Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
and Abnormal Pressure Detection
A. T. BOURGOYNE, JR.
F. S. YOUNG, JR.
MEMBERS SPEAIME
LOUISIANA STATE U.
BA TON ROUGE, LA.
BAROID DIV. OF N L INDUSTRIES, INC.
HOUSTON, TEX.
DRILLING MODEL
The drilling model selected for predicting the
effect of the various drilling parameters, Xj' on
penetration rate, dD/dt, is given by
where Exp (z) is used to indicate the exponential
function e
Z
• The modeling of drilling behavior in a
given formation type is accomplished by selecting
the constants al through as in Eq. 1. Since Eq. 1
is linear, those constants can be determined from a
multiple regression analysis of field data.
has been based on meager laboratory and field data.
We have tried here to (1) combine what is known
about the rotary drilling process into a single
model, (2) develop equations for calculating
formation pore pressure and optimum bit weight,
rotary speed, and jet bit hydraulics that are
consistent with that model, and (3) provide a
method for systematically "calibrating" the drilling
model using field data.
(1)
a.x.)' .
] J
8
1:
j=2
Exp(a
1
+ =
dD
dt
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, a number of drilling models
have been proposed for the optimization of the
rotary drilling process and the detection of abnormal
pressure while drilling. These techniques have
been largely based upon limited field and laboratory
data and often yield inaccurate results. Recent
developments in onsite well monitoring systems
have made possible the routine determination of
the best mathematical model for drilling optimiza
tion and pore pressure detection. This modeling is
accomplished through a multiple regression analysis
of detailed drilling data taken over short intervals.
Included in the analysis are the effects of
(I) formation strength, (2) formation depth, (3)
formation compaction, (4) pressure differential across
the hole bottom, (5) bit diameter and bit weight, (6)
rotary speed, (7) bit wear, and (8) bit hydraulics.
This paper presents procedures for using the
regressed drilling model for (1) selecting bit weight,
rotary speed, and bit hydraulics, and (2) calculating
formation pressure from drilling data. The application
of the procedure is illustrated using field data.
Operators engaged in the search for hydrocarbon
reserves are facing much higher drilling costs as
more wells are drilled in hostile environments and
to greater depths. A study by Young and Tanner
l
has indicated that the average well cost per foot
drilled is increasing at approximately 7.5 percent/
year. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on
the collection of detailed drilling data to aid in
the selection of improved drilling practices.
At present, many people are using one drilling
model for optimizing bit weight and rotary speed, a
different drilling model for optimizing jet bit
hydraulics, and yet another model for detecting
abnormal pressure from drilling data. Each model
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Nov. 6, 1972. Revised manuscript received Jan. 19, 1974.
Paper (SPE 4238) was presented at SPEAIME Sixth Conference
on Drilling and Rock Mechanics, held in Austin, Tex., Jan.
2223, 1973. © Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
lReferences listed at end of paper.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257,
which will cover 1974.
EFFECT OF FORMATION STRENGTH
The constant al primarily represents the effect of
formation strength on penetration rate. It is inversely
proportional to the natural logarithm of the square
of the drillability strength parameter discussed by
Maurer.
2
It also includes the effect on penetration
rate of drilling parameters that have not yet been
mathematically modeled; for example, the effect of
drilled solids.
EFFECT OF COMPACTION
The terms a2x2 and a3x3 model the effect of
compaction on penetration rate. x2 is defined by
x
2
= 10,000.0  D· ..... (2)
and thus assumes an exponential decrease In
penetration rate with depth in a normally compacted
formation. The exponential nature of the normal
compaction trend is indicated by the published
microbit and field data of Murray,3 and also by the
field data of Combs
4
(see Fig. 1). x3 is defined by
AlIGUST,1974 371
. (7)
. . (6)
+1200 +800
OWel1 A21
6Well G
21
oWel1 0
21
• Berea 4
+400
Differential Into Formation I psi
o
In
h, .
=
=
3.0
.,
"0
2.0
0::
l:
0
1.0
0

.,
l:
.,
0.4
a.
.,
>

0.2
0
.,
0::
0.1
400
Pressure
EFFECT OF ROTARY SPEED, N
The term a6x6 represents the effect of rotary
speed on penetration rate. x6 is defined by
EFFECT OF BIT HYDRAULIC
The term asxs models the effect of bit hydraulics
on penetration rate. xs is defined by
FIG. 2  EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL BOTTOMHOLE
PRESSURE ON PENETRATION RATE. S.6
EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR, h
The term a7x7 models the effect of tooth wear on
penetration rate. x7 is defined by
and thus assumes that penetration rate is directly
proportional to N
a
6 as indicated by several
authors.
4
,S12 Note that the term e
a6x6
is normalized
to equal 1.0 for 100 rpm. Reported values of the
rotary speed exponent range from 0.4 for very hard
formations to 0.9 for very soft formations. 12
authors.
4
,S12 Note that the term e
asxs
is normalized
to equal 1.0 for 4,000 lb per inch of bit diameter.
The threshold bit weight, (W/ d)1' must be estimated
with drilloff tests. Reported values of the bit
weight exponent range from 0.6 to 2.0.
where h is the fractional tooth height that has been
worn away. Previous authors
S
•
9
have used more
complex expressions to model tooth wear. However
those expressions were not ideally suited for the
multiple regression analysis procedure used to
evaluate the constant a7 from field data. Fig. 3
shows a typical comparison of the previously
published relations and e
a7
X7. The value of a7
depends primarily on the bit type and, to a lesser
extent, the formation type. When carbide insert bits
are used, penetration rate does not vary significantly
with tooth wear. Thus the tooth wear exponent,
a
7
, is assumed to be zero, and the remaining
exponents, a1 through a
6
and as, are regressed.
Note that e
a7x7
is 1 when either h or a7 is zero.
20,000
9.0).·.· (3)
10,000
w
d
In =
=
0.1 L1_.l.........L._.L......L._i......_i..................
o
(w)
d t
( . . . . (5)
4. 0
Q t
and thus assumes that penetration rate IS directly
proportional to (W/dt
s
as indicated by several
x 4 D (g p). . . . . . . (4)
P c
and thus assumes an exponential decrease in
penetration rate with excess bottomhole pressure.
Field data presented by Vidrine and Benit
S
and by
Combs,4 and laboratory data presented by
Cunningham and Eenink
6
and by Garnier and
van Lingen
7
all indicate an exponential relation
between penetration rate and excess bottomhole
pressure up to about 1,000 psi (see Fig. 2). Vidrine
and Beni t also noted an apparent relation between
the effect of differential pressure on penetration
rate and bit weight. However, no consistent
correlation could be obtained from the available
data, so no bit weight term was included in Eq. 4.
EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE
The term a4x4 models the effect of pressure
differential across the hole bottom on penetration
rate. x4 is defined by
,
,
,
,
,
EFFECT OF BIT DIAMETER
AND BIT WEIGHT, Wid
The term asxs models the effect of bit weight
and bit diameter on penetration rate. xs is defined
by
:5
..
o
..
..
0.5
CD
a..
CD
>
.. 0.2
o
CD
a:
! 2.0
o
a:
5.0
Vertical Depth, ft.
FIG. 1  EFFECT OF NORMAL COMPACTION ON
PENETRATION RATE.
DO.
69
(
gp
and thus assumes an exponential increase in
rate with pore pressure gradient. The
exponential nature of the effect of undercompaction
on penetration rate is suggested by compaction
theory, but has not yet been verified experimentally.
Note that the effect of compaction on penetration
a
2
x + a3 x 3 .
rate, e 2 , has been normalized to equal
1.0 for a normally compacted formation at 10,000 ft.
372
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGIl\"EERS JOURl\"AL
Gal./Min. Diameler
Q
~ ~
3i1;
0
·
10
1
/2
a
·
10
!
8
A
·
aS:
6 V
·
&'
+ ~    : t
.,
. • L
o ~ c 10
"11  ':"1
6'
WIOOO Lb. N75RPM
I
I I It.r
50
I
O
PSI' I I 1
2
10
8
6
4
20
100
80
60
40
0060.1 0.2 04 0.6 1.0 2 4 6 10 20 4060100150
Eqs. 1 through 7 define the general functional
relations between penetration rate and the other
drilling variables, but the constants a2 through as
must be determined before these equations can be
applied. The constants a2 through as are determined
through a multiple regression analysis of detailed
drilling data taken over short depth intervals.
The idea of using a regression analysis of past
drilling data to evaluate constants in a drilling rate
equation is not new. For example, it was proposed
by Graham and Muench
lO
in 1959 in one of the first
papers on drilling optimization. This approach was
used by Combs
4
in his work on the detection of
pore pressure from drilling data. However, much of
the past work in this area has been hampered by
the difficulty in obtaining large volumes of accurate
field data and because the effect of many of the
drilling parameters discussed above were ignored.
Recent developments in onsite well monitoring1
have made it possible to routinely regress the more
complex drilling equation (Eq. 1).
A derivation of the multiple regressionanalysis
procedure is presented in detail in Appendix A.
Theoretically, only eight data points are required
MULTIPLE REGRESSION TECHNIQUE
Ta is calculated from a dull bit grading. Note that
Eq. 10 is normalized so that the abrasiveness factor
TH is numerically equal to the hours of tooth life
that would result if a Class 1 bit were operated at
"standard conditions", i.e., a bit weight of 4,000 lb
per inch of bit diameter and a rotary speed of 100
rpm. Likewise, Eq. 11 is normalized so that the
bearing constant Ta is numerically equal to the
hours of bearing life that would result if the bit
were operated at standard conditions. By normalizing
the bit wear equations in this manner, field
personnel can attach a physical meaning to the bit
wear constants and thus more easily detect
anomalous bit gradings.
Estes
14
has pointed out that the rate of bit wear
will be excessive if too great a bit weight is used.
His recommended maximum bit weights are shown
in Table 3. The recommended maximum bit weights
are based on bearing capacity for milledtooth bits
and on cutting structure for insert bits.
1.0 0.8
..... (10)
0.6 0.4
pq (8)
350 11d
n
0.2
11 + T /20 . . . . . . . . (9)
P Y
BIT WEAR MODEL
=
=
=
=
0.0 '__..I.__....I....__....L..__'__'
0.0
0.8
c::
0
...
u
c::
0.6
:>
l.L.
