Copyright

by

Aravind Suresh Kumar

2008
A Baseline for Mechanical Specific Energy and
Estimation of Bit Wear Rate

by

Aravind Suresh Kumar, B.E.

Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science in Engineering

The University of Texas at Austin

December 2008
A Baseline for Mechanical Specific Energy and
Estimation of Bit Wear Rate

Approved by

Supervising Committee:

Kenneth E. Gray

Jon Holder
Dedication

To my family
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who helped me complete my Master of Science in

Petroleum Engineering. I would like to thank Dr. Kenneth E. Gray for his support,

guidance and encouragement throughout the project. I would like to thank Dr. Holder for

his guidance. I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and inspiration,

without which this would not have been possible. I specially thank Dr. Ghislaine Kozuh

for her help in editing this thesis. Finally, special thanks to the sponsors for the financial

support provided by the Life-of-Well project, which supported my Master’s degree at the

University of Texas at Austin.

December 2008

v
 Abstract

A Baseline for Mechanical Specific Energy and

Estimation of Bit Wear Rate

Aravind Suresh Kumar, M.S.E.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2008

Supervisor: Kenneth E. Gray

Mechanical Specific Energy, as formulated by Teale in 1965, has been widely

used to monitor the efficiency of the drilling process and to analyze bit performance.

Mechanical factors that contribute to drilling inefficiency such as bit balling, bit dulling,

torque/drag, drillstring vibrations, etc., are associated with a spike in the Mechanical

Specific Energy (MSE). The Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of the formation

is generally used as a baseline for comparing the operating real time values of MSE.

However, observed MSE values vary significantly from the UCS of the formation. This

thesis details a model to establish a baseline for MSE, based on predicting the rate of

penetration (ROP) of a specific bit in a given formation. The ROP model used is an

Imperfect Hole Cleaning model for a diamond-coated bit. A second model was developed

vi
to estimate the wear rate of bits, which can be monitored in real time using data obtained

from logging tools. Monitoring the MSE and the bit wear rate could potentially improve

the overall efficiency of the drilling process, by helping identify the variables that cause

inefficiency, and offering a quantitative basis for bit change decisions. This provides

quantitative data needed to make design changes and bit change decisions, resulting in a

considerable reduction of total rig time and its associated expenses.

vii
 Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................ ix

Chapter I: Introduction.............................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................1
Review of Literature ......................................................................................3

Chapter II: Establishing a Baseline for MSE.........................................................5

Introduction.....................................................................................................5
Rate of Penetration Model ............................................................................10
Estimating the Baseline MSE Level .............................................................12

Chapter I: Estimating Bit Wear .............................................................................13

Introduction ..................................................................................................13
Estimating Bit Wear .....................................................................................14

Chapter III: Discussion and Conclusions..............................................................20

References..............................................................................................................22

Vita ......................................................................................................................25

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Typical drill-off curve.........................................................................2

Figure 2: MSE Plot against Depth .....................................................................8

Figure 3: MSE Plot against Depth .....................................................................9

Figure 4: Forces acting on a cutter ..................................................................15

Figure 5: Rectangular cutter profiles - the U profile, L profile and the slab profile

...........................................................................................................16

Figure 6: Theoretical E-S diagram for the 3D model ......................................17

ix
 Chapter I: Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Quantitative performance assessment of drilling footage is difficult to achieve,

since drilling performance is related to a number of intangible factors. Most bits are

evaluated based on their performance relative to offset wells. However, drill rates are

limited by factors that the driller does not control, and in ways that cannot be documented

in a bit record. Consequently, drill rates may vary greatly between two wells running

identical bits.

Drilling performance optimization is achieved by a variety of tests. The most

widely used is the "drill rate" test[1], in which various weight on bit (WOB) and RPM

settings are experimented. Weight on bit (WOB) is the total amount of downward force

placed on a bit by the entire weight of the drill stem. The drillers then use the

combination of WOB, RPM and torque settings which provide the best rate of penetration

(ROP). ROP is the measured distance that the drill bit or other drilling tool penetrates

subsurface formations in a unit length of time. All optimization schemes focus on

identifying the best of these parameters relative to other settings.

