SPE/IADC 92576
Unique ROP Predictor Using Bit-specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction and Mechanical
Efficiency as a Function of Confined Compressive Strength Impacts Drilling
Performance
Hector U. Caicedo, William M. Calhoun, and Russ T. Ewy, SPE, ChevronTexaco Energy Technology Company (ETC)
Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
It has become standard practice to plan wells and analyze bit
performance by using log-based rock strength analysis and/or
the specific energy theory. The most widely used characteriza-
tion of rock strength is unconfined compressive strength
(UCS), but this is somewhat problematic because the apparent
strength of the rock to the bit is typically different than UCS.
Those who understand bit performance are aware of this prob-
lem, but to date there is not an industry standard or widely
used methodology to address it. The specific energy theory
has been used for bit performance assessment for years. One
of the challenges of application of the specific energy theory,
however, is uncertainty or lack of consistency in reasonable
values for the input variables.
Globally applicable solutions and methods to address these
problems have been developed and implemented by
ChevronTexaco. A new method to calculate rock confined
compressive strength (CCS), based on both conventional and
somewhat innovative rock mechanics principles, has been
developed. A new method to determine input variables for bit
performance prediction based on the specific energy theory
and CCS has been developed. These have been integrated to
provide new capability for rapid and accurate log-based de-
termination of the expected or achievable rate of penetration
and operating parameters for all bit types. The new models
have proved valuable, improving drilling performance and
reducing well cost by improving bit performance prediction,
bit selection, and the determination of optimum drilling pa-
rameters. The methods are robust, based on fundamental
and/or first principles, and require little or no calibration. Any
required calibration is intuitive and simple. This document
presents background, theory, research results, new methodolo-
gies, and field and lab data that validate and illustrate the
methods.
Introduction
During the late 1990’s, Chevron Exploration and Production
Technology Company (EPTC) initiated work on a project to
improve drilling performance and pre-drill drilling perform-
ance prediction based on a mechanical earth model (MEM).
Required components of this project were pre-drill bit selec-
tion, rate of penetration (ROP) prediction, and bit life
prediction. Another objective of the project was the integration
of this capability into tools/processes for rapid well design,
planning, and cost estimating. People who understand what is
necessary to build a MEM know that it requires an investment.
A MEM is not always available or warranted, but its use is
gaining popularity and proving to add value, especially with
some of the major capital projects in more challenging and
high cost drilling environments.
As is typical of such endeavors, the existing literature was
reviewed, various experts were consulted, and processes used
by suppliers were reviewed. EPTC, as well as other operators
and bit suppliers, had some capability in this regard but EPTC
believed there were still considerable inaccuracies, subjectiv-
ity, or extensive local calibration required in the existing
processes. EPTC concluded that the industry lacked relatively
accurate yet simple and intuitive methods based on first prin-
ciples for calculating the apparent rock strength to the bit and
achievable ROP for predominant bit types. These were fun-
damental requirements needed to meet the EPTC project
objectives. The EPTC Rock Mechanics team, consisting of
rock mechanics, drilling engineers, and earth scientists,
worked together to develop simple, robust, and globally appli-
cable solutions for apparent rock strength (to the bit) and bit
performance prediction methods.
The Current (and Problematic) State
Confined Compressive Strength (CCS).
The industry has widely adopted the practice of using UCS
for bit selection and performance prediction. This may be suit-
able for porous/permeable rock drilled with clear fluids (no
wall cake), but this represents only a small fraction of the rock
drilled by the industry. This approach is erroneous for po-
2 SPE/IADC 92576
rous/permeable rock drilled with mud and for impermeable
rock drilled with any type of drilling fluid.
Bit design and performance optimization specialists under-
stand the effect of confining pressure to increase the apparent
strength of the rock and thus significantly impact bit perform-
ance. As such, many have developed performance prediction
algorithms based on UCS, other rock properties, mud pressure,
pore pressure, mud properties, and so forth. Some bit suppliers
have implemented methods for calculating and using a con-
fined compressive strength. Both of these approaches,
however, have one or more drawbacks of being proprietary
and thus not widely available, erroneous, lacking robustness
for global application without local calibration, or lacking
intuitive simplicity based on first principles.
There is a well documented and widely accepted method
for calculating rock CCS based on rock UCS, confining stress,
pore pressure, and rock internal angle of friction. The tech-
nique is a common rock mechanics approach. This CCS
approach can provide a more realistic representation of appar-
ent rock strength to the bit than UCS, yet its use is still very
limited. It is also somewhat flawed for impermeable rock. Its
effective use is largely limited to bit performance specialists
who are willing to acquire the data necessary to calculate it
and who understand its shortcomings.
Bit Performance Prediction.
One element of optimizing drilling performance is the op-
timization of bit selection and operating parameters. This
optimization process is often accomplished by the process of
trial and error. Not only can this present considerable unneces-
sary expense, it is a process that can proceed or conclude with
considerable uncertainty and lack of optimization.
Bit performance optimization processes typically require
rock strength and other rock properties (a MEM) and some
form of bit performance prediction. One needs to know the
character of what is being drilled to predict performance, and
one needs to establish some criteria of good or bad perform-
ance to optimize. Besides optimization, there is sometimes a
critical need to reduce the uncertainty of drilling performance
prediction. This may be for more confidence in AFE appro-
priation, time estimate for rig sharing agreements, time
estimate to work within “weather windows,” and so forth.
Pre-drill bit selection, performance prediction, and optimi-
zation based on MEM is predominantly limited to specialists
within the bit supplier companies and some operators. To a
large degree, a high level of expertise and/or reasonably robust
and accurate methods is limited. To the extent that accurate bit
performance predictions are developed, they are often com-
plex, proprietary, or based on local empirical correlations. In
addition, they may not be globally applicable from surface to
great depths, across typical range of hole sizes, and for all
predominant bit types. Bit performance prediction methods
may not be linked or sensitive to rig capability (available
power and drillstring specifications), though this could be a
useful capability for optimizing equipment selection and field
development planning.
The Bottom Hole Environment.
Figure 1 illustrates the general bottom hole environment
for a vertical well in porous/permeable rock. Rock, and asso-
ciated overburden stress, has been replaced by a hole filled
with drilling fluid. Although there can be exceptions, the pres-
sure exerted by the drilling fluid is typically greater than pore
pressure and less than overburden. Under this common drilling
condition, the rock expands slightly at the bottom of the hole
because of the reduction of stress (pressure from drilling fluid
is less than pressure exerted by overburden). If the rock is po-
rous, there will be an immediate pore pressure reduction in the
expanded rock.
If the rock is permeable, the pore pressure reduction results
in fluid movement from the far field (reservoir) into the ex-
panded region. The rate and degree to which pore fluid flows
into the expanded region and equalizes the pore pressure of
the expanded region to that of the far field (reservoir pressure),
is a function of several factors. These factors include the rate
of rock alteration (correlative to rate of penetration) and the
relative permeability of the rock to the pore fluid (assuming
that the reservoir volume is relatively large compared to the
depth of cut region). At the same time, if drilling fluid pres-
sure is greater than in-situ pore pressure, filtrate from the
drilling fluid will enter the permeable pore space in the depth
of cut zone. The wall cake built during the initial mud inva-
sion (sometimes referred to as spurt loss) acts as a barrier to
further filtrate invasion. If the wall cake buildup is efficient
(very thin and quick, which is desirable and often achieved),
the impact of filtrate invasion on altering the pore pressure in
the depth of cut region is negligible. It is also assumed that the
mud filter cake acts as an impermeable membrane for the
typical case of mud pressure being greater than pore pressure.
Therefore, for highly permeable rock drilled with mud, the
pore pressure in the depth of cut zone can reasonably be as-
sumed to be essentially the same as in-situ pore pressure.
For impermeable rock (such as shale and very tight non-
shale), there is insignificant pore fluid movement or filtrate
invasion in the depth of cut zone. Therefore, the instantaneous
pore pressure in the depth of cut zone is a function of the
stress change, rock properties, and in-situ pore fluid properties
(primarily compressibility).
Specific Energy Theory
Specific energy (Es) principles provide a means of predicting
or analyzing bit performance. Es is based on fundamental
principles related to the amount of energy required to destroy
a unit volume of rock and the efficiency of bits to destroy the
rock.
The Es parameter is a useful measure for predicting the
power requirements (bit torque and rpm) for a particular bit
type to drill at a given ROP in a given rock type, and the ROP
that a particular bit might be expected to achieve in a given
rock type.
Es theory is not new; it has been used for quick bit per-
formance assessment for years. Equation 1 shows Teale’s
SPE/IADC 92576 3