...
0
Q)
~
0.4
.c
...
0
0
I
0.2
dh
dt
dB
dt
In addi tion to a penetration rate model, equations
are also needed to estimate the condition of the
bit at any time. Tooth wear was modeled using
(W) 4
d
[ max ]
(W) _ ~
d max
1.0 r,
and is based on microbit experiments performed by
Eckel.
13
As shown in Fig. 4, Eckel found that
penetration rate was proportional to a Reynolds
number group (.!!!!.) raised to the 0.5 power. Since
fl d
n
fl' the apparent viscosity at 10,000 sec 1, is not
routinely measured and recorded it must be estimated
using the relation
where the constant b depends upon bearing type
and mud type (see Table 4) and the bearing constant
where the constants HI, H
2
, H
3
, and (W/d)max
depend upon bit type (see Tables 1, 2, and 3) and
the abrasiveness constant TH is calculated from a
dull bit grading (see example of Appendix D).
Bearing wear was estimated using
Fractional Tooth Dullness, h
FIG. 3 EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR ON PENETRA
TION RATE (CHIPPINGTYPE TOOTH WEAR).
Reynolds Number Funclion
FIG. 4  DRILLING RATE VS REYNOLDS NUMBER
FUNCTION.13
AUGUST,1974 373
TABLE 1  ROCK BIT CLASSIFICATION GUIDE (AFTER ESTESI4).
DRESSER  SECUR ITY HUGHES G. W. MURPHY SM ITH
MILL
''T'' "G" "5
11
'I"
IIG" I'SII
"SG" IIJ"
'1" "G"
"S't "5Gil
11'1 I'GII 115
11
IISG"
TOOTH
STO GAGE GAGE SEAL STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL BEAR STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL STO GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL
CLASS
I  1 S3S S33S OSC3A X3A YT3A S13A OS SOS
2 S3 S3T S33 OSC3 X3 Y13 YT3T S13 OT on SOT
3 S4 S4T S4TG S44 OSCIG CIC OOG XIG XOG YTIA YTlT YTIAG SHAG OG OGT OGH SOG SOGH
4 S6 S6G OSC K2 K2H
I
I
2  I M4N M4NG M44N OW4 OOV XOV YSI YSIG SSIG V2 V2H SV I SVH
2 OWV xv
I
3 M4L M4LG M44L OWC XC YM YMG SMG 2 T2H
3  1 H7 H7T H7TG H77 W7 W07 X7 X07 YH YHG
FHGlJl
L4 L4H SL4 SL4H
2 H7U H7UG H77U W7R2 X7R YHW YHWG SB7
SHG
W4 W4H
3 H7SG H77S
4  I HC HCG H77C WR WOR XWR XOR J8 YBV YBVG
FVlJl
SBVG WC WCH SWS SWCH
J08
SBV
INSERT tis"
115
11
lIJ" "SH "11J" IlJ" "S" "J"
CLASS REG. SEAL REG. SEAL JOURNAL REG. SEAL FC FBC REG. SEAL SEGMENT
5  I
2 S84 FCT FBCT
3 S86 J33 SCS5 FCS5 FBCS5 3JS SS3
6  I S88 X44R J44 SCMS FCM5 FBCMS 4JS SS4
2 J55C SCM FCM FBCM 47JS SS47
7  I M88 55R X55R J55R YC5G SCHS FCH5 FBCHS 5 5JS SS5
2 SCH FCH FBCH 7 7JS SS7
8  I H8 H88 RG7 RG7X YC4G SC4G FCH4 FBCH4
2 RGIX J88 SCG 8 8JS
9  I HID HIOO RG2B RG2BX YC2G SC2G FCH2 FBCH2 9 9JS SS9
CLASS: D  I I  2 I  5 2  4
SMITH BHOJ OJ
ORESSER 53SJ OS OM
THE ABOVE TYPES ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN POPULAR SIZES. OBSOLETE TYPES NOT L1STEO MAY ALSO BE AVAILABLE IN SOME SIZES.
DEVIATION CONTROL BITS: NOTES: (j) INOICATES A JOURNAL BEARING MILLTOOTH BIT.
CLASS 0 BITS ARE TWOCONE.
*Sealed bearing bits are 8 to 10 percent lower; journal bearing
bits are 10 to 12 percent higher.
**Insert.. bit maximums are based on cutting structure, not
bearing capacity.
Bearing Type Drilling Fluid b

Barite mud 1.00
Sulfide mud 1.25
Nonsealed Water 1.90
Clay mud 2.04
Oil base mud 2.55
Seal ed 2.80
to solve for the eight unknowns a 1 through as.
However, in practice this is true only if Eq. 1
models the rotary drilling process with IOOpercent
accuracy. Needless to say, it never happens. When
only a few data points are used in the analysis of
field data, even negative values are sometimes
calculated for one or more of the regression
constants. A sensitivity study of the multiple
regressionanalysis procedure indicated that the
number of data points required to give meaningful
results depends not only on the accuracy of Eq. 1,
but also on the range of values of the drilling
parameters x2 through xs' Table 5 summarizes the
recommended minimum ranges for each of the
drilling parameters and the recommended minumum
number of data points to be used in the analysis.
When any of the drilling parameters, Xj' have been
held essentially constant through the interval
analyzed, a value for the corresponding regression
TABLE 4  RECOMMENDED BEARING WEAR PARAMETER
FOR ROCK BITS (AFTER MARATIERIZ)
(W/dl
max
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
See Table 3
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.48
0.36
0.26
0.20
0.18
0.02
HI
1.90
1.84
1.80
1. 76
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.50
1.50
TABLE 2  RECOMMENDED TOOTH WEAR PARAMETERS
FOR ROCK BITS
Hz
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
TABLE 3  MAXIMUM DESIGN WEIGHT ON BIT,*
1,000 LB/IN. (AFTER ESTESI4)
BIT CLASSSUBCLASS INSERT BITS**
Bit 2·1
Size 1· 1 1·2 1·3 1·4 2·2 2·3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    
6 lie 5.6 6.0 6.6 6.9 7.9
6';. 5.7 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.2 8.5 3.1 4.4 4.5 5.2 4.0
7 'Ie 6.0 6.2 6.6 7.0 7.5 7.6 8.7 9.4 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.7 4.5
8';. 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.2 7.8 8.0 9.5 10.0 3.7 5.1 5.2 5.8 4.7
9 'Ie 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.0 7.6 7.7 8.9 3.6 5.1 5.1 5.9 4.6
10% 6.4 7.0 8.8 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.8 4.5
12 I;. 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.3 7.4 8.5 3.5 4.9 4.9 5.6 4.4
14';.
5.3 5.8 6.3 7.4 3.4 4.7 4.8 5.4 4.3
.15
17 V;, 5.0 5.7 7.0 3.0 4.2 4.2 4.8 3.8
Bit Class
1·1 to 1·2
1.3 to 1·4
2·1 to 2·2
2·3
3.1
3.2
3·3
41
Insert
374 SOCIETY OF PETROI.ElTM E:'\GI:'\EERS JOUR:'\AL
constant, aj' should be estimated from past studies
and the regression analysis should be carried out
for the remaining regression constants. As the
number of drilling parameters included in the
analysis are decreased, the minimum number of data
points required to calculate the remaining regression
constants is also decreased (see Table 5). In many
applications, data from more than one well had to be
combined in order to calculate all eight regression
constants.
The penetration rate, bit weight, and rotary speed
should be monitored over shorr depth intervals to
insure that most of the information recorded is
representative of a single type of formation. A
depth interval of 2 to 5 ft was found to give
representati ve data and still keep the volume of
data required within reasonable limits.
Field data taken in shale in an offshore Louisiana
well are shown in Table 6. Note that the primary
drilling variables required for the regression
analysis are depth, penetration rate, bit weight per
inch of bit diameter, rotary speed, fractional tooth
wear, Reynolds number parameter, mud density, and
pore pressure gradient. To calculate the best
values of the regression constants a 1 through as
using the data shown, the parameters x
2
through Xs
must be calculated using Eq. 2 through 8 for each
data entry. Eight equations with the eight unknowns
al through as can then be obtained from x2 through
Xs using the procedure described in Appendix A.
For example, the first of the eight equations defined
in Appendix A is given by
na
1
+ a
2
EX
2
+ a
3
EX
3
+ a
4
EX
4
+ as Ex
S
+ a
6
EX
6
+ a
7
EX
7
dD
+ as Ex
S
= E In dt
TABLE 5  RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DATA RANGES FOR
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
*Maximum observed value less minimum observed value
included in regression analysis.
