Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231

DOI 10.1007/s13369-014-1376-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Real-Time Prediction and Optimization of Drilling Performance

Based on a New Mechanical Specific Energy Model
Xuyue Chen · Honghai Fan · Boyun Guo · Deli Gao ·
Hongshu Wei · Zhi Ye

Received: 24 December 2013 / Accepted: 30 May 2014 / Published online: 5 October 2014
© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2014

Abstract The theory of mechanical specific energy has been Keywords Weight on bit · Mechanical specific energy
of great value in real-time evaluating drilling performance. model · Rate of penetration · Drilling performance ·
Given the mechanical specific energy (MSE) of bit could Optimization method
not be precisely calculated at present, this work presents a
new mechanical specific energy model based on the evalua-
tion of virtues and defects of available MSE models. Mean-
while, ROP can be predicted by further deducing the model.
According to the relations between MSE, CCS, drilling para-
meters and ROP, a real-time drilling performance predicting
and optimizing method is proposed by analyzing bottom-hole
conditions of drilling and determining the reasonable drilling
parameters. The new mechanical specific energy model and
the real-time optimizing method are tested through field log-
ging data. The results show that the calculation precision
of the new mechanical specific energy model is the highest,
and the calculation error is the minimum both in vertical sec-
tion and horizontal section, which can make MSE applied
more widely including horizontal wells and can be quantita-
tively applied. The prediction accuracy of ROP is very high,
which can fully meet the needs of engineering of the field.
The real-time drilling performance predicting and optimizing
method with highly diagnostic accuracy, effective optimiz-
ing and simple operation are demonstrated by field examples,
and it is worthy to be applied and promoted.

List of symbols
MSE Mechanical specific energy (psi)
WOB Weight on bits of surface measurement (lbf)
X. Chen (B) · H. Fan · B. Guo · D. Gao · Z. Ye WOBb Bottom hole actual weight on bits (lbf)
MOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China T Torque (ft-lbs)
e-mail: chenxuyue2011@163.com Tb Torque of bit (ft-lbs)
H. Wei RPM Bit rotating speed (rpm)
Shenzhen Branch, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Ab Bit area (in2 )
Shenzhen 518067, China ROP Rate of penetration, (ft/h)

123
8222 Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231

Db Bit diameter (in) 2 Key Models of Mechanical Specific Energy and Their
μb Bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction Evaluations
(dimensionless)
μ Coefficient of friction of drill string (dimensionless) 2.1 Evaluation Method of Mechanical Specific Energy
Fi Internal force of drill string produced by bottom Models
hole WOBb (lbf)
Fi1 Internal force of drill string at the upper end Many scholars have done a lot of scientific experiments and
produced by bottom hole WOBb (lbf) put forward the corresponding mechanical specific energy
Fi2 Internal force of drill string at the lower end models by analyzing their experimental data. A perfect mechan-
produced by bottom hole WOBb (lbf) ical specific energy model should have the following condi-
γ Well inclination (rad) tions:
γ Additional well inclination (rad)
γb Inclination of the bottom hole (rad) (1) Drilling through different lithology of the strata, the mini-
Em Mechanical efficiency of new bit (ratio) mum mechanical specific energy should be approximately
CCS Confined compressive strength (psi) equal to the CCS of the lithology [2].
UCS Unconfined compressive strength (psi) (2) The model’s parameters can be easily measured and cal-
ECD Equivalent circulating density (ppg) culated.
ECDp Pressure in psi exerted by an ECD in ppg (3) Wide range of application, the model can be well applied
Pp Pore pressure (psi) to all kinds of bits and all types of wells.
DP ECDp − Pp (psi)
φ Rock internal angle of friction (degree) 2.2 Models of Mechanical Specific Energy and Their
Evaluations

(1) Teale model [2]:

1 Introduction
WOB 120π · RPM · T
Mechanical specific energy (MSE) has been defined as the MSE = + (1)
Ab Ab · ROP
mechanical work done to excavate a unit volume of rock
[1,2]. It has been served as a tool of real-time monitoring (2) Pessier model [3]:
down hole working state, predicting and avoiding down hole  
accidents, adjusting drilling parameters properly in time, ele- 1 13.33 · μb · RPM
MSE = WOB +
vating drilling performance, reducing drilling cost and so on. Db Db · ROP
 