specific energy equation derived for rotary drilling at atmos- Substituting Es in terms of mechanical efficiency and
pheric conditions(1). torque as a function of WOB and solving Equation 1 for ROP,
the rate of penetration can be calculated with Equation 5, as
WOB 120 * π * N * T follows:
Es = + (1)
AB AB * ROP
13.33 * µ * N (5)
ROP =
Where: Es = Specific energy (psi) ⎛ CCS 1 ⎞
DB⎜ − ⎟
WOB = Weight on bit (pounds) ⎝ EFF M * WOB AB⎠
AB = Borehole area (sq-in)
N = rpm
T = Torque (ft-lbf) Upon review of the specific energy theory and the work by
ROP = Rate of penetration (ft/hr) Pessier, EPTC concluded that the coefficient of sliding fric-
tion, efficiency, WOB, and rpm could reasonably be defined
Pessier(2) validated Equation 1 for drilling under hydro- for each bit type as a function of apparent rock strength to the
static pressure. bit. Lab work was initiated to confirm and quantify these rela-
tionships. Research on a reasonably accurate confined
Because the majority of field data is in the form of surface compressive strength solution for apparent rock strength to the
measurements of weight on bit (WOB), rpm (N), and rate of bit was also initiated.
penetration (ROP), a bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction
(µ) was introduced to express torque (T) as a function of Solution for Confined Compressive Strength (CCS)
WOB(1). This coefficient will subsequently be used to compute As mentioned above, there is a widely practiced and accepted
specific input energy (Es) values in the absence of reliable rock mechanics method for calculating confined compressive
torque measurements, as follows: strength of rock. It is as follows:

T (2) CCS = UCS + DP +2DP*sinFA/(1-sinFA) (6)

µ = 36
D * WOB
B
Where: UCS = rock unconfined compressive
strength
DP = differential pressure (or confining
Where: T = Bit torque (ft-lbf)
stress)
DB = Bit size (inches)
FA = rock internal angle of friction
µ = Bit-specific coefficient of sliding fric-
tion (dimensionless)
Adapting this to the bottom hole drilling condition for
permeable rock is accomplished by defining differential pres-
Teale also introduced the concept of minimum specific en-
sure as equivalent circulating density minus in-situ pore
ergy and maximum mechanical efficiency(1). The minimum
pressure. This results in the following:
specific energy is reached when the specific energy ap-
proaches or is roughly equal to the compressive strength of the
rock being drilled. The mechanical efficiency (EFFM) for any CCS_DP = UCS + DP +2DP*sinFA/(1-sinFA) (7)
bit type is then calculated as follows: Where: DP = ECD pressure – pore pressure (8)
ECD pressure = pressure exerted by drilling
Es min (3) fluid under circulating condition (equivalent
EFFM = * 100
Es circulating density)