Number of Minimum
Parameters Number of Points
5
x 10 a
2
+ 0.94 0.89
x 10
5
a
3
 0.36 x 10
6
a
4
20 a  7.4 a
6

12 a
7 5
6.3 as = SS
30 a 
1
Thus, using the 30 data points of Table 6 In this
equation yields
When the resulting system of eight equation IS
solved for the eight unknowns, the constants, al
30
25
20
15
10
7
4
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Minimum*
Range
2,000
15,000
15,000
0.40
0.50
0.20
0.50
Parameter
TABLE 6  EXAMPLE DATA FOR MUL TIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
(Taken in shale, Offshore Louisiana area)
Drilling Rotary Reynalds Pore
Data Depth Bit Rate Bit Weight Speed Tooth Number ECD Gradient
Entry (ft) Number (ftlhr) (l,OOOlb/in.) (rpm) Wear Function (Ib/gal) (Ib/gal)
1 9,515 7 23.0 2.58 113 0.77 0.964 9.5 9.0
2 9,830 8 22.0 1. 15 126 0.38 0.964 9.5 9.0
3 10,130 9 14.0 0.81 129 0.74 0.827 9.6 9.0
4 10,250 11 10.0 0.95 87 0.15 0.976 9.7 9.0
5 10,390 12 16.0 1.02 78 0.24 0.984 9.7 9.0
6 10,500 19.0 1.69 81 0.61 0.984 9.7 9.1
7 10,575 13.0 1.56 81 0.73 0.984 9.7 9.2
8 10,840 13 16.6 1.63 67 0.38 0.932 9.8 9.3
9 10,960 15.9 1.83 65 0.57 0.878 9.8 9.4
10 11,060 15.7 2.03 69 0.72 0.878 9.8 9.5
11 11,475 15 14.0 1.69 77 0.20 0.887 10.3 9.5
12 11,775 18 13.5 2.31 58 0.12 0.852 11.8 10.1
13 11 ,940 21 6.2 2.26 67 0.2 0.976 15.3 12.4
14 12,070 22 9.6 2.07 84 0.08 0.993 15.7 13.0
15 12,315 15.5 3.11 69 0.40 1. 185 16.3 14.4
16 12,900 23 31.4 2.82 85 0.42 1.150 16.7 15.9
17 12,975 24 42.7 3.48 77 0.17 1.221 16.7 16.1
18 13,055 38.6 3.29 75 0.29 1.161 16.8 16.2
19 13,250 43.4 2.82 76 0.43 1. 161 16.8 16.2
20 13,795 25 12.5 1.60 81 0.56 0.272 16.8 16.2
21 14,010 26 21.1 1.04 75 0.46 0.201 16.8 16.2
22 14,455 28 19.0 1.76 64 0.16 0.748 16.9 16.2
23 14,695 18.7 2.00 76 0.27 0.819 17.1 16.2
24 14,905 29 20.2 2.35 75 0.33 0.419 17.2 16.4
25 15,350 30 27.1 2.12 85 0.31 1.29 17.0 16.5
26 15,740 14.8 2.35 78 0.81 0.802 17.3 16.5
27 16,155 32 12.6 2.47 80 0.12 0.670 17.9 16.5
28 16,325 14.9 3.76 81 0.50 0.532 17.5 16.6
29 17,060 34 13.8 3.76 65 0.91 0.748 17.6 16.6
30 20,265 40 9.0 3.41 60 0.01 0.512 17.7 16.6
AUGUST,1974 375
C
r
=
[J
1
J
2
H2
[1 +
a
7
+
(U1)
. 2 H
2
a
7
a
7
] . . . . . (13)
• Exp ( + U)]
H
2
the use of such systems is prohibited by economics.
Previous authors have published techniques for
computing a variable bit weight and rotary speed
schedule as well as the best constant weightspeed
schedule. Galle and Woods
9
have reported that
the simpler constant weightspeed schedule results
in only slightly higher costs per foot. A recent paper
by Reed
1
? indicates a difference of less than 3
percent in the cost per foot between the variable
weightspeed and constant weightspeed schedules
for the cases studied.
Combining Eq. 1, an integrated form of Eq. 11,
and Eq. 12 leads to the following expression for
cost per foot for a given bit weight per inch of bit
diameter, W/ d, rotary speed, N, and rotating time,
tb'
where
OPTIMAL DRILLING
through as, given for Well 1 in Table 7 are obtained.
Results obtained for shale using several other
wells in the same general offshore Louisiana area
are also shown in Table 7 for comparison. Wells 2
and 3 of Table 7 were drilled from the same platform.
The term "drilling optimization" was applied
first to procedures for selecting jet bit hydraulics.
The term was later expanded to include procedures
for selecting bit weight and rotary speed,S,9 and
recently has been used to refer to a broad plan for
the selection of mud types and mud properties,
bit types and operating conditions, and' casing
types and setting depths,1S At present, however,
only a limited number of drilling variables can be
handled using formal mathematical optimization
procedures. Equations derived from the drilling
model of Eq. 1 are presented in this paper for the
optimization of bit weight, rotary speed, and jet
bit hydraulics. The derivations of the optimization
equations are given in Appendixes Band C. It was
assumed in the derivation that the drilling cost per
foot, C
I
, could be expressed in terms of the bit
cost, C
b
, the hourI y rig cost, C" the trip time, t t'
the connection time, t
c
' the drilling time, tb' and
the footage drilled, /}.D. The cost equation assumed
is given by
=
C
b
+ Cr(tt + t
c
+ ~ )
6D
=
Exp
6
L:
j=2
a.x.
J J
(12)
Thus risk factors, hole deviation problems, hole
washout problems, and variable pump costs were
ignored. Also inherent in the use of Eq. 1 are the
assumptions that rollertype rock bits are used and
that bit balling does not occur. Drilling variables
not included in Eq. 1 such as mud type and percent
solids were also ignored. These limitations should
be kept in mind when using the optimization
equations listed below.
=
. . . . . (14a)
BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
As discussed in a previous paper,16 optimum bit
weight and rotary speed can be determined
automatically at the well site with a computerized
drilling control system. However, in many cases,
U
. . . .04b)
TABLE 7  RESUL TS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR GULF COAST AREA
02 03 04
Well Depth Range 01 (l0
3
) (l0
3
) (l0
4
) aS 06 07 08
1 9,500  20,000 3.78 0.17 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.41 0.16
2 9,000  14,000 3.55 0.18 0.20 0.61 1.05 0.5* 0.20 0.52
3 9,000  15,000 3.33 0.21 0.18 0.52 0.91 0.72 0.23 0.48
4 11,000  14,000 2.71 0.25 0.40 0.46 1.2 0.5* 0.3* 0.5*
5 10,000  13,000 3.09 0.15 0.20* 0.50* 0.82 0.5* 0.25 0.5*
6 12,000  16,000 3.69 0.28 0.37 0.85 0.94 0.50 0.3* 0.61
7 9,000  14,000 2.89 0.10* 0.90 0.62 0.62 0.43 0.3* 0.22
*Volue assumed rather than calculated because carresponding drilling param
eter did not vary Over a wide enough range to be included in the regression
onalysi s.
376 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
If it is assumed that bit life, lb' is limited by either
tooth wear or bearing wear, then the rotating time,
lb' can be obtained from the integrated forms of Eq.
10 or 11. Thus, the smaller of the two rotating times,
lb' given by either
=
or
N = 100
opt
(
w) (W)
T d d
~ max opt
~ H3[ ( ~ ) 4J
max
. . (16)
and the optimum rotary speed, N
opt
' is given by
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
where the abrasiveness factor, TH, is obtained from
a bit grading and Eq. 10. When using Eqs. 16 through
18 to obtain the optimum bit weight and rotary
speed, the cost per foot should be computed for a
tooth wear, H, of both 1. 0 and 0.95 to insure the
validity of the assumption that bit life is limited
by tooth wear.
Unfortunately, simple analytical expressions for
the best constant bit weight and rotary speed could
not be obtained for the case in which bearing wear
limits bit life. In this case, a costperfoot table
should be constructed, using Eqs. 13 through 15b
in an i terati ve mann er.
OPTIMUM HYDRAULIes
The drilling cost equation shown as Eq. 12 does
not properly account for the variable pump cost
associated with the optimization of bit hydraulics.
However, since the variable pump cost is usually
small compared with the hourly rig cost, this is not
a serious limitation. Nelson
lS
has shown that the
variable operating cost of the pump can be related
to the hydraulic horsepower developed by the pump.
For most of the larger rigs, the variable pump cost
is approximately $0.02/hp hr. Thus, if by optimizing
jet bit hydraulics, an additional 500 hp is required
for a 12hour bit run, the incremental pump operating
cost would be only $120. Since this is usually an
insignificant portion of the total cost, the
optimization of jet bit hydraulics is essentially
achieved by maximizing the penetration rate.
Inspection of Eq. 1 reveals that penetration rate
will be a maximum when the term asxs is a maximum.
As shown in Appendix C, this is achieved by
choo sing nozzle sizes and pump' operating condi
tions so that the pressure drop across the bit, ~ P b'
is related to the maximum pump pressure, P
p
' by
by
100
[] ..... (15b)
N
=
=
~
[ ~
tt tel
HI
1], = + +
[
c
r
a
6
(17)
TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE
Relatively simple analytical equations for the
best constant weight and rotary speed were derived
(see Appendix B) for the case in which tooth wear
limits bit life, using a procedure described by
Maratier.
I2
The optimum bit weight per inch of bit
diameter, (W/ d)opt, is given by
should be used in Eq. 14c. A costperfoot table for
various combinations of bit weight and rotary speed
can be generated using Eq. 13 through 14c. Table 8
is a costperfoot table for an example problem
gi ven in Appendix D. Note that the costperfoot
table can be used to quickly identify (1) the best
combination of bit weight and rotary speed, (2) the
best rotary speed for a given bit weight, and (3) the
best bit weight for a given rotary speed.
where the constants HI and (W/ d)max are obtained
from Table 2 and the constants as and a6 are
obtained from the regression analysis.
The expected bit life is given by
TABLE 8  EXAMPLE COST PER FOOT
Bit Weight per Inch of Bit Diameter (1,000 Ib/in.)
Rotary
Speed
(rpm)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2.0
$167.83
114.94
95.19
85.77
81.15
79.25
79.07
80.08
81.97
84.52
3.0
$103.51
71.45
59.84
54.61
52.37
51.83
52.38
53.68
55.54
57.83
4.0
$73.67
51.48
43.84
40.77
39.85
40.17
41.29
42.96
45.06
47.48
5.0
$56.88
40.61
35.56
34.08
34.30
35.51
37.37
39.69
42.37
45.32
6.0
$46.67
34.92
32.36
32.80
34.70
37.48
40.86
44.68
48.85
53.29
7.0
$42.82
38.55
42.65
49.76
58.52
68.36
79.01
90.29
102.11
114.39
p
= :+}, (19)
where m is the slope of a plot of parasitic pressure
drop vs flow rate on loglog paper. Note that by
operating in accordance with Eq. 19, the jet impact
force at the bit as well as the Reynolds number
function Xs is maximized. Theoretical considerations
indicate a value of 1.8 for m. However, Scott has
recently reported measuring m values as low as
1.0.
19
An evaluation of the proposed optimization scheme
has indicated that in many cases a considerable
A If (; If ST. I 9 7 4
377
(asx
s
aaxB) ]. . (20)
I
Density
H't=:
Pore Pressore (Sonic)
: Ofe Pressure (Kp).
