Improved Drilling Efficiency Technique Using Integrated PDM and PDC Bit Parameters

H.R. MOTAHHARI, G. HARELAND

University of Calgary
J. A. JAMES, M. BARTLOMOWICZ
Husky Energy
This paper is to be presented at the Canadian International Petroleum
Conference/SPE Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference (the Petroleum
Society�s 59th Annual Technical Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 17-19 June
2008. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the
meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in
Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print
and subject to correction.
Abstract
In this paper, a new drilling optimization procedure is presented that is designed
to improve the drilling efficiency with positive displacement motors (PDMs) and PDC
bits. This developed optimization method is based on predicting rate of penetration
(ROP) from PDM outputs for any PDC bit design. More specifically, optimization is
done for a hole section and optimum values of weight on bit (WOB) and surface RPM
are obtained for the section. For given flowrates, estimated values of optimum WOB
and surface RPM are used to calculate the corresponding motor differential
pressures and the foot by foot ROP values. Also, the method is used to show how
improper operational parameters selection can affect total drilling time. A case
study was done to consider different PDMs with different lobe configurations and a
set of fixed operational parameters.
From the new optimization technique, a pre-estimated motor differential pressure
versus depth log can be generated for the optimized operational parameters. This
information can further be used in hydraulics optimization and proper selection of
bit nozzles. The optimization method can not only be applied to determine optimum
operational parameters in drilling for one motor, it is also can be used to select
the optimum PDM to drill a section most economically.
The presented method is verified by generating a confined rock strength log based
on drilling data for a previously drilled well in Alberta. This foot by foot
strength log is compared to a confined rock strength log generated as a follow up
analysis by a commercially available drilling simulator package. Also, PDM
differential pressure log is generated and compared to field recorded on bottom
differential pressure values.
In this paper, a method to optimize the drilling operation with PDMs is presented
with a field sample application. It is concluded that consideration of PDM
performance/selection drilling planning phase will help to perform a safe and cost
effective operation by preventing motor stalls and maintaining highest average ROP
for the section. It also proves that by optimizing WOB and surface RPM values for a
constant mud flow rate and pre defined bit wear at total depth, a maximum average
ROP for the section can be reached for any PDM. The PDM with the lowest $/ft can
then be selected based on the analysis.
Introduction
Drilling simulation has gained a leading position in the well planning and the
follow up process. The capability of applying different drilling scenarios in
simulators is a powerful tool for 1
drilling engineer to prepare an optimized drilling plan regarding basic criteria
such as cost, time and safety. The rising application of Positive Displacement
Motors (PDMs) in recent directional and horizontal drilling operations creates a
demand for a tool which enables drilling engineer to simulate these operations in a
pre-planning mode. Despite of similarities existing between conventional drilling
simulation and PDM drilling simulation, there are some differences which can alter
the approach and goals. These dissimilarities are resultant of inseparable
characteristics of PDM which exposes limitation on the drilling system hydraulics.
Use of a PDM affects total pressure drop in the hydraulic system due to on-bottom
motor differential pressure. Having improper recommendations of operational
parameters, increasing values of this pressure drop can be a challenging problem
for drilling personnel on well site especially in the case of drilling harder
formations. On the other hand, motor output RPM deviates negatively from nominal
values by exerting torque on its output shaft. This phenomenon can result in stall
condition of motor even in soft formations, if motor and operational parameters are
not selected properly in advance. One of the other limitations is fixed maximum RPM
of motor for a constant mud flow rate. If mud flow rate is determined to be a
constant value due to rig hydraulics limitations or well stability issues; surface
rotary speed should be selected wisely in conjunction with other operational
parameters to maintain an optimum condition.
Robello[1] showed how ideal motor performance can be studied in conjunction to
green bit performance for some certain rock types with constant rock strength
values. However, it is more beneficial to have a method which enables the study of
PDM performance in conjunction of a certain PDC bit through a bit/motor run due to
altering characteristics of formations being penetrated and also negative effect of
bit wear on the penetration rate.
The proposed method in this paper is based on parallel modeling of bit performance
and motor through a bit/motor run. The effect of bit wear on ROP and drilling
torque is considered. The main key to connect bit performance to motor performance
is drilling bit torque. Based on motor design, exerted drilling torque on motor
determines differential pressure across it.
Mud Motor Performance
In a Positive Displacement Motor the power section converts hydraulic energy of mud
flow into mechanical rotary power, the reverse action of Moineau pump principle[2].
