IADC/SPE

IADC/SPE 11409

Optimize Bit Hydraulics for Minimum Cost Drilling

by H.H. Doiron and J.D. Deane, Reed Rock Bit Co.

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.
approach the following parameters enter into the
ABSTRACT optimization process:
In a previous paper, the authors derived a condi- (1) the increase in rate of penetration with
tion for optimum bit hydraulics considering increases increase in bit hydraulic horsepower
in rate of penetration, fuel costs and pump maintenance
costs with increased bit hydraulics. This paper is an (2) the increase in fuel costs to provide
extension of the previous work and demonstrates practi- increased bit hydraulic horsepower
cal application of the new hydraulics optimization
method. Previously unpublished full scale laboratory (3) the increase in pump maintenance costs
drilling data obtained by the authors and test results due to operating at higher standpipe
reported by other authors are presented to demonstrate pressures and horsepower levels
the relationship of ROP to increased bit hydraulic
horsepower. Effects of blanked nozzles and asymmetric (4) the overall rig operating costs
nozzle configurations are also presented. Graphical
relationships of fuel and pump maintenance cost in- It was assumed that increased pump maintenance
creases, bit ROP increases and drilling cost variations does not result in lost drilling time. When operating
with increasing standpipe pressure and bit hydraulic pumps near their rated horsepower and discharge pres-
horsepower are presented. The optimum condition for sure limits, more frequent replacement of expendable
bit hydraulics reveals that fuel costs to power mud pump parts should be anticipated and scheduled for re-
pumps and pump maintenance costs should be a fixed placement during normal non-drilling times (such as
percentage of total operating costs depending on bit waiting on cement) or when only one pump is needed for
ROP response to increased bit hydraulic horsepower. drilling. A method for including effects of lost
Recommendations for field application of the optimizing drilling time was presented by Miska and Skalle 3 • They
technique are presented. also considered the fact that increasing flow rate to
increase bit hydraulic horsepower and jet impact force
INTRODUCTION increases annulus pressure losses. This results in a
higher bottom hole overbalance pressure which in turn
Most popular methods of designing bit hydraulics has a negative effect on penetration rate. This effect
programs maximize either bit hydraulic horsepower or should only be important in very low overbalance pres-
bit jet impact force within prescribed constraints on sure situations with high annulus pressure losses.
flow rate and pump horsepower or standpipe pressure. Both of these concepts could be incorporated into the
The criteria for this type of hydraulics program design present minimum drilling cost approach, but for simpli-
were first derived by Kendall and GOinsl. Many hydrau- city are left out of the analysis to be presented here.
lics programs which are "optimized" by these criteria
fail to consider the effects of the constraints on pump In this paper, the minimum drilling cost method of
horsepower and standpipe pressure. Frequently these hydraulics optimization will be demonstrated on several
constraints are set well below actual physical limita- examples to facilitate field application. Previously
tions of the equipment. As a result of these con- unpublished data on bit ROP responses to hydraulic
straints, especially those on standpipe pressure, an ~orsepower at different rotary speeds are presented.
"optimized" hydraulics program may not provide minimum Similar type data for different drilling conditions ex-
drilling cost. tracted from previous papers by other authors are pre-
sented to illustrate the gains in ROP which can be
In an effort to assess the effects of standpipe expected from improved bit hydraulics in association
pressure constraints on drilling economics, the authors ~ith increased bit weight and RPM. The full scale
introduced the concept of a hydraulics program optimized drilling data presented herein were obtained in three
to provide minimum cost per foot drilled 2 • In this separate test facilities at overbalance pressures
ranging from 100 to 4000 psi, in two different types of
References and illustrations at end of paper.
403
2 OPTIMIZE BIT HYDRAULICS FOR MINIMUM COST DRILLING SPE 11409