:t
t:11=
f:'=
8
0
0
0
fC1
0

,+
0

=
1
1

1=1=
/:=:ll;;:: fC=f=

1"\
f ft
+. t
1=1I
Log
lO
=
Fig.6 Drillability: and Pore Pr...sure Plot
Hot Wire Gas PressUfe Gradient
8 10 12
(The drillability parameter, which is based on Eq. 1,
is somewhat analogous to the lCdexponent"
developed by Jorden and Shirley 11 using a more
simplified penetration rate equation.) The drillability
log is then analyzed to determine the type of
formation being drilled. The pore pressure gradient
can be related to the drillability parameter, K
p
' in
a given type of formation by
H+
cannot be optimized by formal mathematical
techniques. Thus the choice of mud properties, bit
type, casing points, etc., must be based on past
experience and what is known about the downhole
environment. The most important design parameter
needed to insure a lowcost, troublefree operation
is the pore pressure of the formations penetrated.
Since the drillability of a given type of formation
is affected by the pressure differential at the
bottom of the hole as well as by the effective
formation compaction, a normalized penetration rate
log can be used to estimate the formation pressure.
The regression constants and the drilling data
are used to compute and plot a drillability parameter,
K
p
, defined by
1
0
0::
0
LL:
1'.
t
,(
 0
m: 1.2
:::E
500 1000 100
2Pp
ni+2
Flow Rate, GPM
Optimum
50
+ Path of Optimum
. Hydroulics
10
5000
o
lJ..
o
c: 0::
30 00 I_M_ax_._P_u_m..:.p_p_'e_s_s_u'_e :::E, i
200
i. 1000
::>
III
III
500
a.
'" 'iii
Co
PORE PRESSURE DETECTION
At present, the remalOlng drilling variables
reduction in drilling cost could be achieved by
drilling optimization. Estimated reductions in drilling
cos t on several wells varied from a few percent to
to 30 percent and averaged about 10 percent. This
value is in agreement with other reported
studies. 9, IS However, where bit life is limited by
tooth wear, the proposed optimization scheme is
much easier to apply than previously published
techniques
8
, 9,16,17 because the optimum conditions
can be calculated from analytical expressions rather
than by trial and error or by involved graphical
procedures.
An example bit run optimization is shown in
Appendix D. Note that the optimum bit weight and
rotary speed are very sensitive to the regression
constants as and a
6
. Thus, the accuracy of the
optimization should systematically improve as
experience is gained in an area.
As shown in Appendix D, bit hydraulics is
optimized using a technique outlined by Scott.
19
The standpipe pressure is measured at both a normal
circulating rate and a reduced circulating rate. The
pressure drop through the bit is then estimated at
both circulating rates using the orifice equation or
a Hydraulic Slide Rule. The total parasitic pressure
los s is then determined as the difference between
the standpipe pressure and the pressure drop through
the bit. Knowing the parastic pressure drop at two
rates allows the graphical estimation of the exponent
m (see Fig. 6). The optimum flow rate and pressure
drop across the bit can then be calculated with
Eq. 19. Since the pressure drop at a reduced
circulating rate is normally recorded twice a day
to aid in "kick" control calculations, the optimum
bit hydraulics can usually be calculated without
making any additional measurements.
FIG. 5 CALCULATION OF OPTIMUM BIT
HYDRAULICS.
FIG. 6  DRILLABILITY AND PORE PRESSURE PLOT.
378
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
paper. We also wish to acknowledge all those who
assisted in its preparation, and particularly Wesley
Carew for his assistance in developing software
and preparing data.
NOMENCLATURE
formation strength parameter
exponent of the normal compaction trend
undercompaction exponent
pressure differential exponent
bit weight exponent
rotary speed exponent
tooth wear exponent
hydraulic exponent
bearing constant
fractional bearing wear
cost of bit, dollars
drilling cost per foot drilled, dollars/ft
cost of rig, dollars/hour
bit diameter, in.
bit nozzle diameter, In.
well depth, ft
pore pressure gradient of the formation,
lb/gal
regression index of correlation
fractional tooth height worn away
constants that depend on bit type
summation index for ith data point
summation index for frh drilling
parameter
a function of bit weight per inch and
rotary speed
normalized drillability parameter used
for graphical presentation
a constant
friction loss  flow rate exponent
number of data points used in regression
analysis
rotary speed, rpm
optimum rotary speed, rpm
pump pressure, psig
pressure drop across the bit, psi
parasitic pressure drop, psi
flow rate, gal/min
residual for regression analysis
time, hours
rotating time during bit run, hours
nonrotating time or connection time,
hours
trip time during bit run, hours
a function of bit weight per inch, rotary
speed, and rotating time
weight on bit per inch of bit diameter,
1,0001b/in.
J
n
K
m
u
N
Wid
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To smooth out minor lithology variations, a 25ft
average value of pore pressure gradient is usually
plotted. After formation cuttings are obtained at
the surface, the formation pressure is also estimated
on the basis of the density of the cuttings. However,
the normalized penetration rate log provides the
most current information.
At the present time, this approach has been
tested only in the Gulf Coast area. The response of
drillability to an increasing pore pressure should
be a maximum in this type of geologic environment
because the zones of high pore pressure are
undercompacted. Also, since the lithology of this
area is relatively simple, formation types are more
easily determined. An example drillability log and
pore pressure plot is shown in Fig. 6. Also shown
for comparison are the pore pressure gradients
obtained from a sonic log. In general, a comparison
between pore pressure gradients computed from a
drillability plot and pore pressure gradients computed
from a sonic log yields a standard deviation of
about 1.0 Ib/gal. As the number of wells drilled
in an area increases and the regression constants
become better defined, rhe accuracy of the pore
pressure calculation should improve. This was
observed in Wells 2 and 3 of Table 7. A comparison
of pore pressures computed from a sonic log
yielded a standard deviation of 1.1 Ib/gal after the
first well was drilled and a standard deviation of
0.9 Ib/gal after the second well was drilled.
The new procedure described here was applied
on several wells in the Gulf Coast area. The
following conclusions resulted from this evaluation.
1. When modern well monitoring equipment is
used, a regressional analysis procedure can be
used to systematically evaluate many of the
constants in the penetration rate equation.
2. In many cases, data must be obtained from
more than a single well before all the regression
constants can be evaluated.
3. The regression analysis procedure IS more
easily applied in young geologic strata such as
those on the Gulf Coast.
4. The use of relatively simple drilling opti
mization equations can reduce drilling costs by
about 10 percent.
5. Formation pressure can be estimated from
drilling data with a standard deviation of about 1
Ib/gal.
=
We wish to thank the management of Baroid Div.,
N L Industries, Inc., for permission to publish this
Ali G [: , T. I 9 7,\
379
REFERENCES
SUBSCRIPTS
C calculated
OB observed
1. Young, F. S., Jr., and Tanner, K. D.: "Recent
Developments in OnSite Well Monitoring Systems,"
Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech U., Lubbock
(April 1972).
2. Maurer, W. C.: "The 'Perfect Cleaning' Theory of
Rotary Drilling," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1962) 1270
1274; Trans., AIME, Vol. 225.
3. Murray, A. S., and Cunningham, R. A.: "The Effect
of Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rates," Trans.,
AIME (1955) Vol. 204, 196204.
4. Combs, G. D.: "Prediction of Pore Pressure From
Penetration Rate," Proc., Second Symposium on
Abnormal Subsurface Pore Pressure, Baton Rouge,
La. (J an. 1970).
5. Vidrine, D. J., and Denit, E. J.: "Field Verification
of the Effect of Differential Pressure on Drilling
Rate," ]. Pet. Tech. (July 1968) 676682.
6. Cunningham, A. J., and Eenink, J. G.: "Laboratory
Study of Effect of Overburden, Formation and Mud
Column Pressure on Drilling Rate of Permeable
Formations," Trans., AIME (1959) Vol. 216, 917.
7. Garnier, A. J., and van Lingen, N. H.: "Phenomena
Affecting Drilling Rates at Depth," Trans., AIME
(1959) Vol. 216, 232239.
8. Edwards, J. H.: "Engineering Design of Drilling
Operations," Drill. and Prod. Prac. API (1964) 39.
9. Galle, E. M., and Woods, A. B.: "Best Constant
Weight and Rotary Speed for Rotary Rock Bits,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac. API (1963) 48.
10. Graham, J. W., and Muench, N. L.: "Analytical
Determination of Optimum Bit Weight and Rotary
Speed Combinations," paper SPE 1349G presented
at SPEAIME 34th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Oct.
47, 1959.
dD
In
dt
. . . . . (A2)
a.x.· .. (A1)
J J
a.x.
J J
8
L:
j=2
8
L:
j=2
=
=
r.
~
dD
In
dt
then the problem is to select a 1 through a 8 so that
for n data points, where n is any number greater
than 8, the sum of the square of the residuals,
n
~ r?, is a minimum. Using The Calculus,
i=l
APPENDIX A
11. Jorden, J. R, and Shirley, O. J.: "Application of
Drilling Performance Data to Overpressure Detection,"
]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1966) 13871394.
12. Maratier, J.: "Optimum Rotary Speed and Bit Weight
for Rotary Drilling," MS thesis, Louisiana State U.,
Baton Rouge (June 1971).
13. Eckel, J. J.: "Microbit Studie s of the Effect of Fluid
Properties and Hydraulics on Drilling Rate," ]. Pet.
Tech. (April 1967) 541546; Trans., AIME, Vol. 240.
14. Estes, J. C.: "Selecting the Proper Rotary Rock
Bit," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1971) 13591367.
15. Lummus, J. L.: "Acquisition and Analysis of Data
for Optimized Drilling," ]. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1971)
12851293.
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 1 yields
16. Young, F. S., Jr.: "Computerized Drilling Control,"
]. Pet. Tech. (April 1969) 483496; Trans., AIME,
Vol. 246.
17. Reed, R L.: "A Monte Carlo Approach to Optimal
Drilling," S'oc. Pet. Eng. ]. (Oct. 1972) 423438;
Trans., AIME, Vol. 253.
18. Nelson, J. K.: "What Mud Pump Horsepower Costs,"
Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1965) 71.
19. Scott, K. F.: "A New Practical Approach to Rotary
Drilling Hydraulics," paper SPE 3530 presented at
SPEAIME 46th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, New
Orleans, La. (1971).