The earliest method was the "drill-off" test wherein the driller applies a high

WOB and locks the brakes. This prevents the top of the string from advancing.

Circulation is continued and the string is rotated. The bit drills ahead and the string

elongates. The weight on bit gradually declines and the rate of penetration (ROP) is

calculated from the increase in the rate of drill string elongation as the WOB decreases.

1
Figure 1[1] shows field data from three drill-off tests using insert bits. As shown in the

plot, the rate of penetration stops responding linearly with increasing weight on bit at a

point. This point is referred to as the "flounder" or "founder" point. The weight on bit at

this point is taken to be the optimum WOB. The drilloff curve is used as a reference to

demonstrate how MSE can be used operationally. By monitoring the MSE in real-time,

one can identify which phase of the drill-curve the bit is currently in.

Figure 1: Typical drill-off curve[1]

Several tools have been developed to optimize ROP, which are similar to drill-

rate and drill-off tests. These tools have been used to observe performance trends and

2
seek to identify the founder point. However, the true potential drilling rate for a formation

has not been identified yet. MSE analysis has shown that only 10% of the possible

maximum performance has been achieved in many cases[1]. In many situations, since

offset well performance was used as a baseline, the possibility of a better performance is

overlooked.

MSE monitoring and analysis not only provides the opportunity to identify

performance limiters for optimum drilling, but also a quantitative basis for cost-justifying

the design changes that could contribute to better efficiency in drilling.

Although several investigators have studied the use of MSE as a trending tool, a

baseline for MSE levels to be expected of a formation is still a gray area. This thesis

attempts to establish a predicted value for MSE, which is done by first calculating the

expected rate of penetration. The ROP model used is an Imperfect Hole Cleaning model

for roller cone bits. Since MSE levels are also associated with the condition of the bit, a

model to estimate how much the bit wears out with every depth of cut it makes was

developed. Ngoie’s[2] model for depth of cut per revolution and Dagrain and

Tshibangu’s[3] model for axial and torsional forces acting on a bit was used to derive this

model.

3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The concept of using specific energy using Teale’s[4] model has been applied

widely in field operations. Rabia[5], Dupriest[6], Armenta[7], Waughman[8] et al., are

among several authors who have explored the possibility of optimizing drilling using

Teale’s model. One approach to drill bit selection for a specific formation by applying the

principle of specific energy has been described by Rabia et al.[9] They have shown that

the specific energy approach to bit selection is comparable, if not better than the use of

the traditional cost per meter or average cost per meter approaches for analyzing bit runs.

The rate of penetration in a given formation depends not only on the rock strength of the

formation, but also on how effectively the cuttings are removed. Warren[10] developed a

model to predict the rate of penetration, which takes into consideration the effects of both

the initial chip formation process and the cuttings removal process. Dupriest et al.[11] use

the mechanical specific energy concept developed by Teale in an attempt to optimize the

drilling process and maximize the rate of penetration. In their study, they use the

unconfined compressive strength of the formation as the baseline to reference and

compare the specific energy levels of the formation. The downside to this approach,

pointed out by Guerrero et al.[12] states that the apparent strength at the rock-bit interface

is higher than the unconfined compressive strength value. This is due to increased

compressive strength of the rock due to the pressure difference between the borehole

pressure and the formation fluid pressure. Consequently, Guerrero et al. have developed a

tool which incorporates the specific energy concept in order to model bit performance

and also predict the rate of penetration for various bit types. They point out that one of
4
the shortcomings of their ROP model is that drilling inefficiency is caused by a variety of

factors, some of which are bit balling, bottomhole balling, hole cleaning, drilling

vibrations and bit wear. Some of these factors are hard to quantify; however, bit wear rate

is measurable. The results and observations from the aforementioned authors have been

used in this study to develop a model that can determine the baseline for mechanical

specific energy levels and a second model that can predict the wear rate of bits.