Each positive displacement motor has a helical rotor assembled inside a helical
stator. Also, the rotor has one less spiral or lobe than the stator that results in
continuous seal line between the rotor and the stator. The length of helical pitch
for the stator is bigger than the rotor which forms the cavity spaces between them.
These cavities move along the power section from the inlet to outlet by rotating
the rotor. Mud flow fills the cavity connected to inlet and extends it by the
pressure applied on the rotor body until the next cavity connects to the inlet.
This process forces the rotor to rotate eccentrically inside the stator which moves
cavities forward inside the PDM. The performance of the motor is controlled by the
combination of the rotor/stator lobe configuration and the motor stage number.
Increasing the number of rotor lobes gives higher output torque of the motor and
lower rotational speed. By increasing the motor stage number, differential pressure
for each stage will be less for a fixed motor output torque and PDM can maintain
higher stall torques. Ideal performance of PDMs has been described in literature.
The main output parameters of PDM are rotor shaft torque and rotary speed whereas
differential pressure and mud flow rate are its operational parameters. It has been
shown that rotary speed and torque of an ideal PDM are functions of motor geometry.
The key design parameter which relates PDM output parameters to its operational
parameters is motor unit displacement (q0). It is defined as mud volume required to
revolve motor rotor shaft one revolution. Having been known motor geometrical
properties, following equation is proposed by Robello[3] to calculate motor unit
displacement: 202.(1)0.79.(2)hhiiqi+=- �����������...(1)
Where �i� is lobe ratio of rotor to stator and �Dh� and �ph� are major diameter and
pitch length of PDM stator, respectively. By this definition, ideal PDM output
torque and rotary speed can be estimated by: 0mudidealQRPMq=���������������.(2)
03.066.idealTq =?��������������(3)
To take into account different losses in real PDM operation, some corrections
should been done on above equations. One of the main losses is slip flow of mud
through PDM. Slip flow is a part of nominal mud flow rate through PDM which is not
contributing in the rotation of rotor. It is the result of pressure differences of
mud in succeeding cavities; therefore it is a function of the total differential
pressure across the PDM. Also, it has been stated by Robello[1] that shearing mud
inside the cavities and deformation of PDM elastic stator consumes some portion of
generated output torque. In addition, a small part of differential pressure across
the motor does not contribute in producing torque. It is the frictional pressure
drop of mud flow inside the PDM. When considering PDM application in drilling
operations, motor differential pressure and rotary speed are determined by applied
torque on bit and mud flow rate in the drilling hydraulics system. Therefore, real
motor performance parameters can be defined as: 0slipidealQRPMRPMq=-������������(4)
TTPk?=������������������...(5)
Where �kT� and �Qslip� are PDM torque slope and mud slip flow through the PDM.
Motor torque slope and slip flow functionality with motor differential pressure can
be determined by doing dynamo test on PDM as well as using motor performance
charts. It is clear that PDM rotary speed is a function of applied torque on motor
shaft due to dependence of slip flow on differential pressure across PDM.
Bit Performance
The ROP model for PDC bit performance used in this study is a based on the approach
introduced by Hareland et al[4]. The general form of ROP equation for a 100 percent
efficient bit cleaning is: ....tfBGRPMWOBROPWDS?a??=????��...��..���...�(6)
G is a coefficient determined by the bit geometry, cutter size and design (backrake
and siderake angles) and cutter-rock coefficient of friction. Wf is standing for
wear function, estimating how much of new bit ROP is approachable by a bit with
certain bit wear value. Equation 7 is developed to estimate Wear function based on
single cutter experimental data reported by Glowka[5]:
2
11..fwfcwWOBWkNSAt?+??=?????? ����������..(7)
�Aw� is wear flat area underneath of a single cutter which is a function of wear
depth on cutter face and PDC layer thickness. It has to be mentioned that rock
strength value in equations 6 and 7 is confined rock strength. The effect of
confining pressure on rock strength can be estimated by[6]:
0.(1.)bsScSSaP=-���������������(8)
�S0� and �Pc� are rock unconfined strength and confinement pressure, respectively.
Confinement pressure is defined as pressure difference of mud hydraulic pressure
and rock pore pressure which is a positive value in overbalanced situation. �as�
and �bs� are coefficients depending on rock Lithology.
