
+
a
2
EX
a
X
2
+
2
+ aaExa
dt =

max
W
d
- 4
dt = J (1 + H
2
h) dh. (B-3b)
then Eq. B-3a becomes
- 4
max
w w
(d) - d
max
(1 + H
2
h) dh .. (B-3a)
=
If the symbol h is used to represent a second
function of bit weight per inch, W/d, and rotary
speed, N, which is defined by

dO 2'
- (1n-) ]
dt C
G =
.......(A-3)
When any of the regression constants are assumed
to be known, the corresponding terms a
j
x j can be
moved to the left side of Eq. A-I and the previous
analysis applied to the remaining terms.
The final correlation is checked for accuracy using
the regression index of correlation G, given by
AUGUST.1974 381
The pressure drop across the bit, /),Pb, is related
to the pump pressure, P
p
' and the flow rate, q, by
Combining Eqs. B-2b and B-3b gives
h -a h
60 = J
1
J
2
!o e 7 (1 + H
2
h) dh
. . . . (B-4a)
=
m
P
p
- K
2
q . . . (C-2)
Integrating Eq. B-3b gives Combil}ing Eqs. 8, C-1, and C-2 gives
a
P
.75 a 2
[350 llK] [Pq
1
0.25a
a
K qrn+2] ...(C-3)
2
=
=
Combining Eqs. B-1, B-4a, and B-4b gives
C
r
. [
f.(1+H
2
h)dh
J ]
1
a( agxg)
Taking e = 0 and solving yields
aq
2Ppq - (rn+2) K2qm+1 = 0 .. (C4)
Thus,
2P
p
- (rn+2) 6P
d
= O.
Substituting the parasitic pressure drop for K
2
qm
gIves
Taking (aCj)/[a(W/d)] = 0 and solving yields
W
a -
APPENDIX D
Taking (aCj)/(aN) = 0 and solving yields
C
b
H
1
(-- + tt + t ) (1 --) +J
2
!(1
C
r
c a
6
=
2P
--Eo
rn+2
..........(C-5)
+ H
2
h) dh = O .... .(B-6)
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF OPTIMUM
BIT WEIGHT, ROTARY SPEED, AND
BIT HYDRAULICS
6.0
1.0
12.0
400
500
9.875
1-3
4.0
100
T-6
0.5
Eq. 13, which defines (W/d)o t' is obtained by
. 1 1 . p
Simu taneously so ving Eqs. B-5 and B-6. Eq. 14,
which defines bit life, tb' is obtained by solving
either Eq. B-5 or Eq. B-6 for h JO+H
2
h)dh. Eq.
15, which defines the optimum rotary speed, is
obtained by integrating Eq. B-3a and assuming
complete tooth wear.
APPENDIX C
OPTIMIZATION OF BIT HYDRAULICS
Inspection of Eq. 1 reveals that by maximizing
agxg . . d
the term e , penetration rate will be maXimIze .
The nozzle diameter, d
n
, is related to the flow
rate, q, by the orifice equation
OPTIMUM BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
Required Data
Trip time, hours
Connection time, hours
Rotating time, hours
Bit cost, dollars
Rig cost, dollars/hour
Bit diameter, in.
Bit class
Bit weight, 1,000 lb/in.
Rotary speed, rpm
Tooth wear
(Wld)t, 1,000 lb/in.
From regression analysis, al = 3.0, a
2
= 0.0002,
a3 = 0.002, a4 = 0.00004, as = 1.2, a6 = 0.6, a7 =
0.9, as = 0.4.
=
2 0.25
K
1
(C-l)
Solution
1. Calculate formation abrasiveness constant
using Eg. 10:
382
OF PETROLEI'" E'iCI'iEERS JOCR'iAL
7,000
10
9
900
=
From Table 3, HI = 1.84, H
2
= 6, H
3
= 0.8, (Wld)max
=8.0.
T/I = (0.8) (1)1.84 (1) 1 + 3 (12)
0.75 + 3(.563)
100
[
15.7 (8 - 6.40)J
O