rock and for five different bit size/type combinations. of weight per inch of bit diameter on ROP. Their
All data show similar trends of increase in ROP with testing was done with four different bit sizes at var-
increasing bit hydraulic horsepower (BHHP). ied conditions, but the data replotted in Figure 3
are for a 6-1/2 inch diameter IADC 5-3-7 bit drilling
THE RESPONSE OF ROP TO BHHP/NOZZLE at constant rotary speed of 60 rpm with an overbalance
pressure of 2000 psi in Mancos Shale. Because only
2
In a previous publication by the authors , full two hydraulic conditions were run, the ROP data are
scale laboratory drilling data were presented in sup- plotted as a function of weight on bit at 22.5 and
port of the favorable effect of bit hydraulic horse- 42 BHHP/nozzle. The data show a marked improvement in
power on rate of penetration. A minimum drilling cost ROP response to weight on bit at the higher hydraulic
analysis was developed based on the relationship be- horsepower level, particularily at bit weights above
tween bit hydraulic horsepower per nozzle (BHHP/nozzle) 20,000 lbs or about 3000 lb/in. of diameter.
and rate of penetration (ROP), with curve fits of the
following form. Presented in Figure 4 are the results of testing
done in the Reed Rock Bit Company pressure drilling
ROP K (BHHP/nozzle)b (1) facility using an 8-3/4 inch IADC 5-1-7 bit. The bit
was tested at a constant bit weight of 3400 lb/in. of
where b fell between .29 and .34 for the data presented. diameter (30,000 lb) and 700 psi overbalance pressure.
Because the exponent b has a pronounced effect on the Here, the effects of hydraulics and rotary speed on
drilling cost per foot savings realized from increased ROP were studied. As in the case of response to bit
BHHP, it was felt that a broader study of equation (1) weight, the ROP response to increased rotary speed can
was necessary to help pin down the range of values of be enhanced with improved hydraulics. In the range
the exponent b. In the previous paper 2 , BHHP/nozzle from 60 to 120 rpm the exponent b ranges from .29 to
was observed to account for differences in ROP between about .35. The relatively small change in the exponent
two and three nozzle drilling. Data to be presented between 90 and 120 rpm is probably a result of some
here also support this observation. bit balling occurring at the higher rotary speed, in-
dicating a need for greater hydraulic horsepower levels
A literature search resulted in a variety of data at the higher mechanical energy levels. The darkened
obtained under different conditions which could be symbols of Figure 4 at 90 BHHP/nozzle represent data
applied to equation (1) to empirically determine values taken with a blanked nozzle. These data further con-
of the exponent b. firm the observation made in reference 2 that ROP
improvement with a blank nozzle can be correlated with
4
Warren and Winters recently published results of BHHP/nozzle.
a study on the effects of nozzle diameter on hydraulic
cleaning and ROP with an 8-1/2 inch diameter IADC 6-1-7 Figure 5 represents a further study into the
bit. The ROP testing was conducted in Indiana LimestonE effects of BHHP/nozzle and rotary speed from data ob-
at 5000 lb/in. of diameter (42,000 lb) weight-on-bit, tained by the authors at the Drilling Research Lab in
75 RPM and 100 psi overbalance pressure. In the paper, Salt Lake City, Utah. Testing was conducted with a
they presented the effects of total jet impact force 7-7/8 inch IADC 5-1-7 type bit in Mancos Shale at
on ROP for three different nozzle diameters: 9/32, 4000 psi overbalance pressure at a constant bit weight
13/32 and 15/32 inches. Their data are replotted in of 3800 lbs/in. of diameter (30,000 lb). Again the
Figure 1 VB. BHHP/nozzle and are compared to a least data appears to fit the basic power law function of
squared error regression fit of equation (1) which equation (1), but the exponent b departs quite rad-
yields b = 0.27. It is interesting to note that these ically from the typical .3 value when the rotary speed
ROP data plotted by Warren and Winters against total is increased to 180 rpm. This would tend to support
jet impact force fell onto three distinct curves with the data of Figure 4 in so far as the response to hy-
the smaller nozzle sizes giving better performance. draulics tends to increase with increasing rotary
However, when the data are replotted here versus BHHP/ speed or mechanical horsepower input to the bit, up to
nozzle, the separation of the data is not so obvious a point where bit balling begins to take over. At the
and a single curve gives a good fit to all of the data. 270 rpm level, bit balling was occurring and the ex-
ponent fell off to a value between the 60 and 180 rpm
Figure 2 shows data from full scale laboratory values.
drilling tests reported by Tibbitts et a1 5 . The test-
ing was conducted in Mancos Shale with a 7-7/8 inch It should be noted that all data in Figure 5 ex-
IADC 5-3-7 bit at a variety of weights and speeds and cept the three dark points at 73 BHHP/nozzle was taken
with a constant overbalance pressure of 2000 psi. The with an asymmetrical nozzle configuration of 2-9/32
replotted data shown in Figure 2 were obtained at and 1-13/32 nozzle. The three dark points were taken
constant bit weights of 3800 lb/in. of diameter with 3-9/32 nozzles. This was done in an effort to
(30,000 lb) and 5000 lb/in. of diameter (40,000 lb) study the effects of improving the impact force or
and constant rotary speed of 60 rpm. Also shown are hydraulic horsepower per nozzle through one jet while
the data fits to equation(l)with the range of exponents maintaining some cleaning effect through the other two
again falling close to the nominal value of .3, b rang- nozzles. This is a compromise to the extreme condi-
ing from .326 to .337. The increase in the value of tion of blanking two nozzles and running all the
the exponent with increased bit weight is consistent hydraulics through one. To get around the problem of
with theories put forth in the literature that hydrau- starving a portion of the bit of cleaning, the two
lics become increasingly important as bit weight is smaller 9/32 nozzles were run with the 13/32. This
increased. presents somewhat of a problem in the calculation of
BHHP/nozzle since the hydraulic horsepower for the
Figure 3 presents further data relating BHHP/ 13/32 nozzle is about twice that for one 9/32 nozzle.
nozzle to weight on bit and ROP. The data are taken If one takes the total bit hydraulic horsepower and
from SPE-1123l where Black et a1 6 studied the effect divides by 3 to obtain BHHP/nozzle,the data provide