20. Bourgoyne, A. T., Rizer, J. A., and Myers, G. M.:
"Porosity and Pore Press ure Logs," The Drilling
Contractor (MayJune 1971) 36.
21. Campbell, J. M., and Mitchell, B. J.: "Effect of
Tooth Geometry on Tooth Wear Rate of Rotary Rock
Bits," paper presented at API MidContinent District
Spring Meeting (March 1959).
22. Hebert, W. E., and Young, F. S., Jr.: "Estimation of
Formation Pressure with Regression Models of
Drilling Data," ]. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1972) 915.
23. McLean, R. H.: "Velocities, Kinetic Energy and
Shear in Crossflow Under ThreeCone Jet Bits,"
]. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1965) 14431448; Trans., AIME,
Vol. 234.
Eq. A·l can be checked for validity in a given
formation type at each depth at which data have
been collected. 1£ we define the residual error of
the ith data point, ri' by
bit weight per inch of bit diameter at
which the bit teeth would fail instan
taneously, 1,0001b/in.
optimum bit weight per inch
threshold bit weight at which the bit
begins to drill, 1,000 lb/in.
normal compaction drilling parameter
undercompaction drilling parameter
pressure differential drilling parameter
bit weight drilling parameter
rotary speed drilling parameter
tooth wear drilling parameter
bit hydraulics drilling parameter
the apparent viscosity at 10,000 secI,
cp
mud density, lb/gal
equivalent circulating mud density at
the hole bottom, lb/gal
bearing constant or Ii fe of bearings at
standard conditions, hours
formation abrasiveness constant or life
of teeth at standard condi tions, hours
= overbar, designation of mean
P
Pc
(W/d)opt
(W/d)t
(W/d)max
380
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM E'iGI:iEERS JOrR:iAL
a.x.
J J
a
7
h
e dt. . . .(B2a)
6
Exp(a
1
+ E
j=2
=
OPTIMIZAnON OF BIT WEIGHT
AND ROTARY SPEED
=
=
APPENDIX B
TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE
The cost per foot can be expressed by
then Eq. B2a becomes
The footage drilled, f\,.D, can be obtained from Eq. 1:
If the symbol] 1 is used to represent a function of
bit weight per inch, W/d, and rotary speed, N,
which is defined by
dO
1n
dt
= E
n
2
d E r.
dr.
i=1
n
E 2r.
=
da. d a.
i=1
J J
n
= E 2r.x. = 0
i=1
J
2
a
1
EX
2
+ a
2
EX
2
+ a
3
Ex
2
x
3
dO
+ • • • • + aa
Ex
2x a = Ex
2
1n
dt
2
a
1
EX
3
+ a
2
Ex
3
x
2
+ a
3
EX
3
dO
+ • • • • + aa
Ex
3
x
a = Ex
3
1n
dt
for j = 1, 2, 3, ... 8. Thus, the constants al through
as can be obtained by simultaneously solving the
n
system of equations obtained by expanding 2 ,.X.
n i=l t ,
for j = 1, 2, 3, ... 8. Expansion of .2 'ix,' yields
z=l
liD = ....(B2b)
The toothwear equation can be rearranged to
yield
+ • • •
a
2
EX
a
X
2
+
2
• + aaExa
dt =
max
W
d
 4
dt = J (1 + H
2
h) dh. (B3b)
then Eq. B3a becomes
 4
max
w w
(d)  d
max
• (1 + H
2
h) dh .. (B3a)
=
If the symbol h is used to represent a second
function of bit weight per inch, W/d, and rotary
speed, N, which is defined by
dO 2'
 (1n) ]
dt C
G =
.......(A3)
When any of the regression constants are assumed
to be known, the corresponding terms a
j
x j can be
moved to the left side of Eq. AI and the previous
analysis applied to the remaining terms.
The final correlation is checked for accuracy using
the regression index of correlation G, given by
AUGUST.1974 381
The pressure drop across the bit, /),Pb, is related
to the pump pressure, P
p
' and the flow rate, q, by
Combining Eqs. B2b and B3b gives
h a h
60 = J
1
J
2
!o e 7 (1 + H
2
h) dh
. . . . (B4a)
=
m
P
p
 K
2
q . . . (C2)
Integrating Eq. B3b gives Combil}ing Eqs. 8, C1, and C2 gives
a
P
.75 a 2
[350 llK] [Pq
1
0.25a
a
K qrn+2] ...(C3)
2
=
=
Combining Eqs. B1, B4a, and B4b gives
C
r
. [
f.(1+H
2
h)dh
J ]
1
a( agxg)
Taking e = 0 and solving yields
aq
2Ppq  (rn+2) K2qm+1 = 0 .. (C·4)
Thus,
2P
p
 (rn+2) 6P
d
= O.
Substituting the parasitic pressure drop for K
2
qm
gIves
Taking (aCj)/[a(W/d)] = 0 and solving yields
W
a 
APPENDIX D
Taking (aCj)/(aN) = 0 and solving yields
C
b
H
1
( + tt + t ) (1 ) +J
2
!(1
C
r
c a
6
=
2P
Eo
rn+2
..........(C5)
+ H
2
h) dh = O· .... .(B6)
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF OPTIMUM
BIT WEIGHT, ROTARY SPEED, AND
BIT HYDRAULICS
6.0
1.0
12.0
400
500
9.875
13
4.0
100
T6
0.5
Eq. 13, which defines (W/d)o t' is obtained by
. 1 1 . p
Simu taneously so ving Eqs. B5 and B6. Eq. 14,
which defines bit life, tb' is obtained by solving
either Eq. B5 or Eq. B6 for h JO+H
2
h)dh. Eq.
15, which defines the optimum rotary speed, is
obtained by integrating Eq. B3a and assuming
complete tooth wear.
APPENDIX C
OPTIMIZATION OF BIT HYDRAULICS
Inspection of Eq. 1 reveals that by maximizing
agxg . . d
the term e , penetration rate will be maXimIze .
The nozzle diameter, d
n
, is related to the flow
rate, q, by the orifice equation
OPTIMUM BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED
Required Data
Trip time, hours
Connection time, hours
Rotating time, hours
Bit cost, dollars
Rig cost, dollars/hour
Bit diameter, in.
Bit class
Bit weight, 1,000 lb/in.
Rotary speed, rpm
Tooth wear
(Wld)t, 1,000 lb/in.
From regression analysis, al = 3.0, a
2
= 0.0002,
a3 = 0.002, a4 = 0.00004, as = 1.2, a6 = 0.6, a7 =
0.9, as = 0.4.
=
2 0.25
K
1
(Cl)
Solution
1. Calculate formation abrasiveness constant
using Eg. 10:
382
OF PETROLEI'" E'iCI'iEERS JOCR'iAL
7,000
10
9
900
=
From Table 3, HI = 1.84, H
2
= 6, H
3
= 0.8, (Wld)max
=8.0.
T/I = (0.8) (1)1.84 (1) 1 + 3 (12)
0.75 + 3(.563)
100
[
15.7 (8  6.40)J
O
•
543
Nopt =
16.1 (8  4.00)
Nopt = 60 rpm.
ALTERNATE SOLUTION
A costperfoot table (see Table 8) for this example
problem was generated using the Fortran IV program
below. The program solves Eqs. 13 through 15b in
an iterative manner.
Additional data:
Depth, ft
Mud densi ty, lb/gal
Pore pressure gradient, lb/gal
Jet impact force, lb
OPTIMUM HYDRAULICS
T/I = 15.7 hours.
3. Calculate the expected bit life using Eq. 13:
Thus a Class 11 bit operating at standard condi
tions should last 15.7 hours in this type of formation.
2. Calculate the optimum bit weight using Eq. 13:
Pump Pressure
(psig)
650
225
3,000
9.6
121212
2,800
900
RequiTed Data
Maximum desirable flow rate, gal/min
Minimum desirable flow rate, gal/min
Maximum desirable pump pressure, psig
Mud density, lb/gal
Bit nozzles, 32nd
Flow Rate
(gal/min)
485
247
1.2 (1.84)(8.0) + 0.6(0.5)
1.2 (1.84) + 0.6
6,400Ib/in.
(Wld)opt =
(Wi d)opt =
tb = (400 + 6 + 1) (3.07  1)
500
t b = 16.1 hours.
4. Calculate the optimum rotary speed USlllg
Eq. 13:
Solution
1. Calculate pressure drop through bit at each
flow rate. Subtract the pressure drop through the bit
from the pump pressure to get total parasitic
pressure drop at each flow rate.
PF!\L Jl.J2.N.A(f3) .C(
DATI\ A /j.0.0.:.
1
C02.0.C::l2.C.OOC04,I .2.0.6.::>.9.0.4/
I.) 1\ T A \If) T .NI) M • HI. H 2. H 3 • T A UH/!) .5. (3.0 .1 .84. 6.!). 0 • f3 • 1:J .7/
D A T 1\ T T • TC • CR. CF< • 0 , R HO • GP • F J / (, •• 1 • • 0 ') •• 5 '1 'J •• 70 (,0 •• 1 0 •• 9 •• 90 0 • /
DO 50 1=1. 14
WD=1
\lID="'D/? .)+0.5
DO S0 J=I.40
N=J*lC
Jl=FXP(A(l
1 A( 5) *ALOG( (WD'hDT)/(4.""DT) )+A(6) *ALOG( N/IOO. )+A(8 )*ALOG(FJ/IOOO.
;: ) )
J 2 =T 1\ L f j I H 3 * ( (v. D'"  V. 0 ) I ( wn M4 • ) ) *( 1 0 C • / N ) *H 1/ ( 1 • +H;:> / 2 • )
1. fH2/2.)
U::: A(7)/fL?,*SGRT(I.+2.*H2*TP/J2)
CF .::: (C 9 +C R*(T T +T C +T ) / ( J 1 *J 2 *H2 / A ( 7 ) **2 *( 1 • + A ( 7 ) / H2 +( U 1 • ) *
I FXP(A(7)/H2 + 1.;»)
C( I.J )=CF
wI7ITE(6.6J)(
Fr'RMAT( lX.14F9.2)
S TllP
END
AlJCLST.1974
383
3. Read optimum flow rate and parasitic pressure
loss from graph. Calculate nozzle area that will
yield the optimum bit pressure drop.