543
Nopt =
16.1 (8 - 4.00)
Nopt = 60 rpm.
ALTERNATE SOLUTION
A cost-per-foot table (see Table 8) for this example
problem was generated using the Fortran IV program
below. The program solves Eqs. 13 through 15b in
an iterative manner.
Additional data:
Depth, ft
Mud densi ty, lb/gal
Pore pressure gradient, lb/gal
Jet impact force, lb
OPTIMUM HYDRAULICS
T/I = 15.7 hours.
3. Calculate the expected bit life using Eq. 13:
Thus a Class 1-1 bit operating at standard condi-
tions should last 15.7 hours in this type of formation.
2. Calculate the optimum bit weight using Eq. 13:
Pump Pressure
(psig)
650
225
3,000
9.6
12-12-12
2,800
900
RequiTed Data
Maximum desirable flow rate, gal/min
Minimum desirable flow rate, gal/min
Maximum desirable pump pressure, psig
Mud density, lb/gal
Bit nozzles, 32nd
Flow Rate
(gal/min)
485
247
1.2 (1.84)(8.0) + 0.6(0.5)
1.2 (1.84) + 0.6
6,400Ib/in.
(Wld)opt =
(Wi d)opt =
tb = (400 + 6 + 1) (3.07 - 1)
500
t b = 16.1 hours.
4. Calculate the optimum rotary speed USlllg
Eq. 13:
Solution
1. Calculate pressure drop through bit at each
flow rate. Subtract the pressure drop through the bit
from the pump pressure to get total parasitic
pressure drop at each flow rate.
PF!\L Jl.J2.N.A(f3) .C(
DATI\ A /j.0.0.:.
1
C02.0.C::l2.C.OOC04,I .2.0.6.::>.9.0.4/
I.) 1\ T A \If) T .NI) M HI. H 2. H 3 T A UH/!) .5. (3.0 .1 .84. 6.!). 0 f3 1:J .7/
D A T 1\ T T TC CR. CF< 0 , R HO GP F J / (, 1 0 ') 5 '1 'J 70 (,0 1 0 9 90 0 /
DO 50 1=1. 14
WD=1
\lID="'D/? .)+0.5
DO S0 J=I.40
N=J*lC
Jl=FXP(A(l
1 A( 5) *ALOG( (WD-'hDT)/(4.-""DT) )+A(6) *ALOG( N/IOO. )+A(8 )*ALOG(FJ/IOOO.
;: ) )
J 2 =T 1\ L f j I H 3 * ( (v. D'" - V. 0 ) I ( wn M-4 ) ) *( 1 0 C / N ) *H 1/ ( 1 +H;:> / 2 )
1. fH2/2.)
U::: -A(7)/fL?,*SGRT(I.+2.*H2*TP/J2)
CF .::: (C 9 +C R*(T T +T C +T ) / ( J 1 *J 2 *H2 / A ( 7 ) **2 *( 1 + A ( 7 ) / H2 +( U- 1 ) *
I FXP(A(7)/H2 + 1.;)
C( I.J )=CF
wI7ITE(6.6J)(
Fr'RMAT( lX.14F9.2)
S TllP
END
AlJCLST.1974
383
3. Read optimum flow rate and parasitic pressure
loss from graph. Calculate nozzle area that will
yield the optimum bit pressure drop.
Flow Pump Bit Parasitic
Rate Pressure Loss Loss
(gal/min) (psig) (psig) (psig)
485 2,800 1,894 906
247 900 491 409
2. Plot parasitic pressure loss vs flow rate (see
Fig. 6). Determine slope, Tll. Calculate the optimum
parasitic pressure loss using Eq. 19 and plot path
of optimum hydraulics.
q = 650
/'I.Pb = 3,000 - 1,300
nozzle area = 0.47 in.
2
1,700
***
384
=
2p
-...:..E.
rn+2
=
2 (3000)
=
1.2+2
1875
SOCIETY OF PETROL}:CM E ~ G I N E E R S JOURNAL