404
 SPE 11409 Harold H. Doiron and John D. Deane 3

a poor fit to equation (1). Instead, average HHP/ convenient to define the variables
nozzle of the two 9/32 jets was averaged with the HHP/
nozzle of the 13/32 jet to arrive at a weighted BHHP/ BHHP. (BITL1P)i(Qi)
1
nozzle for the bit. This weighted BHHP/nozzle data k. • . . . . • . • • • • . • •• (4)
1 PHHP. (SP i ) (Qi)
did fit equation (1) very well as evidenced by the fit 1
presented in Figure 5. If the weighted value of BHHP/
nozzle is multiplied by 3 (for the three nozzles), a which in the Kendall and Goins criteria have the well
total BHHP 13.7 percent larger than the actual total known values
BHHP is obtained. This suggests that the asymmetric
nozzle configuration here may provide a more efficient
use of total BHHP than three identical size nozzles. 0.48 maximum jet impact force
The effect is in keeping with the observed hydraulic with a maximum standpipe
efficiency of using two nozzles instead of three. pressure limit
However, cutter balling was observed with two nozzle
drilling on this particular bit at the high RPM condi-
0.65 maximum bit hydraulic horse-
tions, and the asymmetric three nozzle configuration
power with a maximum stand-
alleviated this problem. As discussed in reference 2,
pipe pressure limit
bit hydraulic cleaning involves several phenomena in-
cluding chip holddown effects, loose chip removal from
The parameter u is the exponent on flow rate relating
beneath the bit and bit cutter cleaning. The three
parasitic system pressure losses to flow rate and has
asymmetric nozzle configuration offers a promising
the value 1.82 used above in most popular slide rules
alternative to two nozzle drilling when cutter balling
and tables. As explained by Robinson 7 , u can vary
is a problem.
significantly with different drill strings and mud
systems and should preferably be determined with
OPTIMIZING HYDRAULICS FOR MINIMUM COST PER FOOT
simple field tests which he describes.
In addition to ROP response to BHHP/nozzle, three
Since standpipe pressure is the constraint most
cost factors must be considered when optimizing hydrau-
often encountered in hydraulics optimization, we
lics for minimum cost per foot:
write equation (3) in terms of standpipe pressure
ratios using derivations presented in reference 2,
(1) pump maintenance

(2)