As the majority of field data is in the form of surface mea- T
surements, which results in MSE’s calculation containing μb = 36 (2)
Db · WOB
even large sources of error, so MSE is only used qualita-
tively as a trending tool. Common usage of MSE is based on (3) Dupriest model [4]:
Pisser’s model [3] in which torque of bit is defined as a func-  
tion of WOB and a bit-specific coefficient of sliding friction. WOB 120 · π · RPM · T
MSE = 0.35 + (3)
But WOB and torque of surface measurement differs sig- Ab Ab · ROP
nificantly from bottom hole actual WOBb and torque espe-
cially in deviated and horizontal boreholes. Updated mod- (4) Cherif model [8]:
els have been documented several times in the past [4–9].  
However, these models ignore the main source of errors 4 · WOB 480 · RPM · T
MSE = E m · + (4)
from WOB and torque, and their applications still remain π · Db · ROP
2 π · Db2 · ROP
on qualitative level of analysis and evaluation. This work
aims to develop a more accurate MSE model and quan- (5) Amadi model [9]:
tify the relationship between MSE and drilling performance  
parameters. 4 · WOB 480 · RPM · T
MSE = 0.125 · + (5)
π · Db · ROP
2 π · Db2 · ROP

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
Many scholars have evaluated the applications of these
mechanical specific energy models; the evaluation results are
as follows:
(1) Teale model is easy to be calculated owing to its less
model parameters. However, it is derived for rotary
drilling at atmospheric conditions. Although torque at
the bit can be easily measured in the laboratory and with
MWD systems in the field, the majority of field data is
in the form of surface measurement [3], so calculation
of MSE contains even large sources of error. While in
the absence of reliable torque at the bit measurements,
the model is hardly to be used.
(2) Pessier model provided a simple method of the calcu-
lation of torque at bit while in the absence of reliable
torque measurements and optimized Teale model. The
optimized model’ parameters are easy to be obtained
on the ground, and its calculation precision has been
improved, as a result, it is widely used in the drilling
industry. As the optimized model’s torque of bit is cal-
culated through WOB, so the calculation precision of the
optimized model is based on WOB. However, weight on
bit is always read in the weight indicator on the ground,
which is not the actual weight on bit. As for directional
well, there is a big difference between the WOB of sur-
face measurement and the bottom hole actual WOB.
And in the actual drilling process, the bit has a certain
mechanical efficiency, thus the optimized model also
exists a certain error in calculation.
(3) Given the bit had a certain mechanical efficiency in the
actual drilling process, Dupriest model, Cherif model
and Amadi model defined a mechanical efficiency on the
base of Teale model. These three models can describe
the bit performance more actual, and their calculation
accuracy is relatively high compared with Teale model.
Dupriest thought peak bit efficiencies under field con-
ditions were usually much lower, often in the 30–40 %
range, which resulted in a MSE measurement that was
around three times the rock CCS, therefore he thought
the mechanical efficiency were 0.35 [4]. However, this
is a controversial practice because the mechanical effi-
ciency of a bit may vary greatly from the assumed 35 %,
and it depends on a variety of factors. Cherif thought
the mechanical efficiency were 0.26–0.64, but not 0.35
[8]. In fact, the value eventually is inflated by torsional
friction, and in directional wells, the baseline trend may
eventually become several times the rock CCS. So Amadi
thought the mechanical efficiency were 0.125 in direc-
tional wells [9]. Actually, mechanical efficiency is on
the basis of well depth, well type, bit type and bottom
hole assembly, it may vary greatly from well to well, so
it must be determined according to the actual situation.
8223
Therefore, Dupriest model, Cherif model and Amadi
model also has certain limitations.
3 Mechanical Specific Energy Model of Horizontal Well
3.1 Model of Bottom Hole WOBb
It has become evident that undersection trajectory of horizon-
tal well can reduce drag greatly compared to a conventional
tangent section for well friction. As a result, there is a big
difference between bottom hole WOBb at the bit and sur-
face WOB which is indicated in the weight indicator on the
ground. The surface measured WOB is actually the bottom
hole WOBb acting on the ground. Therefore, by analyzing
the internal force of drill string produced by bottom hole
WOBb in each well section, we can get the formula between
bottom hole WOBb and surface measured WOB.
(1) In bends section
Bernt et al. [10] formulated the drag model in bends and
straight sections. In the process of drilling, assuming the
string contacts lower side, so the drag model in bends section
is as follows:
F2 = f (α2 ) + (F1 − f (α1 )) · e−μ(α2 −α1 ) (6)
where
w · R  