For the case of impermeable rock and a vertical well, a re-

Where: Es min = Rock strength lationship described by Skempton(3) was applied as a means to
calculate the pore pressure in the expanded rock in the depth
The associated bit torque for a particular bit type to drill at of cut zone. This results in the following:
a given ROP in a given rock type (CCS) is computed by using
equation 4, which is derived from Equation 1 and Equation 3,
as follows: CCS_Sk = UCS + DP_Sk +2DP_Sk*sinFA/(1-sinFA) (9)
Where: DP_Sk = ECD pressure–Skempton Pore
CCS 4 * WOB 2
DB * ROP Pressure (10)
T=( - )*( ) (4) Skempton Pore Pressure = PP – (OB-
EFFM π * DB 2 480 * N ECD)/3 (11)
4 SPE/IADC 92576
The fundamentally correct way to think about Skempton
pore pressure (see Appendix A) is that it is the in-situ pore
pressure modified by the pore pressure change in response to
the change in average stress. In the case of a vertical well and
most shale (not unusually hard and stiff), the change in aver-
age stress can be approximated by “(OB-ECD)/3.” In the case
of a deviated well, the earth stress that existed normal to the
bottom of the hole and prior to the existence of the hole is
substituted for overburden (OB) in the equations above. This
calculation and substitution is easily implemented by any
wellbore stability software.
The two solutions above, “CCS_DP” and “CCS_Sk,” are
considered to be endpoints. A technique of mixing (or interpo-
lating) between the two endpoints was devised to address the
intermediate permeability between essentially impermeable
rock and highly permeable rock. The ChevronTexaco log-
based approach to rock mechanical properties does not typi-
cally include a permeability function, but it does include
effective porosity. Although there are exceptions, EPTC be-
lieved that effective porosity would most often trend with
permeability and, therefore, effective porosity could be used
as a means to quantify the permeable and impermeable end-
points. The following methodology was employed to calculate
“CCS_Mix,” the apparent confined compressive strength of
the rock to the bit:
CCS_MIX = CCS_DP if Phie ≥ .20,
= CCS_Sk if Phie ≤ .05,
= CCS_DP(Phie-.05)/.15 + CS_Sk(.20-
Phie)/.15
if .05<Phie< .20. (12)
Where: Phie = effective porosity
The previous equations are based on the assumption that
the rock would behave as impermeable if Phie was less than or
equal to 0.05 and as permeable if Phie was greater than or
equal to 0.20. The endpoint Phie values of 0.05 and 0.20 are
assumed. Reasonable endpoints for this method are dependant
upon a number of factors, including the drilling rate. Phie,
effective porosity, is defined as the porosity of non-shale frac-
tion of rock multiplied by the fraction of non-shale rock.
Effective porosity of the shale fraction is assumed to be zero.
Validation of CCS Method.
Validation is presented from two standpoints: lab/research
data and field data.
Warren and Smith(4) documented the results of finite ele-
ment modeling of the bottom of the hole. This work confirmed
that the effective stress on the bottom of the hole for perme-
able rock is essentially equal to the difference between mud
pressure and in-situ pore pressure, except for minor differ-
ences caused by the bottom hole profile and larger differences
near the outer diameter caused by edge effects.
Figure 2 illustrates the difference between mud pressure
and the altered pore pressure (in the expanded depth of cut
zone) for a given set of conditions for impermeable rock. This
figure shows differential pressure curves calculated by Warren
and Smith, as well as the simplified Skempton method. These
calculations are from a case in which overburden equals
10,000 psi, horizontal stress equals 7,000 psi, and pore pres-
sure equals 4,700 psi. Warren and Smith results are for 0.11
in. below the bottom of the borehole surface, and at various
radial positions from the center of the hole. Additional rock
properties, pore fluid properties, and bottom hole profile were
required for Warren and Smith’s finite element analysis. As
can be seen, there is a fair degree of correlation between War-
ren and Smith’s more rigorous modeling, and the simplified
method presented in this paper. The Warren and Smith method
modeled a very hard, stiff shale; the correlation would be
closer for a more typical shale. The apparent difference be-
tween the two methods decreases as mud pressure increases
above in-situ pore pressure. Consequently, the simplified
method may be suitably accurate for the more typical over-
balanced conditions, becoming less accurate as balanced con-
ditions are approached. Regarding the discrepancy near the
diameter (due to edge effects), the authors suggest that a cor-
rection for bottom hole profile and edge effects, if required,
could be easily implemented in the simplified Skempton
method.
A great deal of lab test data indicates the effect of mud
confining pressure on the drill rate of rock samples. If rock
properties and confining stress are known, the confined com-
pressive strength of the rock can be calculated for each test
condition. Rate of penetration (ROP) vs. CCS can then be
plotted to establish the relationship between ROP and CCS.
Figure 3 provides an example, using data from Cunningham
and Eenink(5). The ROP vs. CCS curve in Figure 3 is typical,
and our data from numerous drilling operations around the
world supports the power function as being the best general-
ized function. For the specific test data shown in Figure 3, a
power law trend line is matched and the resulting formula is
indicated in Figure 3. The ROP formula shown in Figure 3 is
specific to the lab 1.25-in. micro-bit and drilling parameters
(weight on bit, rpm, and flow rate).
Using the ROP vs. CCS relationship from Figure 3, one
can then test the presented methodology on hypothetical cases,
as shown in Table 1 and Figures 4 and 5. This data and Fig-
ures 4 and 5 indicate that the use of absolute ECD pressure for
calculating confined compressive strength yields unrealisti-
cally high values of CCS and produces no or very little ROP
response. This finding is inconsistent with actual field experi-
ence. The ROP response based on CCS calculated from
straight differential pressure or Skempton based differential
pressure yield more realistic results, which validates the use of
this method, rather than absolute ECD pressure.
Figure 6 illustrates an actual field application. This figure
is a Rock Mechanics and Drilling Performance log from a well
in the Gulf of Mexico. Tracks 1, 2, and 3 contain some of the
log and calculated data used to determine rock properties.
Track 4 contains the pore pressure, ECD, and overburden data
in units of ppg-equivalent mud density. Track 5 contains ac-
tual surface rate of penetration (SROP) in feet per hour and a
calculated rate of penetration based on CCS_Mix. Track 6
SPE/IADC 92576
contains the UCS and CCS described in this paper, and com-
pares CCS_Mix to CCS_DP and CCS_Sk. Track 7 contains
general bit run information. What is noteworthy is the correla-
tion between calculated ROP and actual ROP. Also
noteworthy is that the calculated ROP is with one of our
global algorithms based on CCS_Mix, without any calibration,
and that the actual ROP appears to be more dependant on
CCS_Mix than either CCS_DP or CCS_Sk alone. This is just
one example of many cases in which the CCS_Mix calculation
combined with ChevronTexaco global ROP algorithms pro-
vided reasonably accurate results. The CCS_Mix calculation
also helps to explain the observed bit performance, whereas
the UCS alone would be clearly inadequate.
Limitations of the CCS Method as Presented.
The simplified method presented in this document ignores
edge effects and the true 3D stress nature of the bottom of the
hole. Warren and Smith do an excellent job of describing this
exclusion and of outlining the results of their 3D finite ele-
ment analysis(4). It is encouraging that our proposed
methodology is in approximate agreement to the more rigor-
ous analysis documented by Warren and Smith. The potential
error between our simplistic approach and reality is relatively
constant over varying influences. Thus, to the extent that bit
performance predictive models are calibrated to the simplified
CCS methodology, the error arising from not rigorously mod-
eling the bottom hole profile and stresses may be
inconsequential.
Two dominant bottom hole conditions influence bit per-
formance: the condition of the rock immediately below the bit
and the condition of the rock as it is removed by the bit. These
conditions were acknowledged by Warren and Smith(5) when
they state, “The causes of the reduction in ROP with depth can
be divided into two general categories: (1) processes that af-
fect the unbroken rock, and (2) processes that act on the rock
once it is broken into chips.” The basis for the methodology
presented in this document is that the condition of the rock
below the bit represents both a fundamental influence and the
starting point for modeling, and it is the condition of the rock
below the bit that the proposed solution targets. This does not
imply that the dynamic changes that occur in the rock as it is
deformed by the bit are not significant. The authors recognize
that these can sometimes be very significant secondary factors
and, when so, must be considered.
FA may change as confining stress changes. This is be-
cause of what rock mechanics refer to as a curved failure
envelope. The net effect that must be understood is that at high
confining stress (>5,000 psi), some rocks exhibit a declining
rate of increase in confined strength as confining stress in-
creases, and some reach a peak confined strength that does not
increase with further increase in confining stress. This condi-