(3)
fuel costs

overall rig operating costs

The following equation relating drilling cost where

F -F
2 l
Rl
f(PHHP 1)
Rl tG:~- ~ .......... (5)

per foot at two different hydraulic operating condi- l/u

tions was derived by the authors in reference 2: C [1-k 2 ]
l-k
l

+ PPC 2-PPC l ] [ROP II ....... (2)

u+l
Rl ROP 2J v 1.55
u

where DC is drilling cost per foot, Fi is hourly fuel

i Variations in pump maintenance costs with in-
cost to power mud pumps, PPC is hourly expendable pump creased standpipe pressure can be estimated from the
i
equation
parts replacement cost, Ri is the total rig operating

cost and i denotes hydraulic operating condition 1 or 2
Fuel costs are directly proportional to engine
horsepower required to power the mud pumps and can be
expressed by
f (PHHP 1) [PHHP 2 _ 11
Rl PHHP I J •.••...... (3)
where f is the fuel cost per horsepower-hour and PHHP
i
is pump output hydraulic horsepower. This equation is
a conservative estimator of variable fuel costs be-
cause diesel engines approach maximum fuel efficiency
at maximum power output. Using typical power trans-
mission and pump mechanical efficiencies, we calculate
fuel costs (f) to be about 8 cents per pump output
horsepower-hour with diesel fuel at $1.00 per gallon.
Pump output horsepower is a function of both
standpipe pressure (SPi) and flow rate (Qi) which must
both be specified in a hydraulics program. It is
(::~) p
PPC
2
= PPC l ..•...•.•.......... (6)
where p ~ 1.57, PPC l is the known hourly pump main-
tenance costs at standpipe pressure SPl' and PPC is
2
the hourly pump maintenance cost at a new operatlng
standpipe pressure SP . This equation is an empirical
2
fit to the data of Figure 6 which were developed in a
study by the AAODC Rotary Drilling Committee Sub-
Committee on Hydraulics in 1959 8 . The data also ap-
peared in subsequent editions of the AAODC Tool-
pusher's Manua19, but were later dropped from more
recent editions of the lADe Drilling ManuallO . Miska
and Skalle 3 presented similar data trends without
numerical values in the form of mean time between
failures for lumps as a function of standpipe pres-
sure. Nelson 1 has also addressed the issue of
variable pumping costs and suggests that the actual
cost variation in equation (6) might be more a functior
of pump output horsepower than standpipe pressure.
This modification could easily be made to equation (6)