Flow Pump Bit Parasitic
Rate Pressure Loss Loss
(gal/min) (psig) (psig) (psig)
485 2,800 1,894 906
247 900 491 409
2. Plot parasitic pressure loss vs flow rate (see
Fig. 6). Determine slope, Tll. Calculate the optimum
parasitic pressure loss using Eq. 19 and plot path
of optimum hydraulics.
q = 650
/'I.Pb = 3,000  1,300
nozzle area = 0.47 in.
2
1,700
***
384
=
2p
...:..E.
rn+2
=
2 (3000)
=
1.2+2
1875
SOCIETY OF PETROL}:CM E ~ G I N E E R S JOURNAL
000 0. . > CD CD a. and thus assumes that penetration rate proportional to (W /dt s directly as indicated by several EFFECT OF BIT HYDRAULIC 5.0 2.000 lb per inch of bit diameter._i... a 7 .:5. penetration rate does not vary significantly with tooth wear..EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE ON PENETRATION RATE._ i . 0 (w) d ~_) t . the formation type. (6) The term a4x4 models the effect of pressure differential across the hole bottom on penetration rate.. EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE authors.. rate. has been normalized to equal 1. .0.4 . The term asxs models the effect of bit hydraulics on penetration rate.. . . ... x6 is defined by = In ..· increase (3) an exponential in ?~netratiQn rate with pore pressure gradient..0 for a normally compacted formation at 10.. However those expressions were not ideally suited for the multiple regression analysis procedure used to evaluate the constant a7 from field data. EFFECT OF BIT DIAMETER AND BIT WEIGHT. to a lesser extent. "0 0:: 3. Thus the tooth wear exponent..0 a: o . 0:: . EFFECT OF ROTARY SPEED. .. 1  10..0 OWel1 A21 6Well G21 oWel1 0 21 • Berea 4 . (W / d)1' must be estimated with drilloff tests.1 L1_.4 ... Field data presented by Vidrine and Benit S and by Combs. . ft.. ! 2..000 psi (see Fig. 2). Reported values of the bit weight exponent range from 0. (5) (~) Q t IS is 1 when either h or a7 is zero.. 4 ._.. and the remaining exponents.9 for very soft formations. .6 to 2. 0. Fig. .l. no consistent correlation could be obtained from the available data. xs is defined by = In ( w d 4..1 400 o +400 +800 +1200 I Pressure Differential Into Formation psi EFFECT OF NORMAL COMPACTION ON PENETRATION RATE. Note that the effect of compaction on penetration a x + a3 x 3 . When carbide insert bits are used.S12 Note that the term e a6x6 is normalized to equal 1. 3 shows a typical comparison of the previously published relations and e a7 X7. (7) where h is the fractional tooth height that has been worn away. The threshold bit weight.6 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGIl\"EERS JOURl\"AL 372 .. 0.0 for 100 rpm. o FIG. .. e 2 2 .. 2 . . The exponential nature of the effect of undercompaction on penetration rate is suggested by compaction theory. Previous authors S • 9 have used more complex expressions to model tooth wear. Wid and thus assumes that penetration rate is directly a proportional to N 6 as indicated by several authors.·.. a1 through a6 and as... xs is defined by .0 l: 0.000 ft... 20. so no bit weight term was included in Eq. 69 ( assumes gp 9.0)..01~_I 0.. ..S12 Note that the term e asxs is normalized to equal 1. 12 EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR..L. Reported values of the rotary speed exponent range from 0.000 Vertical Depth. 4..L. . The value of a7 depends primarily on the bit type and. h The term a7x7 models the effect of tooth wear on penetration rate.2 o a: CD .0 r~. N The term a6x6 represents the effect of rotary speed on penetration rate...L.. However.= and thus DO. . > 0 . S.4 and laboratory data presented by Cunningham and Eenink 6 and by Garnier and van Lingen 7 all indicate an exponential relation between penetration rate and excess bottomhole pressure up to about 1. is assumed to be zero. but has not yet been verified experimentally.0 for 4.. (4) c and thus assumes an exponential decrease in penetration rate with excess bottomhole pressure. x7 is defined by = h.. Note that e a7x7 The term asxs models the effect of bit weight and bit diameter on penetration rate.. o ~ 1.4 for very hard formations to 0. are regressed...5 a. x4 is defined by x4 D (g P p). Vidrine and Beni t also noted an apparent relation between the effect of differential pressure on penetration rate and bit weight... FIG. 0 ~ l: 0 1. . ..2 0.""" . .
. 10 &' 6' 0. only eight data points are required 100 max ] (W) d max _~ ..5 power.8 . 0.. This approach was used by Combs4 in his work on the detection of pore pressure from drilling data. Recent developments in onsite well monitoring 1 have made it possible to routinely regress the more complex drilling equation (Eq.4 0.13 373 AUGUST. .000 sec 1. Eckel found that penetration rate was proportional to a Reynolds number group (.4 20 10 8 3i1. The recommended maximum bit weights are based on bearing capacity for milledtooth bits and on cutting structure for insert bits.L. 0. . and (W/d)max depend upon bit type (see Tables 1. 3 Tooth Dullness.) raised fl d n to the 0. Theoretically.I.. A derivation of the multiple regressionanalysis procedure is presented in detail in Appendix A. . h FIG.L.. much of the past work in this area has been hampered by the difficulty in obtaining large volumes of accurate field data and because the effect of many of the drilling parameters discussed above were ignored... Tooth wear was modeled using (W) dh dt = [ d 4 that would result if a Class 1 bit were operated at "standard conditions". a bit weight of 4. 0.e. 0 c:: c:: u :> l. Since fl' the apparent viscosity at 10.0 I 0060. The constants a2 through as are determined through a multiple regression analysis of detailed drilling data taken over short depth intervals..000 lb per inch of bit diameter and a rotary speed of 100 rpm. N75RPM 50 O I I It... For example.6 1. 0 Q) 80 60 40 Gal..2 4060100150 Fractional FIG. .r I PSI' I I 4 6 10 20 1 0.. 4  Reynolds Number Funclion EFFECT OF TOOTH WEAR ON PENETRATION RATE (CHIPPINGTYPE TOOTH WEAR)... 11 is normalized so that the bearing constant Ta is numerically equal to the hours of bearing life that would result if the bit were operated at standard conditions.. 10 1 /2 8 6 ~ 0 ~ a A V I 0.. His recommended maximum bit weights are shown in Table 3.6 . 4. i. . . Eq.0 '_ _.0 r . Note that Eq. DRILLING RATE VS REYNOLDS NUMBER FUNCTION._ _'_ _' 0.. . .. (9) BIT WEAR MODEL In addi tion to a penetration rate model. The idea of using a regression analysis of past drilling data to evaluate constants in a drilling rate equation is not new._ _.1 ':"1 04 0.. Q Diameler ~ 0 0 . and 3) and the abrasiveness constant TH is calculated from a dull bit grading (see example of Appendix D).0 0. MUL TIPLE REGRESSION TECHNIQUE Eqs.= pq 350 11d n (8) Ta is calculated from a dull bit grading.!!!!... equations are also needed to estimate the condition of the bit at any time.~:t L . 1). 2. Estes 14 has pointed out that the rate of bit wear will be excessive if too great a bit weight is used.. Bearing wear was estimated using dB dt = where the constant b depends upon bearing type and mud type (see Table 4) and the bearing constant 1.1974 . . field personnel can attach a physical meaning to the bit wear constants and thus more easily detect anomalous bit gradings.. but the constants a2 through as must be determined before these equations can be applied. 10 is normalized so that the abrasiveness factor TH is numerically equal to the hours of tooth life and is based on microbit experiments performed by Eckel.. By normalizing the bit wear equations in this manner.. .... • "11  · · · · o~ c 10 aS: ! .0 2 WIOOO Lb. H3 .. it was proposed by Graham and Muench lO in 1959 in one of the first papers on drilling optimization.c .2 6 4 2 +.. is not routinely measured and recorded it must be estimated using the relation = 11 P + T Y /20 . (10) where the constants HI./Min.I. Likewise... .. 1 through 7 define the general functional relations between penetration rate and the other drilling variables.._ _..6 0.8 1..2 0. However. H2 . 13 As shown in Fig.