tion would obviously present error to the methodology
presented in this paper if FA is taken as a constant. The degree
to which FA changes as confining stress changes varies with
rock type and with rock properties within a type. When the
change in FA with change in confining stress is significant,
then FA should be modified to be a function of the confining
stress.
5
The method does not require lithology. For bit selection or
bit performance modeling, lithology is commonly a required
specification to those skilled in the art. The methodology pre-
sented in this paper is based on the assumption that UCS and
FA represent the dominant influencing rock properties and,
therefore, lithology specification is not required. More experi-
ence is required to confirm a high confidence level of this
approach. Although lithology is not needed for bit selection
and performance modeling, it may be required if FA varies
significantly with confining stress.
Rock stiffness, porosity, and pore fluid compressibility in-
fluence the amount of pore pressure change that occurs when
impermeable rock expands. The simplistic model presented
herein for impermeable rock does not take those factors di-
rectly into account. They can be accounted for by the
Skempton “B” coefficient (see Appendix A). The error will be
relatively small whenever rock compressibility is significantly
greater than pore fluid compressibility, and this is the case for
most shales (which are not hard and stiff and contain water as
the pore fluid). The error may become significant when a shale
is hard and stiff, and is very likely for very tight and stiff car-
bonates. In this case, both the pore pressure drop and
differential pressure will be over-predicted. This error can be
removed by adjusting the “B” coefficient to account for rock
stiffness, and if necessary, porosity and pore fluid compressi-
bility.
Some of the literature presents evidence that apparent rock
strength (or rock behavior) to the bit in certain shale may be
more a function of absolute ECD pressure than a difference in
ECD pressure and pore pressure(6). These are well-founded
claims. There are likely reasonable explanations for any ap-
parent or real difference, such as this phenomena being more
related to the cuttings behavior, rather than to the apparent
strength of the rock at the bottom of the hole. The influence of
cuttings behavior can be managed by proper bit design and
hydraulics, and the performance of a properly designed and
operated bit will then be more a function of apparent rock
strength and operating parameters than cuttings behavior. Our
experiences to date on numerous wells throughout the world
suggest that this is the case.
Specific Energy ROP Model (SEROP)
EPTC developed a method of predicting the coefficients re-
quired in Equation 5 as a function of rock strength. This was
done for all predominant bit types, including steel tooth, insert
tooth, PDC, TSP, impregnated, and natural diamond bit types.
By using this new capability and our globally applicable
rock property determination techniques, we can quickly calcu-
late the ROP for all of the bit types with reasonable accuracy,
without any calibration. The approach can also be easily up-
dated as technology advances because it is based on
fundamental rock destruction principles and on conservation
of energy and efficiency principles that will not change. Addi-
tionally, the developed methodology and work process is
relatively simple in comparison to other ROP predictive proc-
esses used in the industry. A skilled drilling engineer could
use the methodology: it does not require a specialist.
6 SPE/IADC 92576
After the relationships for bit-specific coefficient of sliding
friction (µ) and mechanical efficiency (EFFM) as a function of
rock strength (CCS) have accurately been determined, the
ROP for a sharp bit, based on work and power input into the
bit (WOB and N), can be predicted. The specific energy
SEROP model uses Equation 5 derived from Equation 1 and
Equation 4 to calculate the ROP for all bit types. Additionally,
the SEROP model computes three ROPs for each bit type: a
minimum ROP, a maximum ROP, and an average or nominal
ROP. These computations are possible because three me-
chanical efficiencies (minimum efficiency, maximum
efficiency, and nominal efficiency) are determined from the
full-scale simulator tests for each bit type.
Full-Scale Simulator Tests.
The development of the SEROP model required accurate,
controlled drilling data. We worked with Hughes Christensen
to perform full scale testing with their pressurized test rig at
their facility located in The Woodlands, Texas. We thoroughly
evaluated all of the test data provided by Hughes Christensen
to establish, confirm, and refine the coefficient of sliding fric-
tion and efficiency vs. rock strength for each bit type. The
testing used several rock samples with CCS ranging from
5,000 psi to 70,000 psi.
Figure 7 shows data from one of the tests conducted to de-
termine bit coefficient of sliding friction, mechanical
efficiency, and specific energy as a function of rock strength.
Each test provides a single point in the correlations. The test
data shown in Figure 7 provided values for torque at several
WOB/ROP pairs for a given CCS, whereby Es, µ, and EFFM
could be calculated.
Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction (µ).
An example of how the bit-specific coefficient of sliding
friction for PDC bits with more than seven blades was deter-
mined is illustrated in Figure 8. Rock samples from Crab
Orchard Sandstone, Catoosa shale, and Carthage Marble were
used for multiple tests with a PDC bit with more than seven
blades. All tests used a mud weight of 9.5 ppg. The corre-
sponding CCS values at 6,000 psi bottom hole pressure were
18,500 psi for Catoosa shale, 36,226 psi for Carthage Marble,
and 66,000 psi for Crab Orchard.
The correlation developed to compute µ for a PDC bit with
more than seven blades, derived from Figure 8, is shown in
Equation 13.
µ = 0.9402 * EXP(-8E - 06 * CCS) (13)
The same procedure and full-scale simulator tests were
performed to determine the relationships of µ as a function of
the confined compressive strength for all bit types. Correla-
tions for all bit types are not shown in this document.
Mechanical Efficiency (EFFM).
As shown in Figure 7, Es changes as drilling parameters
change. Consequently, Es can not be represented by a single
accurate number. Minimum and maximum values of Es were
computed from each full-scale simulator test, and these values
were used to compute minimum and maximum mechanical
efficiencies for each test. For example, the test data from Fig-
ure 7 indicates a mechanical efficiency in the range of
approximately 19% to 44% for this test.
Figure 9 illustrates the relationships of minimum and
maximum efficiencies for PDC bits with more than seven
blades. The minimum efficiency (Min EFFM) and maximum
efficiency (Max EFFM) for PDC bits with more than seven
blades are computed using Equations 14 and 15 is indicated in
Figure 9.
Min EFFM = 0.0008 * CCS + 8.834
(14 and 15)
Max EFFM = 0.0011* CCS + 13.804
A nominal mechanical efficiency (Nom EFFM) is the aver-
age efficiency derived from the minimum and maximum
efficiencies. Equation 16 indicates the Non EFFM for PDC bits
with more than seven blades.
Nom EFFM = 0.00095 * CCS + 10.319 (16)
Similar procedures and testing methods were applied to
determine the mechanical efficiencies for all bit types. These
correlations are not shown in this document.
Weight On Bit (WOB) and Bit RPM (N).
Drilling parameters WOB and N are variables that are se-
lected based on field experience, bit type, and/or BHA
configuration. However, the SEROP model has the capability
of predicting the appropriate WOB and N based on CCS.
Adjustments to µ and EFFM due to Drilling Environment.
Those who understand bit performance know that the effi-
ciency of drill bits is affected by mud weight. The magnitude
of efficiency loss arising from changes in mud weight has
been determined by performing additional tests that use differ-
ent mud weight systems. Because full-scale simulator tests for
all bit types were performed using a 9.5-ppg mud weight, we
evaluated the potential effect of mud weight on µ and EFFM
by using a heavier mud weight. Consequently, full-scale tests
were performed for all bit types using a 16.5-ppg mud weight.
We determined that the value of µ for PDC bits is reduced
by approximately 49% when increasing mud weight from 9.5
ppg to 16.5 ppg. As a result, the value of µ must be corrected
if the mud weight is different from 9.5 ppg. From Figure 10,
the following correction factor for µ for PDC bits with more
than seven blades was established.
-0.8876 * Ln (mud weight) +2.998 (17)
Equation 18 is the revised formula for computing the value
of µ for any mud weight.
µ = [(0.9402 * EXP(-8E - 06 * CCS)] *
(18)
[-0.8876 * Ln(MudWeig ht) + 2.998]
SPE/IADC 92576
We determined that mechanical efficiency for PDC bits
was reduced by approximately 56% when increasing the mud
weight from 9.5 ppg to 16.5 ppg. Figure 11 establishes the
following correction factor to EFFM for PDC bits with more
than seven blades.
-1.0144 * Ln (Mud Weight) +3.2836 (19)
Equations 20 and 21 show the revised correlations for Min
and Max mechanical efficiencies for PDC bits with more than
seven blades for any mud weight.
Min EFFM = [0.0008 * CCS + 8.834] *
[-1.0144 * Ln(Mud Weight) + 3.2836]
(20 and 21)
Max EFFM = [0.0011* CCS + 13.804] *
[-1.0144 * Ln(Mud Weight) + 3.2836]
The same testing procedure was conducted to establish the
correction factors for µ and EFFM for all bit types.
Correction Factor for PDC Bits due to Cutter Size.
To account the effect of cutter size in the ROP model, full-
scale simulator tests were performed using various cutter sizes