Wear depth on cutter face, or equivalent IADC bit wear, is defined to be a function
of removed cutter volume due to friction. Removed cutter volume is assumed to be
proportional to cumulative effect of applied operational parameters (Weight on Bit,
RPM) and rock confined strength and its relative abrasiveness in previously drilled
footages by the bit as: 12...1000.1000CdoutCddeqatddcddinWOBSVCRPMAbrN=????
=????????S ..�..(9)
The proportionality factor is a function of PDC layer material durability (Ca) and
relative hardness of cutter Tungsten Carbide matrix to PDC layer material.
Based on approach followed for developing ROP model, required torque for drilling
in perfect cleaning condition can be estimated by: 12...TTtSROPTCCWOBDRPM=+
���������...(10)
where "CT1� and "CT2� are coefficients which are determined from bit design, cutter
geometry and coefficient of friction between rock and cutters. It is clear that bit
cutter wear affects drilling torque which is obtained from the ROP value.
Model Verification
To verify the developed models, drilling data of a 6045 ft section of a well
drilled in Alberta has been used. The section was drilled by a PDC bit and 7:8,
2.9-stage PDM, hereafter called Motor 1; and drilling data including WOB, surface
RPM, ROP, mud flow rate and on bottom PDM differential pressure were recorded for
each 0.6 ft steps.
ROP model verification is done by backward use of equation 6 to find confined rock
strength values versus depth. To do this, drilling data in each step is used to
estimate confined rock strength. Then, this confined rock strength value of depth
�d� is used to calculate IADC bit wear and wear function for the next step �d+1�.
This procedure has been done in an iterative mode to reach reported IADC bit wear
out at the end of section. Figure 1 reveals how generated confined rock strength
values are comparable to those estimated by a commercially available drilling
simulator package. Fair match of model confined rock strength log with the software
package values can guarantee that model estimates ROP values with a reasonable
approximation.
To verify PDM performance and bit torque models, generated confined rock strength
values are used to estimate motor differential pressure. Figure 2 compares model
prediction of PDM differential pressure and recorded values of it in the field. The
is an acceptable match of the model versus the field data.
Model Application
To illustrate applications of the model, two cases are studied. In both cases,
confined rock strength log generated above has been used. The PDC bit is assumed to
be same as the original one used in the section. Also, two other PDM performance
data, Table 1, has been used in addition to original PDM, motor 1.
Example 1: Motor Selection
In this example the performance of 3 different PDMs, Table 1, has been simulated in
the previously introduced section from a well in Alberta. Surface RPM and WOB are
applied in the simulation using the original drilling data. An iterative approach
is used in each step to reach a consistent solution for drilling torque,
differential pressure across PDM and its rotary speed regarding applied WOB and mud
flow rate data. Figure 3, 4 and 5 demonstrates how these three motors perform in
this section with pre-defined operational parameters. Although Motor 2 could
penetrate much faster than motor 1 and 3 in the section (Figure 3), it is not a
reasonable PDM selection to be run with these operational parameters. As shown in
Figure 4, motor 2 maintains higher amounts of differential pressure and it will
stall at approximate depth of 3677 ft. Either motor 1 or motor 3 could be a fairly
good selection to run in the section with the pre-defined operational parameters.
As shown in Figures 3 and 5, motor 1 can drill a little bit faster than motor 3,
however motor 3 generates lower pressure drop values.
Example 2: Operational Parameters Optimization
This example is designed to illustrate how operational parameters can be selected
for each of the three PDMs proposed in Table 1, to maintain the highest average ROP
for the section. To do this, the drilling operating parameters in the section is
optimized for each motor. Mud flow rate is assumed to be constant at 420 gallon per
minute. Also, it is assumed that maximum allowable IADC bit wear-out is 1.5, as
reported for actual drilling operation for the section. The operational parameters
including WOB and surface RPM are to be selected in such a way that section is
drilled in highest average ROP and bit wear-out does not exceed 1.5. For
simplicity, it is assumed that they are to be fixed for entire section.
Optimization results for each motor are reported in Table 2. Although optimized WOB
and surface RPM values are specific for each PDM, they will drill with
approximately same average ROP (Figure 6) while bit will wear out at grade 1.5.
This phenomenon is the key point how operational parameters should be set for each
motor selection. On the other hand, maximum differential pressure for each motor
can be a determining criterion to select one of the motors for the job. As it was
expected, despite of lower optimum WOB for motor 2, it will maintain higher
differential pressure values on the system which can be a negative point. The best
selection for this job will be motor 3 which will maintain maximum differential
pressure value of 182 psi on the hydraulics system in spite of its moderate optimum
WOB (22000 lbs) and optimum surface RPM of 35. It is also interesting to observe
that running motor 1 with optimum WOB and surface RPM can decrease drilling time
from reported field value of 74.8 hour to simulated value of 69.2 hour.