405
4 OPTIMIZE BIT HYDRAULICS FOR MINIMUM COST DRILLING
without major difficulty in the following analysis.
Nelson also gives an excellent discussion of overall
pumping costs including such factors as initial pump
costs, interest and depreciation costs, power trans-
mission options, etc.
In normal operations, pump maintenance costs are
significant, but not a major expense in rig operations.
The authors, using 1980 pump fluid end expendables
marketing data, estimated the average U.S. rig expend-
able pump parts costs at $5.00 per circulating hour2.
For demonstration of the optimization method we assoc-
iated this cost with an average standpipe pressure of
1500 psi. In addition to the variables of discharge
pressure and output horsepower, actual costs in a given
situation vary with many factors including formations
drilled, drilling fluids, mud cleaning equipment and
pump type. Drilling contractors have cost data per-
tinent to each rig and operating condition to establish
a baseline value for PPCl' Equation (6) can then be
used to estimate costs for operations at higher stand-
pipe pressures. As experience is gained operating at
higher pressures, additional cost data can be obtained
to improve equation (6). As seen from equation (2),
the important factor is not absolute pump maintenance
cost, but its fraction of overall rig operating costs.
Accordingly, we use equation (6) to write
(7)
Using the power law model of equation (1), the
ratio ROP /ROP in equation (2) can be expressed by
I 2
b
PHHP 2l-
PHHP lJ
- ~: c (:::) r
It has been assumed in equation (8) that the number of
(8)
nozzles used does not change between conditions 1 and
2.
When equations (5), (7) and (8) are substituted
into equation (2), the ratio of drilling costs per foot
DC /DC is seen to be a function of the standpipe
2 l
pressure ratio SP /SP . A condition for minimizing
2 I
DC /DC as a function of the standpipe pressure ratio
2 l
was derived in reference 2 and when factored into a
slightly different form is given by
1:/~....... .
(9) promise in increasing the effective BHHP/nozzle factor
It should be noted that in the derivation of equa-
tion (9) the approximation p = 1.57~ v = 1.55 was
used.
406
SPE 11409
When k2 = k , then C 1 and the equation has
l
the form
(10
where
c
is the fraction of total rig operating costs repre-
sented by pump maintenance and fuel to power the mud
pumps. From inspection of equation (10) it is seen
that
1 when c = b
If SP /SP = 1 and represents the minimum drill-
2 I
ing cost condition, then we conclude that hydraulics
are optimized when pumping fuel and pump maintenance
costs are (lOO)b percent of the overall rig operating
costs R .
l
For example, if field tests indicate that b = 0.3,
then standpipe pressure and flow rate should be in-
creased to maximize pump output horsepower until the
sum of pump maintenance and fuel costs are 30 percent
of the total rig operating costs. Flow rate should be
adjusted within maximum and minimum constraints so
that 100/u+l ~ 35 percent of standpipe pressure is
lost in the circulating system excluding the bit. Bit
nozzle sizes should be selected such that
Bit (l,p u~l SP~.65 SP
Of course maximum and minimum flow rate limits must be
observed and minimum nozzle size restrictions to guard
against nozzle plugging must also be observed. The
rule to follow is when a constraint is encountered,
operate at the constraint.
One attractive way to avoid the minimum nozzle
size constraint is to use two larger size nozzles
rather than three smaller ones. A considerable body of
laboratory and field data suggests two nozzles provide
a more efficient use of bit hydraulic horsepower when
cutter balling is not a problem. In fact, as indicated
in reference 2 and earlier in this paper, ROP tends to
be a function of BHHP/nozzle when cutter balling is not
a factor. A possible alternative to two nozzle dril-
ling in cutter balling situations where minimum nozzle
size is not a constraint, is use of one large nozzle
and two smaller nozzles. This approach has shown some
in limited laboratory testing and requires further
investigation.
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
A graphical picture of the minimization proce-
dure is provided in Figure 7. Here it has been assumed
that b = 0.3 and two separate rig operations have been
analyzed. Instead of using equation (9) to compute
the optimum operating standpipe pressure, equations (2)
SPE 11409 Harold H. Doiron and John D. Deane
(5), (7) and (8) were used in a parametric analysis to
study cost variations with increasing standpipe pres-
sure. It was further assumed in this analysis that
kl = k2 = 0.65 or that maximum bit hydraulic horse-
power was provided at each operating condition.
In the first case, indicated by the solid lines
in Figure 7, the initial fuel and pump maintenance
cost fraction at standpipe pressure SP was 0.1 or
I
10 percent of total rig operating costs. As standpipe