with PDC bits. Figure 12 illustrates the effect of cutter size
with PDC bits. Because full-scale simulator tests for PDC bits
were performed using drill bits with 19-mm cutters, additional
tests were performed with cutter sizes greater than or less than
19 mm. The test results indicated that the bit coefficient of
sliding friction (µ) is decreased or increased by 1.77% when
the cutter size is decreased or increased for each millimeter
above or below 19 mm, as shown in Figure 12.
Therefore, the correction factor to adjust µ due to cutter
size is as follows:
0.0177 * Cutter Size + 0.6637 (22)
Where: Cutter size is in millimeters
Combining all the correction factors, the final correlation
for µ for PDC bits with more than seven blades is shown in
Equation 23.
µ = [(0.9402 * EXP(-8E - 06 * CCS)] *
[-0.8876 * Ln(MudWeight) + 2.998] * (23)
[0.0177 * Cutter Size + 0.6637]
Final correlations for µ for all bit types are not shown in
this paper.
7
Limitations of ROP Model
The ROP model does not take into account bit design features,
such as cone offset angle, cone diameter, and journal angle of
roller cone bits, and does not take into account design features,
such as back rack angle and bit profile of PDC bits. The selec-
tion of the proper bit design features for each application
could impact the ROP. Although the impact on ROP of all
design features was not quantitatively measured in the lab,
field examples using SEROP model indicates that the impact
on ROP could be between 10% and 20%. The variation of
ROP as a result of bit design features is assumed to be cap-
tured by the SEROP model because it computes a maximum
and a minimum ROP as a function of maximum and minimum
efficiency. In fact, in most of the field examples, the nominal
ROP closely correlates with actual ROP, but there are a few
cases in which either the minimum or the maximum ROP cor-
relates with the actual ROP.
Mud systems, such as WBM or OBM/SBM, are not differ-
entiated in the SEROP model. However, field examples show
that the main factor affecting bit performance and ROP is bit
balling with WBM. If bit balling is eliminated with optimum
hydraulics and the control of mud properties, it is assumed the
predicted ROP will be approximately the same for both mud
systems.
The SEROP model does not consider or optimize hydrau-
lics. Full scale simulator tests used to develop the ROP model
were performed with optimum hydraulics. Again, because the
SEROP model predicts minimum and maximum ROP, the
actual ROP typically falls within the minimum and maximum
ROP parameters for any bit type, provided that the actual hy-
draulics are adequate.
The current SEROP model is for sharp bits only. It does
not take into account bit wear. The ROP model will be further
adjusted as the bit wear and bit life models are developed and
implemented.
Predicted ROP for PDC bits is for groups of bits based on
blade count. We have established three groups: PDC bits with
three to four blades, PDC bits with five to seven blades, and
PDC bits with more than seven blades. Field experience indi-
cates that minimum ROP generally correlates with PDC bits
with the highest number of blades within the group and maxi-
mum ROP correlates with the lowest blade count in the group.
Predicted ROP for roller cone bits is for groups of bits
based on rock strength. We have established four groups: steel
tooth bits, insert tooth bits for soft formations, insert tooth bits
for medium formations, and insert tooth bits for hard forma-
tions.
With the exception of very high strength rock, the ROP
model will predict highest ROP for a PDC bit with three to
four blades, the next highest ROP for a PDC bit with five to
seven blades, and so forth, through the range of different bit
types according to aggressiveness. Without an integrated wear
model, which is one of the next objectives, the current model
can be misleading (that is, always suggesting that a three to
8 SPE/IADC 92576
four blade PDC bit achieves the greatest ROP, even for rock
strength exceeding the capability of the bit). To prevent mis-
application and to optimize overall drilling performance, the
user should use expert judgment and/or a bit selector tool.
Bit Selection and Optimization
The most common approach for evaluating drilling perform-
ance and bit selection in the oil field is based on past observed
performance from offset wells. This methodology tends to
apply the same drilling performance and rock strength to the
current application without evaluating changes in rock
strength, lithology, drilling environment, and potential ROP if
other bit types are used. The CCS and SEROP models use
rock properties and drilling environments to accurately predict
the potential ROP for all bit types. Therefore, our approach is
global; it is not restricted to a particular area or region nor
does it necessarily require calibration to local conditions.
In a realtime bit optimization scenario, predicted ROP and
Es energy values can be used to assess bit performance. This
can be accomplished if the rock properties are known, either
by correlation or directly measured and calculated from LWD
data. Bit performance and condition can be evaluated by com-
paring actual Es to predicted Es, as well as by comparing
actual ROP to predicted ROP. Bit performance analysis using
realtime predicted Es and actual Es values can be also used to
detect and correct drilling problems, such as bit vibration and
bit balling, failure analysis, and dull bits.
Field Discussion
The field examples presented illustrate how the CCS and
SEROP models improved drilling performance by reducing
both drilling time and drilling costs. This performance was
achieved by selecting the optimum drill bits and drilling pa-
rameters for each application.
Well 1.
Figure 13 shows the drilling performance for a specific in-
terval composed mainly of dolomite in which the ROP has
been very low (approximately 1 meter/hour) with roller cone
bits (TCI), heavy set PDC bits, and impregnated bits
(IMPREG). The EPTC rock mechanics algorithm (RMA)
analysis indicates that CCS ranged from about 20,000 psi to
35,000 psi.
Track 5 provides an example of the correlation between
the predicted ROP to the actual ROP for all bit types used to
drill the interval. Predicted ROP is calculated using actual
drilling parameters (WOB, rpm) from actual bit runs shown in
Track 4. Track 3 shows the actual bits used and their dull
grades. Track 6 illustrates the potential ROP for Insert bits
(TCI medium formations), PDC bits with five to seven blades
and 19-mm cutters (PDC 5-7B), PDC bits with more than
seven blades (PDC>7B), Natural Diamond (ND) bits, Ther-
mally Stable Polycrystalline (TSP) bits, and Impregnated
(IMPREG) bits. The predicted ROP for ND, TSP, and
IMPREG bits is calculated using 700 rpm and 8.5-Klbs WOB.
The analysis suggested that neither roller cone bits nor Im-
preg bits are suitable for this application because of low ROP.
It indicated that PDC bits with five to seven blades and 19-mm
cutters could deliver a ROP between 6- and 8-meters per hour
(WOB between 10- and 20-Klbs and N between 120- and 160-
rpm). Although, a PDC bit with three to four blades will de-
liver a higher ROP (not shown here), this bit was not
considered because the high rock strength exceeds the bits
rock strength capability. As a result, the recommended ap-
proach was to use a six-bladed PDC bit with 19-mm abrasive
resistance cutters and thinner diamond tables (less than 0.120
inches thickness). Wells are now being drilled at an average
ROP of 6- to 8-meters per hour.
Well 2.
Figure 14 provides another example of the use of the CCS
and SEROP models to select the optimum bit for an explora-
tory well. Log data and drilling data from offset wells were
used to create a composite for the proposed well, and then
RMA and SEROP analysis was performed.
The evaluation showed that the interval is relatively soft
with CCS ranging between 3,000 psi and 5,000 psi and that
the interval could be drilled with an aggressive PDC bit. The
recommended approach was to use a five-bladed PDC bit with
19-mm abrasive resistance cutters. The well was drilled at
ROP rate of 160- to 180-ft/hr. Although, the lithology in the
well drilled was not exactly the same as the offset wells, the
predicted ROP (solid line, Track 4) closely correlated with
actual ROP achieved in the well drilled.
Well 3.
Figure 15 shows the drilling performance for an 8-½-in.
hole drilled using PDC bits with seven and nine blades. The
well was drilled at a ROP of 20- to 40-ft/hr.
Figure 15 also illustrates the bit optimization performed
for a sidetrack out of the same wellbore. RMA analysis indi-
cates that the CCS for the interval (CCS, Track 2) is between
8,000 psi to 10,000 psi and that the well could be drilled with
a more aggressive PDC bits than the bits used to drill the
original wellbore. The analysis suggested that the sidetrack be
drilled with a six-bladed PDC bit with 19-mm cutters to
achieve better penetration rates. See the actual ROP in Track 4
and predicted ROPs in Track 5.
The sidetrack was drilled with one PDC bit at ROP of 60-
to 80-ft/hr. The sidetrack was drilled in four days rather than
the eight days required to drill the original wellbore. This well
was located offshore in 7,000 ft water. The use of the CCS and
SEROP models to identify a more aggressive PDC bit resulted
in a savings of approximately 1.6 million dollars.
Well 4.
Figure 16 shows how the CCS and SEROP models can be
used to assess bit performance real-time, and thereby optimize
drilling performance. Predicted Es and ROP values can be
used to determine whether or not the bit is performing effi-
ciently or whether or not bit efficiency is affected by bit
vibration, bit balling, and/or dull bits.
SPE/IADC 92576 9