I 2 3 6 .7 5.2 3·3 41 Insert 1.0 10.6 6.36 0. MURPHY "S't "5 Gil "G" '1" GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL STO SM ITH 11'1 I'GII 115 11 IISG" GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL I ..8 5.0 6. TABLE 2 Bit Class RECOMMENDED TOOTH WEAR PARAMETERS FOR ROCK BITS HI Hz 7 6 5 4 3 2 (W/dl max 1·1 to 1·2 1.TABLE 1  ROCK BIT CLASSIFICATION GUIDE (AFTER ESTESI4).I 2 8 . 5.9 4.90 2.0 10.2 7.2 6.4 4. in practice this is true only if Eq.I S3S S3 S4 S6 M4N M4L H7 H7U HC S3T S4T S33S OSC3A S33 OSC3 S4TG S44 OSCIG CIC S6G OSC M4NG M44N OW4 OWV M4LG M44L OWC OOG OOV XOG XOV YT3A Y13 YT3T YTIA YTlT YSI YM S13A S13 YTIAG YSIG YMG YHG YHWG SB7 YBVG OS OT SHAG OG K2 SSIG V2 SMG 2 FHGlJl L4 SHG W4 on OGT OGH K2H V2H T2H L4H W4H WCH SOS SOT SOG I SOGH I I SVH xv XC X7 X7R XWR SV I SL4 SL4H H7T H7TG H77 W7 H7UG H77U W7R2 H7SG H77S HCG H77C WR W07 X07 YH YHW J8 J08 YBV WOR XOR lIJ" FVlJl SBVG WC SBV IlJ" SWS SWCH tis" REG.I 2 7 .8 3.0 8.1 2 3 4 2.0 4.8 5.65 1. SEAL JOURNAL "11J" FC "S" REG.6 6.8 5. DRESSER .0 9.9 6. journal bearing bits are 10 to 12 percent higher.7 4.80 SOCIETY OF PETROI. but also on the range of values of the drilling parameters x2 through xs' Table 5 summarizes the recommended minimum ranges for each of the drilling parameters and the recommended minumum number of data points to be used in the analysis. 5.5 2 . DEVIATION CONTROL BITS: OBSOLETE TYPES NOT L1STEO MAY ALSO BE AVAILABLE IN SOME SIZES.4 7.I INSERT CLASS 5 . 374 Seal ed 1. it never happens.4 4.0 7.9 8.4 SMITH BHOJ OJ ORESSER OM 53SJ OS INOICATES A JOURNAL BEARING MILLTOOTH BIT. not Nonsealed bearing capacity.4 10% 12 I. NOTES: (j) CLASS: D.84 1.7 6.48 0.26 0.9 3.1 3.1 8.0 7.8 3.02 7.50 1.60 1.2 4.6 7..6 4.4 6.55 2.5 7.5 5.5 4.70 1.1 5.50 2 2 1 1.0 5.0 7.3 7. When any of the drilling parameters.5 3.8 7.SECUR ITY MILL"5 ''T'' "G" TOOTH STO GAGE GAGE SEAL STO CLASS 11 HUGHES IIG" I'SII "SG" IIJ" 'I" GAGE GAGE SEAL SEAL BEAR STO X3A X3 XIG G..7 4. When only a few data points are used in the analysis of field data.5 5.0 8.90 1.7 9.0 10.0 See Table 3 TABLE 3  MAXIMUM DESIGN WEIGHT ON BIT. bit maximums are based on cutting structure.I 2 3 3 .04 2.1 7 'Ie 6.80 1.25 1.15 17 V.* INSERT BITS** 1.00 1.3 to 1·4 2·1 to 2·2 2·3 3.5 6.5 8.5 9.3 7. A sensitivity study of the multiple regressionanalysis procedure indicated that the number of data points required to give meaningful results depends not only on the accuracy of Eq.1 2 3 4 . 1 models the rotary drilling process with IOOpercent accuracy. SEAL FBC FBCT FBCS5 FBCMS FBCM "J" SEGMENT J33 X44R X55R RG7X RGIX RG2BX J44 J55C J55R YC5G YC4G J88 YC2G SCS5 SCMS SCM SCHS SCH SC4G SCG SC2G FCT FCS5 FCM5 FCM FCH5 FCH FCH4 FCH2 3JS 4JS 47JS 5JS 7JS 8JS 9JS SS3 SS4 SS47 SS5 SS7 FBCHS 5 FBCH 7 FBCH4 8 FBCH2 9 SS9 THE ABOVE TYPES ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN POPULAR SIZES. 115 SEAL 11 "SH REG.3 . 76 1.4 14'.0 3.5 4.2 7.4 4. CLASS 0 BITS ARE TWOCONE.ElTM E:'\GI:'\EERS JOUR:'\AL .9 to solve for the eight unknowns a 1 through as. 6.7 5.20 0.0 4. However. **Insert.1 7..2 4..1 6.9 5.0 3.5 3.6 8.5 6.5 10.2 I .7 6.0 10.18 0.4 7. 1. (AFTER ESTESI4) BIT CLASSSUBCLASS Bit 2·1 Size 1· 1 1·2 1·3 1·4 2·2 2·3 3 .1 5.I I .7 7.3 3. 5. 5.0 6.4 3.2 6. Needless to say.I 2 9 .0 8.8 9 'Ie 6.6 8'.7 7..000 LB/IN.5 4.5 4. 4 5 6 6 lie 5.00 0.8 5.0 6'.6 5.2 5. SEAL S84 S86 S88 M88 H8 HID H88 HIOO 55R RG7 RG2B REG.60 0.2 8. W.7 5.6 7.6 4.1 6.80 0.RECOMMENDED BEARING WEAR PARAMETER FOR ROCK BITS (AFTER MARATIERIZ) Bearing Type Drilling Fluid Barite mud Sulfide mud Water Clay mud Oil base mud 6.9 7. Xj' have been held essentially constant through the interval analyzed.0 7 8 9 5. a value for the corresponding regression TABLE 4 . even negative values are sometimes calculated for one or more of the regression constants.1 4.8  b *Sealed bearing bits are 8 to 10 percent lower.
4 16.2 17.6 16.130 10.5 17.94 2 6 5 x 10 a .9 15.57 0.0 9.constant.7 16. As the number of drilling parameters included in the analysis are decreased.7 9.07 3.69 1.748 0.8 9.8 15. the first of the eight equations defined in Appendix A is given by na 1 + a EX 2 + a 3 EX 3 + a 4 EX 4 2 + as Ex S + a EX + a EX 7 6 7 6 + as Ex S = E In dt dD TABLE 5  RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DATA RANGES FOR REGRESSION ANALYSIS Minimum* Thus.2 16.000 15.2 27.993 1.31 2.960 11.5 16.7 9.5 6.03 1.35 2.819 0.060 20.26 2.50 0.7 16.827 0.802 0.350 15. Note that the primary drilling variables required for the regression analysis are depth.47 3.76 3.40 0. bit weight per inch of bit diameter.000 15. rotary speed.221 1.0 19.325 17.984 0.4 15.201 0. 161 0.) 2. using the 30 data points of Table 6 equation yields In this Parameter Range 2.964 0.3 as SS *Maximum observed value less included in regression analysis.83 2.12 0.1 17. In many applications.2 16. A depth interval of 2 to 5 ft was found to give representati ve data and still keep the volume of data required within reasonable limits.76 2.58 1.7 38.976 0.04 1.3 17.0 17.0 18.3 11.40 0.46 0.4 9.8 16.5 9.27 0.419 1.41 Rotary Speed (rpm) 113 126 129 87 78 81 81 67 65 69 77 58 67 84 69 85 77 75 76 81 75 64 76 75 85 78 80 81 65 60 Tooth Wear 0.6 14.475 11.OOOlb/in. the minimum number of data points required to calculate the remaining regression constants is also decreased (see Table 5).4 a = 6  12 a 7 6.150 1.3 9.2 9.6 15.964 0.2 16.1 16.82 3.0 22.12 0.976 0.4 13.7 9.2 16.984 0.11 2.08 0.3 16.775 11 .8 12. 15 0. The penetration rate. data from more than one well had to be combined in order to calculate all eight regression constants. When the resulting system of eight equation IS solved for the eight unknowns.17 0.0 13. 185 1.48 3.5 16.055 13.8 9.0 9.975 13. aj' should be estimated from past studies and the regression analysis should be carried out for the remaining regression constants.76 3.29 0.9 13. bit weight.61 0.830 10.272 0.5 9. and pore pressure gradient.000 0.81 0.89 x 10 5 a + 0.33 0.0 14. the parameters x 2 through Xs must be calculated using Eq.6 15.940 12.932 0.72 0.56 1.82 1.81 0. Reynolds number parameter.6 16.5 21. al TABLE 6  EXAMPLE DATA FOR MUL TIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS (Taken in shale. Offshore Louisiana area) Drilling Rate (ftlhr) 23.532 0.0 10.161 1.5 9.250 13.840 10.9 17.695 14.455 14.0 9.50 Number of Parameters Minimum Number of Points 30 25 20 15 10 7 4 observed value 30 a 1 8 7 6 0.7 14.010 14.38 0. the constants.575 10.9 16.0 16.6 9.77 0.515 9.2 0. Field data taken in shale in an offshore Louisiana well are shown in Table 6.3 15. To calculate the best values of the regression constants a 1 through as using the data shown.0 13.15 0.7 Pore Gradient (Ib/gal) 9.878 0. mud density.1 12. fractional tooth wear.670 0.740 16.8 16.69 2.43 0.250 10.8 16.0 14.00 2.2 9.29 2.0 9.5 10.56 0.6 17.63 1.6 375 13 15 18 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 34 40 0.7 16.6 43.7 20.12 2.060 11. Eight equations with the eight unknowns al through as can then be obtained from x2 through Xs using the procedure described in Appendix A.852 0.74 0.9 17.20 0.0. and rotary speed should be monitored over shorr depth intervals to insure that most of the information recorded is representative of a single type of formation.01 Reynalds Number Function Data Entry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 AUGUST.8 10.02 1.315 12.5 16.795 14.1 14.878 0.8 9.50 0.1 19.512 .4 12.0 Bit Weight (l.900 12.887 0. For example.070 12.905 15.390 10.60 1. 2 through 8 for each data entry.2 16.1974 Depth (ft) 9.35 2.7.500 10.265 Bit Number 7 8 9 11 12 ECD (Ib/gal) 9.42 0.748 0.5 31.95 1.36 x 10 a 4 3  5 4 3 2 minimum 20 a 5 .91 0.38 0.2 16.7 9.16 0.8 16.73 0.1 9.0 16.24 0.29 0.4 42.20 0.155 16. penetration rate.0 9.31 0.984 0.