pressure was increased, noted by increasing values of
the ratio SP /SP , these costs increased according to
2 l
the lower solid line. The drilling cost per foot,
noted by the upper solid line, decreased with increas-
ing standpipe pressure until the fuel and pump main-
tenance costs were 30 percent of the original rig
operating costs at standpipe pressure SP . This
I parametric analysis of increasing standpipe pressure
occurred at a standpipe pressure 2.25 times the orig-
inal standpipe pressure SP and provided a 14 percent
I costs and pump maintenance costs to be 10 and 5 per-
reduction in drilling cost per foot.
In the second case, denoted by the dashed lines
in Figure 7, the original fuel and pump maintenance
costs were 30 percent of the total rig operating
costs at the initial standpipe pressure SP . As stand
I
pipe pressure was increased, both operating costs and
drilling cost per foot increased indicating the mini-
mum cost condition was at the original standpipe
pressure SP .
I
In actual practice, a parametric analysis such
as the one presented in Figure 8 is preferred as
opposed to applying the minimum condition described by
equation (9). This provides greater visibility into
the trade-offs between increases in standpipe pressure
and reductions in drilling costs. Also because of the
empirical nature of equations (1) and (7), the solu-
tion presented by equation (9) is only valid when the
optimum standpipe pressure SP is within the data
2
range used to define equation (7), and BHHP is in
2
the data range used to define equation (1). Frequent-
ly, application of equation (9) will lead to very
large standpipe pressures far beyond operating
experience. Equations (2)-(8) are easily programmable
for hand held calculators to provide rapid analysis of
cost trends with increasing standpipe pressure.
Another example, often encountered in the field,
results in more dramatic cost per foot reduction with
increasing standpipe pressure than the example of
Figure 7. This is the situation where very little
pressure drop is available at the bit, either due to
an abnormally low standpipe pressure constraint SP ,
1
or high parasitic pressure losses typical of deep
wells. In such cases, the minimum allowable flow rate
will minimize parasitic pressure losses and provide thE
maximum obtainable BHHP within the given operating
constraints. To illustrate such a situation, we will
set k1 = 0.2 in this example, far below the desired
value of 0.65. As we allow higher standpipe pressures,
maximum obtainable BHHP will occur at the minimum flow
rate constraint until SP2 is sufficiently large to
allow
u 3.
0.65
u+l
Any further increases in the standpipe pressure con-
straint will require an associated increase in flow
rate to provide maximum BHHP while holding k2 fixed
at the maximizing value 0.65. The relationship be-
407
5
tween flow rate, standpipe pressure and the ratios kl
and k2 was derived in the Appendix of reference 2 and
is given by
Q2 [SP 2 (1-k 2 ) ] l/u
(11)
Q = SP 1 (l-k )
1 1
When operating at the m~n~mum flow rate constraint,
Ql = Q2 = Qmin, and equation (11) can be used to solve
for k2,
1
Presented on Figure 8 are the results of a
in this example. Here we have assumed b = 0.3, fuel
cent of total rig operating costs respectively, at the
initial condition SP I . Drilling costs are quite sen-
sitive to the standpipe pressure constraint with a 10
percent increase in standpipe pressure resulting in a
50 percent increase in BHHP, a 13% increase in ROP and
10 percent reduction in drilling costs. The absolute
minimum drilling cost (30 percent below the initial
value) is projected to occur at a standpipe pressure
2.2 times the initial value. This could be an imprac-
tical solution in the case where the initial stand-
pipe pressure was 2500 psi. However, a 20 percent
increase in the constraint to 3000 psi results in a
16 percent reduction in drilling costs, a savings and
operating limit worthy of consideration.
FIELD APPLICATION OF OPTIMIZATION METHOD
The hydraulics optimization method proposed in
this paper can be thought of as a two step process in
which we first determine cost effective operating
limits for the rig equipment and then optimize for
maximum BHHP according to the Kendall and Goins cri-
teria. As seen below, in field applications these
steps can be reversed with good results. Basic to
the procedure is establishing the relationship of ROP
and BHHP (b exponent) for a specific bit and drilling
conditions. Laboratory data presented in this paper
suggest a value of b in the .25-0.4 range will fit a
variety of drilling conditions. However, a rather
simple field test can be conducted to determine the
exponent b for a specific drilling situation. The
steps to follow are:
1. Carefully measure and select nozzle sizes
and flow rate to provide maximum BHHP at
the normally observed standpipe pressure
limit. Try to obtain 0.5 <k1 < 0.65 and
closer to the 0.65 value if possible.