5
 Chapter II: Establishing a Baseline for MSE

INTRODUCTION

The mechanical specific energy concept has been used to optimize the rate of

penetration of bits and although in a limited manner, it has also been used to investigate

inefficiencies in field operations. By applying this principle in real time, a continuous

monitoring of mechanical specific energy by using downhole data enables the detection

of changes in the efficiency of the system. Optimum operating parameters can thus be

identified and also, design changes that could potentially improve performance may be

evaluated.

Dupriest et al.[6] have shown that specific energy analyses have enabled redesign

in areas as diverse as well-control practices, bit selection, bottom hole assembly design,

makeup torque, directional target sizing, and motor differential ratings.

As described earlier, the drill-off curve was commonly used to identify the

optimum operating parameters which provide maximum rate of penetration. Extending

the linear portion of the drill-off curve is the objective of any drilling optimization

scheme.

Now, the relationship between the specific energy, drilling torque applied, weight

on bit, and rate of penetration is summed up by the following expression as derived by

Teale[4]:

MSE =

6
 where, MSE stands for the Mechanical Specific Energy, RPM is the bit rotating

speed in rotations per minute, D is the diameter of the borehole and WOB is the weight

on bit and ROP is the rate of penetration.

All of the above parameters are part of traditionally monitored downhole drilling

data. Figures 2 and 3 show the plot of mechanical specific energy, calculated from the

aforementioned parameters and displayed along with the other downhole parameters such

as weight on bit, rate of penetration, torque, bit rpm, etc.

The amount of energy that is required to drill through a section of formation

depends on the compressive strength of the formation. Teale showed through lab

experimental data that this Mechanical Specific Energy was numerically very close to the

rock compressive strength in psi. Traditionally, this value is used as a guideline to

compare the MSE levels, and thus determine where the drilling operation stands in terms

of efficiency.

However, field results of MSE are quite different from the actual compressive

strength, since the rock strength is greater at the rock-bit interface. The apparent increase

in rock strength observed results from a pressure differential between the borehole

pressure and the formation fluid pressure. Hence, the observed MSE levels may not be

close to the UCS of the formation.

A better way to compare the MSE levels, as presented in this study, would be to

first determine the optimum MSE levels for a formation. This can be done by first

calculating the maximum possible rate of penetration for a formation, and then using the

ROP value to back-calculate the MSE levels using Teale’s formulation.

7
Figure 2: MSE Plot against Depth

8
Figure 3: MSE Plot against Depth
9
RATE OF PENETRATION MODEL

In addition to formation strength, both the cuttings generation process and the

cuttings removal process limit the rate of penetration of roller cone bits. Warren[10]

developed a model to estimate the rate of penetration of roller cone bits in soft

formations, taking into consideration the effect of cuttings that may impede the drilling

process. The model describes the key parameters that control the rate of penetration.

Warren initially developed a model in which the impact of cuttings removal is not

taken into consideration. Based on laboratory tests in which perfect hole cleaning

situations were assumed led to the development of the following model to estimate the

rate of penetration for soft formations using roller cone bits:

where, a,b,c are dimensionless constants;

db is the bit diameter;

N is the bit rotary speed;

W is the weight on bit;

S is the rock strength.

In the above model, the first term defines the maximum rate at which the rock is

ground by the bit, assuming that the weight on bit is evenly distributed among the cutter

teeth, and independent of the depth of cut. The second term modifies the predictions to

account for the distribution of the weight on bit to additional cutter teeth, when more and

more weight is applied on the bit to penetrate deeper into the rock.

10
 Using dimensional analysis techniques, the above model was then extended to

match field experimental data for rates of penetration. Mud properties and modified

impact force were included into this model. The resultant model, called the Imperfect-

Cleaning Model[10] is as follows:

where, Fjm is the modified jet impact force;

µ is the plastic viscosity;

γf is the fluid specific gravity.

The term Fjm modifies the impact force from the drilling fluid, which has been

adjusted for nozzle-size effects and for the influence of the return flow.