f (α) = 1 − μ2 sin α + 2μ cos α
1+μ 2
If WOBb = 0, assuming that the force at the upper end of
the bend is F1 , and the force at the lower end of the bend is
F2 . If WOBb >0, using that the force at the upper end of the
bend is F1 , and the force at the lower end of the bend is F2 ,
then gives WOBb = 0:
F2 = f (α2 ) + (F1 − f (α1 ) · e−μ(α2 −α1 ) (7)
WOBb > 0:
F2 = f (α2 ) + F1 − f (α1 ) · e−μ(α2 −α1 ) (8)
Equation 7 minus Eq. 8, we get
F2 − F2 = (F1 − F1 )e−μ(α2 −α1 ) (9)
Obviously, “F2 − F2 ” is the internal force of drill string
produced by bottom hole WOBb at the lower end of the bend,
“F1 − F1 ” is the internal force of drill string produced by
bottom hole WOBb at the upper end of the bend. So we may
express Eq. 9 as follows:
Fi2 = Fi1 · e−μ(α2 −α1 ) (10)
where
α2 − α1 = α = γ
123
8224
(2) In straight sections
In straight sections, the drag model is as follows in the process
of drilling
F2 = F1 + w · s · (μ sin α − cos α) (11)
If WOBb = 0, assuming that the force at the upper end is F1 ,
and the force at the lower end is F2 . If WOBb > 0, using that
the force at the upper end is F1 , and the force at the lower
end is F2 , then gives WOBb = 0:
F2 = F1 + w · s · (μ sin α − cos α) (12)
WOBb > 0:
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
3.2 Model of Bottom Hole Torque at the Bit
Torque at the bit can be easily measured in the laboratory
and with MWD systems in the field. However, the major-
ity of field data is in the form of surface WOB, RPM and
ROP measurements. As a result, it usually uses of surface
torque to calculate MSE, which is one of the main sources
of error. The value of MSE eventually is inflated by torsional
friction, and in horizontal wells, the baseline trend may even-
tually become several times the rock CCS. For this reason,
Pessier introduced a bit-specific coefficient of sliding fric-
tion to express torque as a function of WOB, which has been
widely used to compute MSE values in the absence of reliable
torque measurements [3]:
F2 = F1 + w · s · (μ sin α − cos α) (13)  Db /2  2π
4μb WOB
Equation 12 minus Eq. 13, we get T = ρ2 dρdθ
0 0 π Db2
F2 − F2 = F1 − F1 (14)
Apparently, “F2 − F2 ” is the internal force of drill string
produced by bottom hole WOBb at the lower end, “F1 − F1 ”
is the internal force of drill string produced by bottom hole
WOBb at the upper end. So we may express Eq. 14 as follows:
Fi2 = Fi1 (15)
Therefore, in the straight sections, internal force produced by
bottom hole WOBb in each cross section of the drill string
is the same. As for straight sections, α2 − α1 = α = 0,
so Eq. 15 is the same as Eq. 10. Therefore, Eq. 10 is also
suitable for straight section.
(3) Formula between WOB and WOBb
In the horizontal well, on the surface
◦ ◦
Fi = Fi1 = WOB, α1 = 180 , γ = 0 (16)
At the bit
Fi = Fi2 = WOBb , α2 = 180◦ + γb (17)
And
α = γ = γb (18)
Insert Eqs. 16, 17 and 18 into Eq. 10, then we get the formula
between WOB and WOBb in horizontal well
WOBb = WOB · e−μγb (19)
As seen in Eq. 19, the ratio between WOBb and WOB has
nothing to do with the friction caused by the weight of the
drill string, but with wall friction coefficient and bottom hole
inclination. The relationship between weight on the bit ratio
and bottom hole inclination is plotted in Fig. 1, which indi-
cates that there is a great difference between bottom hole
WOBb and surface WOB which is indicated in the weight
indicator on the ground for horizontal well.
123
 Db /2
8μb WOB 2 μb · WOB · Db
= 2
ρ dρ = (20)
0 Db 3
Although the torque calculated by Eq. 20 has a much smaller
error than surface measured torque, it still is not the real
bottom hole torque at the bit in horizontal well, because WOB
is the weight on bit of surface measurement. In order to get
the bottom hole torque at the bit, the WOB should be changed
with WOBb in Eq. 20. Then, we get the model of bottom hole
torque at the bit
μb · WOBb · Db μb · WOB · e−μγb · Db
Tb = = (21)
3 3
Usually, the bit sliding coefficient of friction is assumed to
be of an average value of 0.3 and 0.85 [7] for rollercone and
PDC bits, respectively.
3.3 Mechanical Specific Energy Model of Directional Well
WOB and torque are used as key variables in the MSE calcu-
lation formula. In horizontal wells, they are greatly inflated
by well friction. Equations 19 and 21 are the down hole
WOBb model and torque model at the bit, which are modified
by wall friction coefficient and bottom hole inclination. They
can describe the WOBb and torque at bit and fit the bottom
hole’s actual working conditions. However, it has also been
observed, from laboratory data under confined bottom hole
pressure, that MSE is often substantially higher than the rock
CCS, even when the bit is apparently drilling efficiently, for
bit has a certain mechanical efficiency in the actual drilling
process even for a new bit [4]. Finally, substitute Eqs. 19 and
21 in Teale model (Eq. 1) and consider the mechanical effi-
ciency (E m ) of the new bit, we can get a new model of MSE
which can be shown as
 