2. After breaking in the bit and desired
w;ight and RPM are established, record
the drilling rate and flow rate and cal-
culate BHHP using the measured nozzle
diameters.
Reduce flow rate to the minimum allowable
value consistent with adequate cuttings
removal and allow drilling rate to stabilize
at the new value. Record drilling rate
and flow rate and calculate the new BHHP.
6 OPTIMIZE BIT HYDRAULICS FOR MINIMUM COST DRILLING
4. Increase flow rate until a safe physical
limit on standpipe pressure is reached,
allow drilling rate to stabilize and
record data and calculate BHHP as above.
5. If desired, other data points can be
taken at intermediate flow rate and
combined with the other three data points
to form a table of data (Qi' BHHPi, ROPi)
6. Return to the initial flow rate and
standpipe pressure condition while the
exponent b is determined.
7. The exponent b can be extracted from the
data by one of the two methods described
below.
Method 1
lZ
Use a linear regression program for a
programmable calculator on the following
logarithmic form of equation (1)
log ROP b log (BHHP./nozzle) + log K
i 1
Method Z
Plot ROP vs. BHHP or BHHP/nozzle on log-
log paper and measure the slope b from
the best straight line fit of the data
points. As an example of this method,
the test data of Figure 1 are replotted
in log-log form on Figure 9.
With b determined, a quick estimate of the opti-
mum standpipe pressure can be obtained from equation
(10), since kZ~ kl at all reasonable flow rate
variations with the same nozzle sizes in the bit (less
than four percent difference with 50% increases in
flow rate when 0.5 ~ kl ~ 0.65). If the standpipe
pressure SP Z obtained from equation (10) is unreason-
able, a parametric analysis using equations (Z)-(8)
and assuming kZ = kl will provide data from which a
better decision can be made regarding an economical
standpipe pressure limit. Once this limit is
established, flow rate should be increased until the
new limit on standpipe pressure is reached. As
drilling proceeds and parasitic losses increase,
flow rate can be reduced to maintain the standpipe
pressure limit. The procedure for determining the
b exponent and optimum standpipe pressure can be
repeated if drilling conditions change substantially.
A complete optimization procedure for weight-on-
bit, rpm and hydraulics is beyond the scope of this
paper and requires a bit life model. However, it
should be remembered that ROP is generally more sen-
sitive to BHHP at higher bit weight and rpm. If
sufficient experience with bit life as a function of
weight and rpm is available, even lower drilling costs
can result from higher bit weight and rpm in conjunc-
tion with higher standpipe pressures.
CONCLUSIONS
The model of equation (1) has been correlated
with a variety of full scale laboratory drilling
data demonstrating its applicability in hydraulics
optimization. Methods for determining the exponent b
of equation (1) in field applications have also been
presented.
408
SPE 11409
To obtain minimum cost per foot drilled within
physical limitations of rig equipment, costs for pump
maintenance and pump fuel should be a fixed percentage
of total rig operating costs, the percentage being
equal to (lOO)b. Drilling cost reductions are more
sensitive to standpipe pressure constraints when max-
imum available bit pressure drop is less than 50 per-
cent of the standpipe pressure.
Additional data have been presented to support
the observation made in reference Z that ROP differ-
ences obtained with two and three nozzle drilling are
correlated with BHHP/nozzle when cutter balling is not
a problem. In cutter balling situations, a promising
approach to increasing effective BHHP/nozzle is to use
one large nozzle and two smaller nozzles. This strat-
egy warrants further investigation.
NOMENCLATURE
exponent on BHHP relating ROP to BHHP
b
BHHP. bit hydraulic horsepower at hydraulic con-
1
dition i-HHP
(Bit ~P).= pressure drop across bit at hydraulic
1
condition i-psi
c = fraction of total rig operating costs
represented by pump maintenance and
fuel to power mud pumps
C constant calculated from u and ratios of
BHHP to PHHP
DC. drilling costs per foot - Sift
1
f fuel costs per pump horsepower per hour -
$/(HP-hour)
fuel costs to power pumps at hydraulic
condition i - $/hour
i subscript used to denote hydraulic operating
condition i
K constant relating ROP to BHHP/nozzle
ratio of BHHP. to PHHP. at condition i
1 1
p exponent on standpipe pressure relating SP
to pump maintenance costs
PHHP. pump hydraulic horsepower at condition i-HHP
1
pPC. pump parts replacement cost per hour at
1
condition i - $/hour
flow rate at hydraulic condition i-gal/min
R. rig hourly operating costs - $/hour
1
ROP. rate of penetration at condition i - ft/hour
1
SP. standpipe pressure at hydraulic condition
1
i-psi
u = exponent on flow rate relating circulating
system pressure losses to flow rate
v (u+l)/u
 SPE 11409 Harold H. Doiron and John D. Deane 7