11
ESTIMATING BASELINE MSE LEVEL

Now that the model for estimating the rate of penetration has been identified, the

next step is to calculate the baseline MSE level for a particular formation. This is done by

incorporating the calculated ROP into the MSE model and the other parameters are the

observed levels. The resultant equation for MSEest is as follows:

MSEest =
where, RPM is the bit rotary speed, WOB is the weight on bit, D is the diameter

of the borehole and ROPest is the estimated rate of penetration, computed using

Warren’s Imperfect Hole Cleaning model.

12
 CHAPTER III: ESTIMATING BIT WEAR

INTRODUCTION

The primary use of the specific energy concept has been to serve as a performance

indicator of the drilling program. Teale defined specific energy as the energy required to

remove a unit volume of rock. The ‘energy’ here refers to the sum total of all effort

provided to the bit in order to drill and cut rock. The energy that is dissipated into the

unbroken rock surrounding the borehole, the energy lost in re-grinding the cuttings, the

frictional losses, etc. also come into play. Since the energy associated with removing a

unit volume of rock depends on the type of formation, every bit type has its unique MSE

signature associated with a specific formation. MSE has thus been used successfully as an

indicator of bit performance.

A comprehensive documentation of bit type against formation drilled and the

associated specific energy could thus serve as a criterion for bit selection. The wear rate

of bits is clearly associated with the specific energy of the formation and this relationship

is used in this study to derive a model that can be applied in real time to monitor the wear

rate of the bit as it progresses through the formation.

13
ESTIMATING BIT WEAR

The relationship between the forces acting on the drilling cutter and the associated

specific energy has been discussed by Dagrain and Tshibangu[1]. The total force acting on

a cutter can be divided into two groups of components, namely the cutting force Fc and

the contact frictional force Ff. The frictional force acts at the interface of the cutter wear

flat and the rock and is directly proportional to the frictional contact at this interface.

The total cutting force is split into its vertical and horizontal components Fv and

Fh respectively. In terms of cutting parameters, rock parameters and cutter parameters,

the vertical and horizontal components can be expressed by the following relations:

Fv = ε (wd + µλw + αtd2)

Fh = ζε (wd + + αtd2)

where,

ε is the intrinsic specific energy and is defined as the energy needed to cut a unit

volume of rock;

ζ is the ratio of the vertical and horizontal components of the cutting force.

Numerically, it is equal to the friction co-efficient on the cutting face. Its value is

given by:

ζ = arctan(θ + ψ);

where θ is the back rake angle and ψ is the inclination of the cutting force to the

normal of the cutting face;

t is a characteristic dependent on the existence of side-walls (t=0,1 or 2 for slabs,

L-profile and U-profile in Figure 2);

14
α is assumed as a side effect parameter function of the rock;

µ is the friction coefficient characterizing the frictional process occurring on the

wear flat/rock interface;

w is the cutter width;

d is the depth of cut;

λ is the wear flat length.

Figure 4: Forces acting on a cutter[2]

15
 Figure 5: Rectangular cutter profiles - the U profile, L
profile and the slab profile[2]

The relationship between the horizontal component of the cutting forces and the

specific energy utilized in cutting rock is described by the following expression:

The drilling strength S, defined as the vertical component of the drilling force per

unit cross sectional area, is expressed as follows:

16
 Figure 6: Theoretical E-S diagram for the 3D model[2]

As defined by Dagrain, the cutting point corresponds to the pure cutting process

and ε is its corresponding specific energy. Cutting point is defined as the intersection of

the cutting line and the friction line. In Figure 4, the cutting line is the line passing

through the cutting point and origin, friction line is the locus which characterizes the

friction process.

In terms of the rate of penetration, Ngoie[3] expressed the relationship between the

depth of cut and the rotating speed as follows:

where, c is a constant numerically equal to 0.06

e is the number of cutters

RPM is the bit rotating speed in rotations per minute.

17
 The above relationship suggests that the drilling rate is dependent on only the bit

speed, specifically after the cutter penetration results from applied weight. This

relationship holds good as long as the bit is new and bit wear is not taken into

consideration.