1 13.33 · μb · RPM
MSE = E m · WOBb · +
Ab Db · ROP
WOBb = WOB · e−μγb (22)
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
Fig. 1 Relationship between
weight on the bit ratio and
bottom hole deviation angle (μb
is set to 0.35)
The bit sliding coefficient (μb ) of friction is assumed to be
of an average value of 0.3 and 0.85 for rollercone and PDC
bits, respectively [7]. The drill string sliding coefficient (μ)
of friction is assumed 0.25–0.4, usually use the value of 0.35
[11,12]. The mechanical efficiency (Em) of a new bit can
be got by core samples’ laboratory studies, or inversed by
adjacent wells logging data.
3.4 Confined Compressive Strength (CCS)
Teale [2] laboratory experiment showed that MSE was nume-
rically close to the UCS of the formation at maximum drilling
efficiency. However, the tests were conducted at atmospheric
conditions. In the real drilling process, MSE is numerically
close to the CCS of the formation. In other words, when
all the input energy is used to destroy rock and there is no
energy loss, drilling will achieve a maximum efficiency. On
this condition, we can think MSE can be equal to the CCS
of rock. In order to verify the accuracy of the MSE model,
actual drilling parameters can be used to calculate MSE and
then the MSE can be compared with the formation CCS. The
widely practiced and accepted rock mechanics method for
calculating CCS of rock is as follows: [13]
sin φ
CCS = UCS + Dp + 2Dp · (23)
1 − sin φ
In bottom-hole drilling conditions, for permeable rock, the
bottom hole confining pressure can be expressed as
Dp = ECDp − Pp (24)
8225
3.5 Rate of Penetration (ROP) Predictor Based on
Mechanical Specific Energy
The apparent rock strength at the rock–bit interface is best
defined by CCS. Given the mechanical specific energy model
of horizontal well takes the mechanical efficiency (E m ) of the
new bit into account, we can assume that MSE is equal to the
CCS of the formation. Substituting MSE in terms of CCS, the
rate of penetration can be calculated with Eq. 22 as follows:
13.33 · μb · RPM
ROP =   (25)
CCS
DB E ·WOB − 1
m ·e−μγb AB
Without taking account of bit design features, the equation
above is relatively simple in comparison with other ROP pre-
diction model used in the industry. By using this ROP pre-
diction model, we can quickly calculate the ROP for all of
the bit types with reasonable accuracy, according to the rock
properties and the drilling environment. One limitation of
the ROP prediction model is that it does not recognize the
founder point of any given bit, which means it can predict a
higher ROP than is achievable as WOB and RPM increase
beyond the bit’s optimum combination [13,14].
3.6 Drilling Performance Prediction and Optimization
MSE 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, so it provides a means of
analyzing and optimizing drilling performance. The drilling
performance can be predicted by Eqs. 23 and 25. By com-
paring MSE to the predicted CCS, as well as by comparing
actual ROP to the predicted ROP, drilling performance and
bit condition can be evaluated. When MSE is equal to the
predicted CCS, or actual ROP is equal to the predicted ROP,
123
8226
Fig. 2 Flow chart of drilling performance prediction and optimization
it indicates that drilling performs well and the bit is operating
at its peak efficiency.
Drilling performance optimization means real-time ana-
lyzing of MSE and adjusting drilling parameters accordingly
to minimize drilling problems and maximize ROP. MSE is the
amount of energy required to destroy a unit volume of rock. In
the real drilling process, MSE is numerically close to the CCS
of the formation. When a bit is operating at its peak efficiency,
the ratio of energy to rock volume will remain relatively con-
stant and MSE is equal to the CCS of the formation. This rela-
tionship is used operationally by observing whether the min-
imum MSE is equal to the CCS of the formation while adjust-
ing drilling parameters such as WOB or RPM to maximize
ROP. If the minimum MSE remains equal to the CCS of the