Conclusions
Developed ROP and torque model for PDC bit has been verified with actual drilling
data from a 6045 ft section in Alberta. 3
Calculated differential pressure of a PDM is slightly different from the field data
probably due to ideal drilling torque assumption in the model.
Drilling with PDMs can be a challenging operation if operational parameters are not
selected properly considering the PDM performance characteristics, especially PDM
torque slope and unit volume.
Optimization can be done for any PDM by determining optimum operational parameters
including WOB and surface RPM to obtain the highest average ROP for a preset
maximum IADC bit wear out.
Mud flow rate will affect drilling operation scenario with PDMs due to its effect
on motor output rotary speed. Also, mud weight is an important parameter which can
change simulation results by changing confined rock strength.
The proposed optimization method can be used for any ROP models, bit types and
designs.
The model can be used in sections consisting of rock with different lithology and
strength with different interval lengths.
This method has the capability of optimizing operational parameters for different
sub sections in a bit run.
NOMENCLATURE
i = lobe ratio of rotor to stator
Dh , ph = Stator major diameter anf pitch [in.]
a , ? = ROP model exponents
? ,t = Wear function exponents
So = Unconfined rock strength
S = Confined rock strength
RPM t = Total bit rotary speed [rpm]
RPM = Actual motor rotary speed [rpm]
RPMideal = Ideal motor rotary speed [rpm]
WOB = Applied Weight on Bit [lbs]
Aw = Wear flat area underneath of Cutter [sq.in.]
kwf = Wear function model constant
Nc = Number of cutters on bit face
as , bs = Lithology confinement coefficients
Pc = Confinement Pressure [psi]
C1 , C2 = Cutter volume removal exponents
Abr = Lithology relative abrasiveness
CT1 , CT2 = Drilling Torque coefficients
?P = Differential pressure across PDM [psi]
?BG = Total IADC bit wear
Ca = Bit wear coefficient
DB = Bit diameter [in.]
G = ROP model constant
kT = Motor torque slope [ft.lb/psi]
Q = Mud flow rate [gpm]
Qslip = Mud slip flow through the motor [gpm]
qo = Motor unit displacement [gal/ rev.]
T = Torque [ft.lb],
Wf = Wear function
REFERENCES
1. G. Robello, Samuel; Mathematical Modelling and Design Analysis of the Power
Section of A Positive Displacement Motor (PDM); Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Tulsa, 1997.
2. Nelik, L. and Brennan, J., Progressing Cavity Pumps and Mud Motors; Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 2005
3. G. Robello, Samuel and Miska, Stefan, Analytical Study of the Performance of
Positive Displacement Motor (PDM): Modelling for Incompressible Fluid; SPE 39026
presented at the 5th Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 August � 3 September 1997.
4. Hareland, G. and Rampersad, P.R., Drag � Bit Model Including Wear; SPE 26957
presented and published at the III LACPEC Conference, Buenos Aires, April 27-29
1994.
5. Glowka, D.A.; Development of a method for Predicting the performance and wear of
PDC Drill Bits.; report SAND86-1745, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
Septemeber 1987.
6. Rampersad, P.R., Hareland, G.; Drilling Optimization Using Drilling Data and
Available Technology; SPE 27034 presented at the III LASPEC Conference, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 27-29 April 1994.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft
�
3.048
E-01
=
m
ft.lbf
�
1.355818
E+00
=
N.m
gpm
�
6.309
E-05
=
m3/sec
lbf
�
4.448222
E+00
=
N
psi
�
6.894757
E+00
=
kPa
Motor
Lobe Config.
Stage Number
Unit Volume (gallon/rev)
Torque slople (lb.ft/psi)
Stall DP (psi)
1
7:8
2.9
6.60
14.0
-
2
4:5
4.8
2.05
4.6
1350
3
7:8
2.1
7.54
19.5
520
Table 1: PDM Specifications Used in Analysis.
Motor
WOB (lbs)
Surface RPM
Max. Dp (psi)
ROP (ft/hr)
IADC bit wear
Drilling Time (hr)
1
28000
0
545
87.4
1.5
69.2
2
18000
10
950
84.1
1.49
72.6
3
22000
35
182
88.7
1.49
68.2
Table 2: Optimum Operational Parameters for Example 2.