Now, the relationship between the specific energy, drilling torque applied, weight

on bit, and rate of penetration is summed up by the following expression as derived by

Teale[4]:

MSE =

Where MSE stands for the Mechanical Specific Energy, RPM is the bit rotating

speed in rotations per minute, D is the diameter of the borehole, WOB is the weight on

bit and ROP is the rate of penetration.

The above equation suggests that for a particular bit operating in a given

formation, the specific energy would remain constant if the formation were the same.

This consistency occurs because any change in the torque, bit speed or weight on bit

would influence the rate of penetration, thus maintaining a balance of the total energy

involved. However, field observations show that the specific energy varies not only as a

function of the compressive strength of the formation but also with the condition of the

bit. Factors such as bit balling, bottom hole balling, drilling hydraulics, etc., significantly

affect the specific energy levels associated with the formation.

Hence, surges in observed levels of specific energy can be tough to quantify. In

order to rule out the possibility of bit wear as a factor contributing towards high specific

energy levels, an analytical relationship between the condition of the bit and the wear rate
18
should be obtained. This is done by relating the forces acting on the bit and the specific

energy level involved. Therefore, relating the expression for depth of cut, horizontal force

acting on the bit and the specific energy level involved, an expression for bit wear rate is

given below:

The term λ represents the wear flat rate and‘d’ is the depth of cut per revolution.

Thus, the term (λ/d) quantifies the wear rate with every depth of cut that the cutter makes.

19
 Chapter III: Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, a model has been presented to estimate a baseline for MSE

levels for specific formations. This baseline can be used to compare the real-time MSE

levels observed in the field during drilling operations, which enables the operators to

gauge the efficiency of the drilling process. In cases where the drilling process is sub-

optimal, deployment of the model enables one to justify potential design changes are to

be made in the current system in order to achieve higher rates of penetration.

The second model, which estimates bit wear uses principles of the specific energy

concept to monitor the wear rate of drilling bits in a given formation. Deployment of this

model in real-time enables engineers to identify whether bit wear is a cause of drilling

dysfunction and if so, eliminate one of the factors that contributes to the slump in the

drill-off curve. Additionally, bit failure can be detected, and thus, justifying pull out of

hole for bit change operations. Analysis of several bit types in their corresponding

formations drilled can throw light on identifying which bit is best suited for a given

formation. All of the aforementioned benefits also result in considerably lowering total

drilling time, total down time due to bit related problems and thus, a reduction in total rig

time. This in turn results in significant monetary benefits to the operator, in addition to

the insight gained into bit efficiency trends.

All of the data needed in order to implement the above model consists of

traditionally monitored downhole data; consequently, there is no need for any additional

sensors or equipment to deploy this model. This is turn means that without any additional

20
costs, the operators have a tool that to identify the efficiency of the drilling program,

eliminate bit wear as a drilling limiter and also throw light on bit selection principles

based on observed trends.

The bit wear model, however, focuses only on mechanical specific energy but the

impact of hole-cleaning and hydraulics is not taken into consideration. It is to be noted

that hole-cleaning and hydraulics would reduce the wear rate of bits, thus bringing down

the estimated value of wear rate. Future work could focus on incorporating the impact of

hydraulics into the model. By comparing the actual wear of bits with the estimated

values, a correlation can be arrived at which factors the effect of hole-cleaning and

hydraulics.

21
 References
1. Dupriest, F.E. and W. Koederitz, Maximizing Drill Rates with Real-Time
Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy, in SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
2005, SPE: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

2. Dagrain, F. and J.P. Tshibangu, Use of the D3 Model for the Estimation of Forces
Acting on a Cutter in Rock Cutting and Drilling, in SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics
Conference. 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers: Irving, Texas.

3. Nsenga, N., Analyse et Interpretations des essais de forabilite effectues a Diamant

Boart sur le calcaire de Soignes a l'aide des outils Stratapax. Service de
Mecanique des Roches, Faculte Polytechnique de Mons 1988(Publication Interne
258).

4. Teale, R., The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 1965. 2(1965): p. 57-73.

5. Rabia, H., Specific Energy as a Criterion for Drill Performance Prediction. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1982. 19: p. 39 to 42.