formation while increasing WOB, the bit is assumed to be still
efficient. If the MSE ratio increases significantly and is much
higher than the CCS of the formation, either while drilling or
while adjusting parameters, the bit has foundered and drilling
problems may occur, such as vibrations, bit balling, bot-
tom hole balling and dull bits. The driller then determines
the most likely cause of founder and drilling problems and
adjusts parameters accordingly. Adjustments continue to be
made until the MSE value is minimized equally to CCS of the
formation.
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
Based on the relations between MSE, drilling parameters
and ROP, an appropriate predicting and optimizing method
can be proposed by analyzing bottom-hole conditions of
drilling and determining the reasonability of drilling para-
meters. Figure 2 is the flow chart of the drilling performance
prediction and optimization method.
As we can see from Fig. 2, when MSE (min) = CCS, and
ROP/WOB = constant >0, it is in the region B as shown in
Fig. 3 [4,5,15]. MSE is low and equal to CCS. The slope of
the line is relatively constant for a given formation, bit and
rotary speed. And the drilling efficiency remains at its peak
efficiency. In this region, the bit is not constrained by a unique
inefficiency, it simply needs more energy. Just by increasing
WOB and RPM, the ROP will increase greatly and eventu-
ally approach the founder point. When ROP/WOB=constant
>0, it is close to the highest ROP that can be achieved with
the current system and reached the region C. But if ROP
further increases, then bit balling and bottom hole balling
will occur. Therefore, drilling parameters should be better
set in the area near to the founder point to ensure that drilling
performs efficiently and safely. Real-time MSE surveillance
can be used to find the founder point. If MSE remains con-
stant, the bit is efficient; if the MSE rises, the system is
foundering.
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
Fig. 3 Relationship between the traditional ROP versus WOB plot and the new MSE versus ROP plot
When MSE (min) > CCS, it is in the region C, MSE is
high and even several time of CCS. As ROP increases, down
hole cuttings accumulate, which leads to bit balling, bottom
hole balling, and constrains the energy from bit transfer to
the rock, as a result ROP drops. If WOB further increases,
vibrations will occur and ROP will decrease greatly. In this
region, in order to extend the range of balling period and
maximize ROP, nozzles and flow rates can be modified to
achieve the highest hydraulic horsepower per square inch
(HSI) possible with the available rig equipment. If reaching
the rated power of the equipment, WOB should reduce and
drilling parameters should be set in the intersect area between
region B and region C.
4 Field Application
4.1 Field Case No.1: Model Verification
In order to verify the accuracy of the new mechanical spe-
cific energy model of horizontal well and make the best pos-
sible comparison with the theory presented in this paper,
several other key models of MSE (such as Teale model,
Pessier model, Dupriest model) are carried out and compared
against field data. Initially, MSE is calculated, respectively,
by these key models and the new model using surface data
and plotted versus depth. The results are compared with the
rock CCS to verify the accuracy of the new mechanical spe-
cific energy model. Then, the actual ROP and the predicted
ROP which is calculated with Eq. 25 are both plotted versus
depth to verify the accuracy of the ROP prediction model,
and the drilling parameters WOB, RPM and MSE are also
8227
plotted versus depth to explain the observed pattern. Further-
more, actual ROP and the predicted ROP of each bit are also
plotted.
This well’s trajectory is designed with a kick-off point
(KOP) at 2,925 m with a build rate of 5◦ /30 m dogleg sever-
ity (DLS) until reaching 90◦ at 3,465 m and then steered a
horizontal section to 4,043 m measured depth. The log data
of vertical section and horizontal section are used to calculate