Figure 16 illustrates that the first bit drilled the top section Acknowledgements
of interval efficiently as the predicted ROP closely correlates ChevronTexaco and the authors wish to acknowledge and ex-
with actual ROP (Track 5). In addition, actual Es also corre- press thanks to Rolf Pessier of Hughes Christensen and the
lates with predicted Es except for shale intervals where Es is Hughes Christensen organization for their advice, cooperation,
several times higher than predicted Es (Track 6). providing of lab test data, and for conducting full scale pres-
surized drilling tests for this research.
The second bit drilled the lower part of the section ineffi-
ciently. Neither the predicted ROP nor Es matched with the Nomenclature
actual ROP and Es. The actual Es was higher than the pre- A= Skempton coefficient, dimensionless
dicted Es by more than eight times, indicating that bit AB = Borehole area (sq-in)
efficiency is extremely low as a result of bit vibration and/or B= Skempton coefficient, dimensionless
bit balling. The bit record showed that bit was balled up. CCS = Confined Compressive Strength, psi
CCS_DP = Confined Compressive Strength, psi,
Conclusions based on DP
1. The use of UCS for bit selection, bit performance predic- CCS_ECD = Confined Compressive Strength, psi,
tion, and bit performance analysis is problematic, based on DP_ECD
especially for the case of significant overbalance and deep CCS_Sk = Confined Compressive Strength, psi,
drilling of shale and tight non-shale rock. based on DP_Sk
2. A methodology has been developed for the calculation of DB = Bit size (inches)
an apparent confined compressive strength (CCS) of the DP = (ECD pressure – PP), psi
rock to the bit. This methodology has removed much un- DP_ECD = ECD pressure
certainty and subjectivity regarding the apparent strength DP_Sk = ECD pressure – Skempton Pore Pressure,
of the rock to the bit and appropriate bits, especially in psi
deep and/or significantly over-balanced drilling condi- ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density, ppg
tions. ECD Pressure = Pressure in psi exerted by an ECD in ppg
3. The CCS method requires rock unconfined compressive EFFM = Mechanical efficiency
strength (UCS), rock internal angle of friction (FA), over- Es = Specific energy (psi)
burden (OB), pore pressure (PP), and equivalent FA = Rock Internal Angle of Friction, degrees
circulating density (ECD). UCS and FA are common to N= Rpm
current day processes in use by bit suppliers and bit per- OB = Overburden, psi or ppg
formance specialists, and OB, PP, and ECD are typically Phie = Effective porosity (porosity of non-shale
known for well design. Thus, the required inputs are fraction of rock multiplied by the fraction
commonly available. For the case of a highly deviated of non-shale rock), Volume per Volume,
well (>30 degrees), well deviation, azimuth, and earth “fraction,” or percent
principle horizontal stresses may be required for im- PP = Pore Pressure, psi or ppg
proved accuracy. ppg = Pounds per gallon
4. A methodology has been developed for the quantitative ROP = Rate of Penetration (ft/hr)
prediction of all the input variables to the specific energy ROP_DP = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on
ROP model, except bit size, based on the apparent rock CCS_DP
strength to the bit. This allows rapid prediction of the ex- ROP_ECD = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on
pected range of ROP and drilling parameters (WOB, rpm, CCS_ECD
torque) for all bit types, according to rock properties and ROP_Sk = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on
the drilling environment. CCS_Sk
5. The CCS and SEROP models have been implemented by SEROP = Specific Energy ROP
ChevronTexaco. T= Torque (ft-lbf)
6. The models are accurate, simple, robust, globally applica- UCS = Rock Unconfined Compressive Strength,
ble, based on fundamental and first principles, require psi
little or no calibration, and any calibration required is WOB = Weight On Bit (pounds)
simple and intuitive. ∆σ1, ∆σ2, ∆σ3 = Changes in the three principle orthogonal
7. The new models have proved valuable, improving drilling stresses
performance and reducing well cost by improving bit per- ∆σX = Change in bottom hole stress normal to
formance prediction, bit selection, and determination of axis of wellbore, psi
optimum drilling parameters. ∆σY = Change in bottom hole stress normal to
8. The methods can be applied real time to identify drilling axis of wellbore, psi
problems (bit balling, bit vibration, and dull bits) and to ∆σZ = Change in bottom hole stress parallel to
optimize drilling parameters (WOB, rpm). axis of wellbore, psi
9. The SEROP and CCS models can be used to back calcu- ∆PP = Change in pore pressure, psi or ppg
late CCS and rock properties in the absence of log or equivalent
other data. The rock properties can then be used for real- µ= Bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction
time or post-well wellbore stability and sanding analysis. (dimensionless)
10
References
1. Pessier, R.C., Fear, M.J.: "Quantifying Common Drilling Prob-
lems with Mechanical Specific Energy and Bit-Specific
Coefficient of Sliding Friction," paper SPE 24584 presented at
1992 SPE Conference, Washington, D.C., October 4-7.
2. Teale, R.: "The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling,"
Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. (1965) 2, 57-53.
3. Skempton, A.W.: "Pore Pressure Coefficients A and B," Geo-
technique (1954) Volume 4 143-147.
4. Warren, T.M., Smith, M.B.: "Bottomhole Stress Factors Affect-
ing Drilling Rate at Depth," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1985) 1523-
1533.
5. Cunningham, R.A., Eenink, J.G.: "Laboratory Study of Effect of
Overburden, Formation and Mud Column Pressures on Drilling
Rate of Permeable Formations," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1959) 9-15.
6. Cook, J.M., Sheppard, M.C., Houwen, O.H.: "Effects of Strain
Rate and Confining Pressure on the Deformation and Failure of
Shale," paper IADC/SPE 19944, presented at 1990 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Houston, Texas, Feb. 27-Mar. 2.
Appendix A. Skempton Pore Pressure
Skempton (3) describes the two pore pressure coefficients A
and B, which determine the change in pore pressure caused by
changes in applied total stress, for a porous material under
conditions of zero drainage. The change in pore pressure, ∆PP,
is given by:
∆PP = B[(∆σ1 + 2∆σ3)/3 + (∆σ1 – ∆σ3)*(3A – 1)/3] (A1)
This equation is written for the case in which σ2 is always
equal to σ3, so σ3 in the equation represents both σ2 and σ3.
Thus, (∆σ1 + 2∆σ3)/3 represents the change in average, or
mean, stress, and (∆σ1 – ∆σ3) represents the change in shear
stress.
For an elastic material, it can be shown that A=1/3. This is
because a change in shear stress causes no volume change for
an elastic material. If there is no volume change, then there is
no pore pressure change (the pore fluid neither expands nor
compresses). If we assume that the rock near the bottom of the
hole is deforming elastically, then we can simplify the pore
pressure change equation to:
∆PP = B(∆σ1 + 2∆σ3)/3 (A2)
For the case of three independent orthogonal stresses, this
equation can be re-written as:
∆PP = B(∆σ1 + ∆σ2 + ∆σ3)/3 (A3)
This equation states that pore pressure change is equal to
the constant B multiplied by the change in mean, or average,
total stress.
Note that mean stress is an invariant property. It is the
same no matter what coordinate system is used. Thus, the
stresses do not need to be principal stresses. The equation is
accurate as long as the three stresses are mutually perpendicu-
SPE/IADC 92576
lar. For convenience, we can define σZ as the stress acting in
the direction of the wellbore and rewrite the equation as:
∆PP = B(∆σZ + ∆σX + ∆σY)/3 (A4)
There will be changes in σX and σY near the bottom of the
hole. However, these changes are small and can be neglected
for a simplified approach. The equation then simplifies to:
∆PP = B(∆σZ)/3 (A5)
For most shales, the value of B is between 0.8 and ~1.0.
Young, soft shales have B values of 0.95 to 1.0, while older,
stiffer shales will be closer to 0.8. For a simplified approach
that does not require rock properties, we assume B=1.0. Since
∆σZ is equal to (ECD - σZ) we can rewrite the equation as:
∆PP = (ECD - σZ)/3 (A6)
Note that ∆PP is almost always negative. That is, there will
be a pore pressure decrease near the bottom of the hole. This is
because ECD is almost always less than all the in-situ stresses.
The altered pore pressure near the bottom of the hole is
equal to PP + ∆PP, or PP + (ECD - σZ)/3. This can also be
expressed as PP - (σZ- ECD)/3. For the case of a vertical well,
σZ is equal to the overburden stress (OB).
If the formation has a B value that is less than one, then the
error caused by assuming B=1 will cause a slight over-
prediction of the amount of pore pressure decrease. This over-
prediction is evident in Figure 2. In this figure, the Warren and
Smith results(4) are for a shale that is extremely hard and stiff
(B = 0.57). For a more typical shale B value, their calculated
differential pressure values would be approximately 500-psi
higher, which would correlate extremely well with our simpli-
fied Skempton calculation. A more robust application of this
Skempton-based approach would be to calculate an approxi-
mate B value based on log-derived rock properties, and also to
account for changes in σX and σY, if necessary.
For the case of a very stiff, but very low-permeability rock,
such as a very tight carbonate, B is likely to be much less than
1.0 and could easily be on the order of 0.5. The actual value of
B should, therefore, be taken into account for tight non-shale
lithologies. Extremely stiff shales may also require adjustment
of the B value.
If the stress change that occurs near the bottom of the hole
is enough to cause non-elastic behavior (because of increasing
shear stress), this can be accounted for by using the appropri-
ate value of A, instead of assuming A=1/3. In a more
advanced approach, the A term can even be used to represent
instantaneous pore pressure changes that occur in the rock as it
is being cut and failed by the bit. These pore pressure changes
are a function of whether the rock is failing in a dilatant or
non-dilatant manner, and can also exhibit strain-rate effects at
high strain rates (e.g., Cook, et. al. For additional information,
see the References section of this document.).
SPE/IADC 92576 11