6. Dupriest, F.E., J.W. Witt, and S.M. Remmert, Maximizing ROP With Real-Time
Analysis of Digital Data and MSE, in International Petroleum Technology
Conference. 2005: Doha, Qatar.

7. Armenta, M., Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Drilling Specific

Energy, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 2008, SPE: Denver,
Colorado.

8. Waughman, R.J., J.V. Kenner, and R.A. Moore, Real-Time Specific Energy
Monitoring Reveals Drilling Inefficiency and Enhances the Understanding of
When to Pull Worn PDC Bits, in IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. 2002,
SPE/IADC: Dallas, Texas.

9. Rabia, H., M. Farrelly, and M.V. Barr, A New Approach to Drill Bit Selection, in
SPE European Petroleum Conference. 1986: London.

10. Warren, T.M., Penetration-Rate Performance of Roller Cone Bits. SPE Drilling
Engineering, 1987(1987): p. 9-18.

11. Dupriest, F.E., Comprehensive Drill-Rate Management Process to Maximize Rate

of Penetration, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 2006,
Society of Petroleum Engineers: San Antonio.

22
12. Guerrero, C.A. and B.J. Kull, Deployment of an SeROP Predictor Tool for Real-
Time Bit Optimization, in SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. 2007, SPE/IADC:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

13. Black, A.D., et al., Optimization of Deep Drilling Performance With

Improvements in Drill Bit and Drill Fluid Design, in IADC/SPE Drilling
Convention. 2008, SPE: Orlando, Florida.

14. Caicedo, H.U., W.M. Calhoun, and R.T. Ewy, Unique ROP Predictor Using Bit-
Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction and Mechanical Efficiency as a Function
of Compressive Strength Impacts Drilling Performance, in SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference. 2005, SPE/IADC: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

15. Curry, D., et al., Technical Limit Specific Energy - An Index to Facilitate Drilling
Performance Evaluation, in SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. 2005, SPE/IADC:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

16. Farrelly, M. and H. Rabia, Bit Performance and Selection. SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, 1987: p. 987-996.

17. G.McLaren, et al., Improving the Value of Real-Time Drilling Data to Aid
Collaboration, Drilling Optimization, and Decision Making, in SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. 2007, SPE: Anaheim, California.

18. Judzis, A., et al., Optimization of Deep Drilling Performance: Benchmark Testing
Drives ROP Improvements for Bits and Drilling Fluids, in SPE. 2007:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

19. Macini, P., et al., How Minimum Interval Concept Can Improve Bit Performance
Evaluation, in IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and
Exhibition. 2006: Bangkok, Thailand.

20. Perrin, V.P., G. Mensa-Wilmot, and W.L. Alexander, Drilling Index - A New
Approach to Bit Performance Evaluation, in SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
1997, SPE/IADC: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

21. Roberts, T.S., A.E. Schen, and J.L. Wise, Optimization of PDC Drill Bit
Performance Utilizing High-Speed, Real-Time Downhole Data Acquired Under a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, in SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference. 2005, SPE/IADC: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

22. Robinson, L.H. and M.S. Ramsey, Are You Drilling Optimized or Are You
Spinning Your Wheels?, in AADE National Drilling Conference, "Drilling
Technology - The Next 100 Years". 2001, AADE: Houston, Texas.

23
23. Rabia, H., Specific Energy as a Criterion for Bit Selection. SPE, 1985.

24
 Vita

Aravind Suresh Kumar was born on the 14th of September, 1983 in Coimbatore,

India; the son of Suresh Kumar and Renuka Devi. He attended Sri Krishna College of

Engineering and Technology (2001-2005) and the University of Texas at Austin (2007-

2009). He has a Bachelor of Science in the field of Mechanical Engineering and a Master

of Science in Petroleum Engineering.

The author worked with Cognizant Technology Solutions (2005-2006) and with

Schlumberger during the summer of 2008.

Permanent address: 45, Arumugham Nagar,

Ramanathapuram,

Coimbatore – 641045,

Tamil Nadu, India.

This thesis was typed by Aravind Suresh Kumar.

25