MSE, respectively, by Teale model, Pessier model, Dupriest
model and the new model. CCS is calculated by Eq. 23 to
verify the accuracy of these models. USC is obtained by uni-
axial compressive strength test using the rock core samples
from the well and nearby wells. The comparison of MSE cal-
culated results and CCS are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respec-
tively, in vertical section and horizontal section. It shows
that the calculation errors of Teale model, Pessier model and
Dupriest mode are apparently inflated in horizontal section.
The MSE values calculated with the new model has the best
correlation with CCS, and the order of models from good to
poor in accurately predicting correlation effect is new model,
Pessier model, Dupriest model and Teale model. In vertical
section, the correlation effect of new model, Pessier model
and Dupriest model is relatively close, but far better than
Teale model. In horizontal section, MSE values calculated
with Teale model is more than ten times of CCS and MSE
values calculated with Pessier model and Dupriest model are
several times of CCS. As for the new model, its MSE values
are close to CCS. The correlation effect of the new model in
horizontal section is close to that of in vertical section. So
the correlation effect of the new model is apparently better
than Pessier model, Dupriest model and Teale model in both
vertical section and horizontal section.
123
8228
Fig. 4 Comparison of MSE
calculated results and testing
CCS in vertical section
Fig. 5 Comparison of MSE
calculated results and testing
CCS in horizontal section
Figure 6 plots the actual ROP and the predicted ROP ver-
sus depth, and the drilling parameters WOB, RPM and MSE
are also included in.6. The predicted ROP is calculated with
Eqs.25 deduced by the new MSE model. As shown in Fig. 6,
the predicted ROP matches well with the actual ROP, which
indicates that the ROP predict model’s prediction accuracy is
very high and can fully meet the needs of engineering of the
field. Therefore, the new MSE model can be quantitatively
applied. Figure 7 plots ROP prediction accuracy of each bit.
A, B and C bit’s ROP prediction accuracy, respectively, are
84.8 % (A), 91.2 % (B), 76.8 % (C). In the section of 2,700–
2,750, 2,830–2,890 and 3,167–3,215 m, the predicted ROP
is higher than the actual ROP. The drilling parameters WOB,
RPM and MSE plotted versus depth are used to explain the
observed pattern in Fig. 6.
In 2,700–2,750 m, MSE value increases and actual ROP
reduces greatly and the predicted ROP is higher than the
actual ROP. After the WOB increases from 30 to 52 KN from
2,730 to 2,766 m, MSE value reduces to the baseline trend and
the actual ROP increases. In this section, as the hydraulics and
bit rotating speed do not change, so it cannot be bit balling and
bottom hole inadequate cleaning. Therefore, it is likely that
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
whirl leads energy cannot effectively passed to bit, as a result
actual ROP decreases. And in fact, whirl is also observed in
this section. In 2,830–2,890 and 3,167–3,215 m, MSE value
increases slowly and actual ROP reduces greatly, trip-out and
discovery that bit was badly damaged. Change a new bit and
drill with the same drill parameter, MSE value decreases and
actual ROP increases.
4.2 Field Case No.2: Drilling Performance Optimization
On this well, in order to identify drilling conditions, adjust
drilling parameters, minimize drilling problems and max-
imize ROP, one strata’s field log data is used to calculate
MSE and CCS respectively, using Eqs. 22 and 23. Initially,
MSE, CCS and actual ROP are plotted against depth to detect
drilling condition and evaluate drilling performance. Then,
the drilling parameters WOB, RPM and drilling fluid dis-
placement are also plotted versus depth to identify and cor-
rect the detected drilling problems, and adjusted accordingly
to maximize ROP.
Figure 8 shows actual ROP, MSE and CCS versus depth.
From 1,385 to 1,645 m, MSE (min) = CCS and actual ROP
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231 8229