Table 1. Calculated values of differential pressure, confined compressive strength, and rate of penetration

Depth PP OB ECD UCS FA CCS_DP CCS_Sk CCS_ECD ROP_DP ROP_Sk ROP_ECD DP DP_Sk DP_ECD

10,000 9 18 9 5,000 25 5,000 8,839 16,518 73.2 34.3 15.0 0 1,558 4,675
10,000 9 18 10 5,000 25 6,280 9,692 17,798 54.1 30.4 13.6 519 1,904 5,194
10,000 9 18 11 5,000 25 7,560 10,546 19,077 42.3 27.2 12.4 1,039 2,251 5,713
10,000 9 18 12 5,000 25 8,839 11,399 20,357 34.3 24.5 11.3 1,558 2,597 6,233
10,000 9 18 12 5,000 25 8,839 11,399 20,357 34.3 24.5 11.3 1,558 2,597 6,233
10,000 9.5 18 12 5,000 25 8,199 10,759 20,357 37.9 26.4 11.3 1,299 2,337 6,233
10,000 10 18 12 5,000 25 7,560 10,119 20,357 42.3 28.7 11.3 1,039 2,078 6,233
10,000 10.5 18 12 5,000 25 6,920 9,479 20,357 47.5 31.3 11.3 779 1,818 6,233
10,000 11 18 12 5,000 25 6,280 8,839 20,357 54.1 34.3 11.3 519 1,558 6,233