REFERENCES 5. Tibbitts, G.A., Sandstrom, J.S., Black, A.D. and

1. Kendall, H.A. and Goins, W.C., "Design and Oper-
ation of Jet-Bit Programs for Maximum Hydraulic
Horsepower, Impact Force or Jet Velocity", Trans.
AIME (1960), 219, pp. 238-250.
2. Doiron, H.H. and Deane, J.D., "Effects of Hydrau-
lic Parameter Cleaning Variations on Rate of
Penetration of Soft Formation Insert Bits", SPE-
11058, 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, La., Sept. 26-29, 1982.
Green, S.J., "The Effects of Bit Hydraulics on
Full-Scale Laboratory Drilled Shale", SPE-8439,
54th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
6. Black, A.D., Tibbitts, G.A., Sandstrom, J.L., and
DiBona, B.G., "Effects of Size on Three-Cone Bit
Performance in Laboratory Drilled Shale", SPE-1123l,
57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, New Orleans, La., Sept. 26-29, 1982.
7. Robinson, L., "On-Site Nozzle Selection Increases
Drilling Performance", Petroleum Engineer Interna-
tional, December 1981, pp. 72-82.

8. "Pump Cost Operating Data Approved", The Drilling

3. Miska, S. and Skalle, P., "Theoretical Descrip- Contractor, April-May 1960.
tion of a New Method of Optimal Program Design",
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, August, 9. AAODC, Tool Pusher's Manual, Seventh Edition,
1981, pp. 425-434. 1968 Section Q-l, p.4.

10. IADC, Drilling Manual, Tenth Edition, 1982.

4. Warren, T.M. and Winters, W.J., "The Effect of
Nozzle Diameter on Jet Impact for a Tricone Bit",
SPE-ll059, 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, La., Sept. 26-29,
1982.
11. Nelson, J .K.B., "What Mud Pump Horsepower Costs",
Petroleum Engineer, October, 1965, pp. 71-79.
12. HP-4lC Standard Applications Handbook, Hewlett-
Packard Company, March 1980, p. 42.

120
o

90
R
0
P
i
n
60
F
T
/
H
R
30 .271
ROP-K(BHHP/NOZ)
t:. t:. 9/32 DATA
0 013/32 DATA
0 015/32 DATA

30 60 90 120
BHHP/NOZZLE
Fig. 1-ROP VS. BHHP/nozzle in Indiana limestone.

409
 30 15

25

~-- ....... .
R R
o 20 ...... o 10
P P
.............
.....
15 .~ ...
/
H
10

.
R

.'
622.5 BHHp/NOZ
a 42 BHHP/NOZ

30 60 90 120 150 180 10 20 30 40

BHHP/NOZZLE WEIGHT on BIT THOUSANDS

Fig 2-ROPvs BHHP/nozzle,1l Mancos shale at 2.00o-ps, overbalance pressure Fig. 3-EtfectsOI BHHPlnozzle on ROP ,esponse to we'ghl on bIt

70 30

60 25
._0-0

50

'0 /
/
20
/ .. ,

G.···········
..0 ........ -0

30
15
.-.
?'
/
I
10 /
20 I /
; I
/ - ROP-Kl (BHHP/NOZ)"lH
..... ROP-K2(BHHP/NOZr SII
10 _.- ROP-K3(BHHP/NOZ1··:a

20 40 60 80 100 120 30 60 90 120 150 ISO

BHHPI'NOZZtE BHHP/NOZZLE

Fig. 4-ROP vs BHHPlnonle and RPM ,n Mancos shale at 700-ps, overbalance pressure Fig. 5-ROP vs BHHPlnoule and RPM In Mancos shale at 4 ClOO pSI overbalance pressure

--
1.5704
- REt COST· 1. ... 18 (SP/1500) 1.6

---
1.4 ROP 2/AOP, . b = .3 '..,...---- _____

.
Q)
::l

>
1.2

1.0 ~
___ - - - - - - - - - - -------- -------
...
'OC/OC
, 2 1 ~~
~~~

~
a::
0.8

0.6

0.4

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 -4000 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25
STANDPIPE PRESSURE - PSI

Fig. 6-Relal'vepump mamlenance costs vS standp,pepressure Fig. 7-ROPandcostlrendswlth<ncreaSlngstandplpepreS5ure.k,~k,

1.8

1.6

1.'

1.2

DC.
0.8 DC 1

0.6

0.' - tOG(ROP)· .271 tOG( BHHP/tiOZ >+LOG(K)

t. t. 9/32 DATA
0.2 o 0 13/32 DATA
(;> (;> 15/32 DATA

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.4 1

10
BHHP/tiOZZLE

Fig. 8-ROP and cost trends w,th oncreas,ng stanclp'pe pressure k, Fig. 9-ROPvs BHHPlnOZlle In Indiana limestone

JJl/Oy