Fig. 6 ROP predicted result

and bottom-hole condition
analysis

Fig. 7 ROP predicted results of

different bits type

123
8230
Fig. 8 Drilling parameters optimization and ROP maximization result
remain almost at 25 m/h. It drills with high efficiency. From
1,635 to 1,900 m, the value of MSE is apparently greater than
CCS (MSE (min) > CCS) and actual ROP drops from 25 to
8 m/h. In 1,720 m, bit hydraulic energy is increased, but it
makes no differences, so it cannot be bit balling and bot-
tom hole balling, and is likely due to vibrations. Then, adjust
drilling parameters to improve the drilling performance. In
around 1,815 m, WOB drops from 65 to 40 KN to elimi-
nate the possible vibrations and actual ROP further drops
to 6.5 m/h. Then, WOB increases from 40 to 100 KN after
1,850 m, actual ROP apparently increases to above 28 m/h.
The MSE value is minimized close to the CCS of the for-
mation, and MSE (min) = CCS. From 1,960 to 2,020 m, as
RPM increases to 133 rpm, actual ROP/WOB = Constant
as shown in Fig. 9, which indicates that it drills with high
efficiency and may still has potential to elevate ROP. While
WOB further increases to 175 KN from 2,020 to 2,046 m,
actual ROP/WOB = Constant and it fluctuates greatly. The
system has already reached its founder point. The actual
ROP increases to more than 30 m/h, and it has reached its
best performance. But if the bit works in this condition,
drilling problems is likely to occur, such as bit balling,
bottom hole balling and vibrations. So from 2,046 to 2,180 m,
WOB and the bit rotating speed are reasonably determined,
respectively, at nearly 100 KN and 133 rpm. In this section,
the actual ROP almost remains at 30 m/h and actual
123
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
ROP/WOB = Constant as shown in Fig. 9. It indicates drilling
performs efficiently and safely. In the section of 2,340
–2,520 m, the strata lithology is anhydrite and dolomite and
the formation CCS is very high. WOB, bit rotating speed
and bit hydraulic energy apparently drop to avoid vibrations.
However, MSE (min) < CCS indicates the inadequate depth
of cut (DOC), and actual ROP remains at nearly 6.5 m/h. In
order to elevate ROP and avoid vibrations, drilling parame-
ters should be adjusted. In 2,530 m, when WOB increases to
100 KN, MSE is almost equal to the CCS of the formation.
It shows the bit is almost operating at its peak efficiency, and
actual ROP increases to above 15 m/h. From 2,540 to 2,700 m,
ROP is above 15 m/h and actual ROP/WOB = Constant as
shown in Fig. 9. Drilling performs efficiently and safely.
5 Summary and Conclusions
A new mechanical specific energy model is presented. The
following remarks provide a summary with conclusions on
the basis of case studies and sensitivity analyses.
• Evaluation of adaptations, virtues and defects of avail-
able MSE models is presented.
• A formula between bottom hole WOBb and the surface
measured WOB is developed.
Arab J Sci Eng (2014) 39:8221–8231
Fig. 9 ROP/WOB versus depth
• Bottom hole WOBb has been introduced to calculate
torque of bit of horizontal well, given that the mechanical
efficiency of new bit and then a new mechanical specific
energy model is built.
• The new mechanical specific energy model is suitable
for both vertical well and horizontal well, and its calcu-
lation precision is high in the absence of reliable torque
measurements, so it can be widely used in the drilling
industry.
• By the new mechanical specific energy model, the MSE
value can be easily got just from the field data which is in