Depth = Feet
PP = Pore Pressure, ppg
OB = Overburden, ppg
ECD = Equivalent Circulating Density, ppg
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi
FA = Friction Angle, degrees
CCS_DP = Confined Compressive Strength, psi, based on DP
CCS_Sk = Confined Compressive Strength, psi, based on DP_Sk
CCS_ECD = Confined Compressive Strength, psi, based on DP_ECD
ROP_DP = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on CCS_DP
ROP_Sk = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on CCS_Sk
ROP_ECD = Rate of Penetration, ft/hr, based on CCS_ECD
DP = (ECD – pore pressure), psi
DP_Sk = [ECD – {PP-(OB-ECD)/3}], psi
DP_ECD = ECD Pressure, psi

Drilling fluid

Filter cake from

drilling fluid

Expanded rock layer at

bottom of hole
Filtrate from drilling
fluid – negligible at
bottom of hole

In-situ pore pressure

Pore fluid moving further away from the
toward expanded wellbore region
region

Figure 1. Bottom hole environment for a vertical well in porous/permeable rock

12 SPE/IADC 92576

Differential Pressure vs R/Rw for Impermeable Rock.

Overburden=10,000 psi, In-situ Pore Pressure=4,700 psi,
0.11" below borehole surface for Warren.

4,000
Warren, SPE, 1985
3,000 Pwell=4700
Differential Pressure, psi

Warren, SPE, 1985

2,000 Pwell=5700
Warren, SPE, 1985
Pwell=6700
1,000
Simple Skempton,
Pwell 4700
0
Simple Skempton,
Pwell 5700
-1,000 Simple Skempton,
Pwell 6700
-2,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R/Rw

Figure 2. Differential pressure at bottom of hole for impermeable rock – comparison of simplified Skempton
(2)
method and results reported by Warren and Smith

ROP vs CCS, 1.25" micro-cone lab bit.

30.0

25.0
ROP, Berea Sdst,
20.0 Cunningham, SPE,
1958
ROP, ft/hr

15.0
Power (ROP,
Berea Sdst,
10.0 Cunningham, SPE,
1958)
5.0

y = 6E+06x -1.3284
0.0 R2 = 0.9972
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
CCS of Berea Sandstone
under 0 to 5,000 psi confining
stress @ 1,000 psi increments

Figure 3. ROP vs. CCS for 1.25 in. micro-bit in lab. ROP data from Cunningham, SPE, 1958
SPE/IADC 92576 13

ROP vs Mud Density

10,000', Pore Pressure = 9.0 ggg, Overburden = 18.0 ppg,
UCS = 5,000 psi, FA = 25

100.0

80.0
ROP, ft/hr

60.0 ROP_DP
ROP_Sk
40.0 ROP_ECD
20.0

0.0
8 9 10 11 12 13
Mud Density, ppg

Figure 4. ROP vs. mud density, constant pore pressure, three methods of calculating CCS - CCS_DP, CCS_Sk, and CCS_ECD

ROP vs Pore Pressure

10,000', Mud Density = 12.0 ggg, Overburden = 18.0 ppg,
UCS = 5,000 psi, FA = 25

100.0

80.0
ROP, ft/hr

60.0 ROP_DP
ROP_Sk
40.0 ROP_ECD
20.0

0.0
8 9 10 11 12
Pore Pressure, ppg

Figure 5. ROP vs. pore pressure, constant mud density, three methods of calculating CCS - CCS_DP, CCS_Sk, and CCS_ECD
14 SPE/IADC 92576

Figure 6. Rock mechanics and drilling performance log from a well in the Gulf of Mexico
SPE/IADC 92576 15

OBM0301H HR66 8 1/2 Crab Orchard 30K

Oil Mud mud 16.5 lbs/gal
Date: 2/26/2003 sn# 5000474
WOB 40/80 klbs pn# THRA8466 425 gpm
BHP 6000 psi Depth Plot nozzles 3x#18 TFA 0.75 2.16 HSI
CCS 66,000 PSI

4.0

• Sample = Crab Orchard

3.5
Sand
• BHP = 6,000 psi
3.0 • CCS = 66,000 psi
• Mud = 16.5 ppg OBM
2.5
• 8-1/2” TCI (HF) Bit;
IADC (647)
Es x 100000
2.0
• GPM = 425
T
• TFA = 0.75
1.5

• µ = 0.1 – 0.12

1.0 WOBx100000 lb
• EFFM = 19 – 44 %
RPM x100
• ES = 150 – 350Kpsi
0.5
ROPx10 ft/h
• ROP = 1.0 – 3.5 ft/h

EFFM x 100
0.0
3 4 5 µ 6 7 8 9

Depth ( inches )

Figure 7. Full-scale simulator test

PDC Bits with more than 7 Blades

Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction (µ) vs. CCS
1.2

1.1
Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction (µ)

0.9

0.8 -8E-06x
y = 0.9402e
0.7
PDC >7B
0.6
Expon. (PDC >7B)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Confined Compressive Strength (psi)

Figure 8. Bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction for PDC bits with more than seven blades
16 SPE/IADC 92576

PDC > 7 Blades

Mechanical Efficiency (EFFM)

100

90

80

70
y = 0.0011x + 13.804
60
EFFM Min
EFFM (%)

EFFM Max
50
Linear (EFFM Max)
Linear (EFFM Min)
40
y = 0.0008x + 8.834
30

20

10

0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Confined Compressive Strength (psi)

Figure 9. Minimum and maximum efficiencies for PDC bits with more than seven blades

Effect of Mud Weight on µ with PDC Bits

1.2

0.8
Factor

Series1
0.6
Log. (Series1)

y = -0.8876Ln(x) + 2.9982

0.4

0.2

0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Mud Weight (ppg)

Figure 10. Correction factor for µ due to mud weight for PDC bits
SPE/IADC 92576 17

Effect of Mud Weight on EFFM with PDC Bits

1.2

0.8
Factor

Series1
0.6
Log. (Series1)
y = -1.0144Ln(x) + 3.2836

0.4

0.2

0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Mud Weight (ppg)

Figure 11. Correction factor for EFFM due to mud weight for PDC bits

Effect of Cutter Size on µ with PDC Bits

Hard formation - Carthage Marble
1.4

1.2

0.8
y = 0.0177x + 0.6637
µ

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Cutter Size (mm)

Figure 12. Correction factor by cutter size

18 SPE/IADC 92576

Actual ROP &

predicted ROP
Using drilling
parameters per
track 4

Potential ROP
with different
Bit types

Figure 13. Well 1 - Bit optimization and selection

PDC BIT
5 blades
19 mm cutters

Figure 14. Bit optimization utilizing well offset data

SPE/IADC 92576 19

Actual ROP
Original
Wellbore
10-40 ft/h

Predicted ROP
for Sidetrack 1
(40-90 ft/h)

PDC bit
6 blades
19 mm cutters

Figure 15. Well 4 - Bit optimization and selection

Figure 16. Well 5 - Bit performance using specific energy and predicted ROP values