the form of surface measurements of WOB, RPM, well
inclination of bottom hole and ROP.
• A new Rate Of Penetration (ROP) equation is also ded-
uced based on the correlation between the new mechani-
cal specific energy model and the Confined Compressive
Strength, and it is suitable for both vertical well and hori-
zontal well. By using this ROP prediction model, we can
quickly calculate the ROP for all of the bit types with
reasonable accuracy, which can fully meet the needs of
engineering of the field.
8231
• A real-time drilling performance predicting and opti-
mizing method is proposed based on the relationship
between MSE and Drilling performance parameters. And
it is worthy to be applied and promoted with highly diag-
nostic accuracy, effective optimizing and simple opera-
tion.
Acknowledgments This research was financially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants Nos. 51274219
and 51221003 and by a grant from the National High Technology
Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) (No.
2013AA064800).
References
1. Simon, R.: Energy balance in rock drilling. Paper SPE 499 pre-
sented at the SPE-U. Texas Drilling and Mechanics Symposium,
Austin, TX (Jan. 23–24 1963)
2. Teale, R.: The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 2, 57–73 (1965)
3. Pessier, R.C.; Fear, M.J.: Quantitative common drilling problems
with mechanical specific energy and bit-specific coefficient of slid-
ing friction. Paper SPE 24584 presented at the 67th Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC (October 4–7
1992)
4. Dupriest, F.E.; Koederitz, W.L.: Maximizing drill rates with real-
time surveillance of mechanical specific energy. Paper SPE/IADC
92194 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands (23–25 Feb 2005)
5. Armenta, M.: Identifying Inefficient drilling conditions using
drilling-specific energy. Paper SPE 116667 presented at Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver (21–24 September
2008)
6. Mohan, K.; Adil, F., Samuel, R.: Tracking Drilling Efficiency Using
Hydro-Mechanical Specific Energy. SPE/IADC 119421 (2009)
7. Rashidi, B.; Hareland, G.; Fazaelizadeh, M.; Svigir, M.: Com-
parative Study Using Rock Energy and Drilling Strength Models.
ARMA-10-254 (2010)
8. Hammoutene, C.; Bits, S.: FEA Modelled MSE/UCS Values Opti-
mise PDC Design for Entire Hole Section. SPE 149372 (2012)
9. Kingsley, A.; Ibiye, I.: Application of Mechanical Specific Energy
Techniques in Reducing Drilling Cost in Deepwater Development.
SPE 156370 (2012)
10. Aadnoy, B.S.: Theory and Application of a New Generalized Model
for Torque and Drag. IADC/SPE 114684 (2008)
11. Johansick, C.A.; Friesen, D.B.; Dawson, R. et al.: Torque and
drag in directional wells-prediction and measurement. J. Petroleum
Technol. 36(6), 987–992 (1984)
12. Li, J. et al.: Research on torque and drag in extended-reach hori-
zontal wells and its application in Chenghai-1 area. Oil Drill. Prod.
Technol. 31(3), 21–25 (2009)
13. Hector, C.; William, C.; Russ, E.: Unique ROP Predictor Using Bit-
Specific Coefficients of Slide Friction and Mechanical Efficiency
as a Function of Confined Compressive Strength Impacts Drilling
Performance. SPE/IADC 92576 (2005)
14. Guerrero, C.A.: Deployment of an SeROP Predictor Tool for Real-
Time Bit Optimization. SPE/IADC 105201 (2007)
15. Meng, Y.f.; Yang, M.; Li, G.: New method of evaluation and opti-
mization of drilling efficiency while drilling based on mechani-
cal specific energy theory. J. China Univ. Petroleum 36(2), 111–
114 (2012)
123