however.000 10.S. and rotating time.000 12. However. Results obtained for shale using several other wells in the same general offshore Louisiana area are also shown in Table 7 for comparison.21 0. .10* (l0.28 0. .61 0.5* 0.500 9.82 0.3 ) 0. rotary speed.62 aS 0.23 0. only a limited number of drilling variables can be handled using formal mathematical optimization procedures. A recent paper by Reed 1 ? indicates a difference of less than 3 percent in the cost per foot between the variable weightspeed and constant weightspeed schedules for the cases studied. . The cost equation assumed is given by the use of such systems is prohibited by economics. OPTIMAL DRILLING The term "drilling optimization" was applied first to procedures for selecting jet bit hydraulics.20 0. Combining Eq.25 0. t t' the connection time. Wells 2 and 3 of Table 7 were drilled from the same platform. CI .18 0. rotary speed. C" the trip time.x.33 2. and Eq.000 9.2 0. hole washout problems.72 0. (14a) Thus risk factors.50 0.09 3. in many cases. /}. .43 0. (13) a a7 • Exp ( H2 + U)] ] = Cb + Cr(tt + t c + ~) 6D (12) 6 = Exp L: a.37 0.04b) As discussed in a previous paper.3* 0. Drilling variables not included in Eq.43 0. could be expressed in terms of the bit cost.91 1.000 14.000 20.000 (l0.000 11.61 0.000 15.22 *Volue assumed rather than calculated because carresponding drilling parameter did not vary Over a wide enough range to be included in the regression onalysi s.21 0. .90 (l0.41 0. These limitations should be kept in mind when using the optimization equations listed below. tb' = C r [J J where 1 2H 2 .43 1.25 0.5* 0.16 optimum bit weight and rotary speed can be determined automatically at the well site with a computerized drilling control system.85 0.15 0.9 and recently has been used to refer to a broad plan for the selection of mud types and mud properties. and' casing types and setting depths. . The term was later expanded to include procedures for selecting bit weight and rotary speed. . 1 are the assumptions that rollertype rock bits are used and that bit balling does not occur.4 ) 0. 1.5* 0. 376 3.40 0. 1 are presented in this paper for the optimization of bit weight.52 0. 1 such as mud type and percent solids were also ignored.3) 0.17 0. j=2 J J .5* 0.62 06 07 08 0. an integrated form of Eq. BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED = .89 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL . U TABLE 7 Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RESUL TS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR GULF COAST AREA 02 03 04 01 Depth Range 9.16 0.94 0.20* 0. Galle and Woods 9 have reported that the simpler constant weightspeed schedule results in only slightly higher costs per foot. C b . and jet bit hydraulics. . N.3* 0.78 3.52 0.000 13.48 0. Equations derived from the drilling model of Eq.000 14. . It was assumed in the derivation that the drilling cost per foot. t c ' the drilling time. . The derivations of the optimization equations are given in Appendixes Band C. 12 leads to the following expression for cost per foot for a given bit weight per inch of bit diameter. W/ d.20 0. 11.000 14.18 0.through as. bit types and operating conditions. . Also inherent in the use of Eq. tb' and the footage drilled.46 0. Previous authors have published techniques for computing a variable bit weight and rotary speed schedule as well as the best constant weightspeed schedule.05 0. and variable pump costs were ignored.000 9.D. 2 a 7 [1 + 7 (U1) H2 + .50* 0.55 3.5* 0. given for Well 1 in Table 7 are obtained.3* 0. the hourI y rig cost.71 3.000 16.20 0.1S At present. hole deviation problems.69 2.
. .67 51. The expected bit life is given by ~ = [~ + c r tt + tel [a6 HI 1].80 34. is given by = .51 71.61 52. Nelson lS has shown that the variable operating cost of the pump can be related to the hydraulic horsepower developed by the pump.69 42. .0 3.17 41. In this case. ~P b' is related to the maximum pump pressure.85 40. .0 2. 1 reveals that penetration rate will be a maximum when the term asxs is a maximum.25 79. I 9 7 4 .84 54. is obtained from a bit grading and Eq. . 0 and 0. using a procedure described by Maratier.8 for m. the cost per foot should be computed for a tooth wear. Note that by operating in accordance with Eq. p (19) TABLE 8 .06 47. .68 55.29 $42. TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE where the abrasiveness factor. (W / d)opt.0 $167.88 40. Nopt ' is given by The drilling cost equation shown as Eq. if by optimizing jet bit hydraulics.36 79.83 52. 19 An evaluation of the proposed optimization scheme has indicated that in many cases a considerable 377 A If (.08 34. 19. (15b) 100 N should be used in Eq. . However. . . 10 or 11. the incremental pump operating cost would be only $120. H. .32 $46. . and (3) the best bit weight for a given rotary speed. the smaller of the two rotating times.30 35.84 40.38 53. of both 1. .77 81.54 57. TH. 14c.29 42.70 37. I2 The optimum bit weight per inch of bit diameter.52 68. since the variable pump cost is usually small compared with the hourly rig cost.83 114. (18) = [ . Since this is usually an insignificant portion of the total cost.000 Ib/in.61 35. the jet impact force at the bit as well as the Reynolds number function Xs is maximized. Unfortunately.97 84. 13 through 15b in an i terati ve mann er. For most of the larger rigs.85 53.67 34. 16 through 18 to obtain the optimum bit weight and rotary speed.37 45. . . (17) and the optimum rotary speed.94 95. . When using Eqs.45 59.55 42.01 90. (16) where the constants HI and (W/ d)max are obtained from Table 2 and the constants as and a6 are obtained from the regression analysis. Note that the costperfoot table can be used to quickly identify (1) the best combination of bit weight and rotary speed.52 $103. . this is not a serious limitation.37 39. Pp ' by by = Rotary Speed (rpm) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 :+}. 13 through 14c. (2) the best rotary speed for a given bit weight. using Eqs.51 37. the optimization of jet bit hydraulics is essentially achieved by maximizing the penetration rate.36 32.48 40. OPTIMUM HYDRA ULIes Relatively simple analytical equations for the best constant weight and rotary speed were derived (see Appendix B) for the case in which tooth wear limits bit life. .48 $56. Theoretical considerations indicate a value of 1.0 5. Inspection of Eq.19 85.95 to insure the validity of the assumption that bit life is limited by tooth wear.77 39.02/hp hr. As shown in Appendix C. lb' is limited by either tooth wear or bearing wear. . However. Thus.92 32.48 43. A costperfoot table for various combinations of bit weight and rotary speed can be generated using Eq. Thus.83 $73. this is achieved by choo sing nozzle sizes and pump' operating conditions so that the pressure drop across the bit. Table 8 is a costperfoot table for an example problem gi ven in Appendix D.0. the variable pump cost is approximately $0.If it is assumed that bit life. .08 81.76 58. simple analytical expressions for the best constant bit weight and rotary speed could not be obtained for the case in which bearing wear limits bit life. lb' given by either N opt = 100 ~ T ( w) d max (W) d opt = or ~ H[(~) max4J 3 .86 44. a costperfoot table should be constructed. an additional 500 hp is required for a 12hour bit run.82 38.96 45.15 79. 10.11 114.68 48.29 102.) 4.65 49. If ST.07 80.37 51.] . .0 6.0 7.56 34. then the rotating time.EXAMPLE COST PER FOOT Bit Weight per Inch of Bit Diameter (1. lb' can be obtained from the integrated forms of Eq. 12 does not properly account for the variable pump cost associated with the optimization of bit hydraulics.39 where m is the slope of a plot of parasitic pressure drop vs flow rate on loglog paper. Scott has recently reported measuring m values as low as 1.
1.2 :::E 1". Thus. i 1=1= fC=f= H't=: ~ ~ ~ t::t~=fCfoI'ud Density Pore Pressore (Sonic) Ofe Pressure (Kp).( 0 1'. Knowing the parastic pressure drop at two rates allows the graphical estimation of the exponent m (see Fig. Since the drillability of a given type of formation is affected by the pressure differential at the bottom of the hole as well as by the effective formation compaction. PORE PRESSURE DETECTION At present.  t~  m: 1.p_p_'e_s_s_u'_e 2Pp ~ . FIG..1= f:'= 0 0 fC10  o 5000 30 00 I_M_ax_. defined by = Log lO (asx s aaxB) ]..\~ f ft 10 50 100 GPM 500 1000 +.::  c: 0:: = :::E. is somewhat analogous to the lCdexponent" developed by J orden and Shirley 11 using a more simplified penetration rate equation. Since the pressure drop at a reduced circulating rate is normally recorded twice a day to aid in "kick" control calculations. 6 DRILLABILITY AND PORE PRESSURE PLOT. This value is in agreement with other reported studies.:. OPTIMUM BIT FIG. 378 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL .+~ o 0 lJ. : ~ :t 'iii '" Co Optimum ni+2 i. The optimum flow rate and pressure drop across the bit can then be calculated with Eq. (20) (The drillability parameter. III III 500 + ~ 0 ~ 1 I Path of Optimum . Estimated reductions in drilling cos t on several wells varied from a few percent to to 30 percent and averaged about 10 percent. must be based on past experience and what is known about the downhole environment. 19. t1=1.. 9. which is based on Eq. The total parasitic pressure los s is then determined as the difference between the standpipe pressure and the pressure drop through the bit. etc. where bit life is limited by tooth wear. 19 The standpipe pressure is measured at both a normal circulating rate and a reduced circulating rate._P_u_m. 1000 ::> ~ a. IS However.sure Plot Hot Wire Gas PressUfe Gradient 8 10 12 H+8 0 t:1. casing points. Hydroulics 0:: 0 ~ LL: 200 . The pore pressure gradient can be related to the drillability parameter. the remalOlng drilling variables cannot be optimized by formal mathematical techniques. Thus the choice of mud properties. troublefree operation is the pore pressure of the formations penetrated. the accuracy of the optimization should systematically improve as experience is gained in an area.. The most important design parameter needed to insure a lowcost. The regression constants and the drilling data are used to compute and plot a drillability parameter. 9. An example bit run optimization is shown in Appendix D.reduction in drilling cost could be achieved by drilling optimization. 5 CALCULA TION OF HYDRAULICS.1 /:=:ll. 1. 6).6 Drillability: and Pore Pr. The pressure drop through the bit is then estimated at both circulating rates using the orifice equation or a Hydraulic Slide Rule. the optimum bit hydraulics can usually be calculated without making any additional measurements..17 because the optimum conditions can be calculated from analytical expressions rather than by trial and error or by involved graphical procedures. . Kp ' in a given type of formation by Fig. As shown in Appendix D.I Flow Rate. K p .. the proposed optimization scheme is much easier to apply than previously published techniques 8 .. a normalized penetration rate log can be used to estimate the formation pressure. Note that the optimum bit weight and rotary speed are very sensitive to the regression constants as and a 6 .) The drillability log is then analyzed to determine the type of formation being drilled. bit type.16. bit hydraulics is optimized using a technique outlined by Scott.
I 9 7.. psi parasitic pressure drop. An example drillability log and pore pressure plot is shown in Fig. 1. N L Industries. In many cases. Also shown for comparison are the pore pressure gradients obtained from a sonic log. hours trip time during bit run. for permission to publish this Ali G [: . hours nonrotating time or connection time. NOMENCLATURE formation strength parameter exponent of the normal compaction trend To smooth out minor lithology variations. a comparison between pore pressure gradients computed from a drillability plot and pore pressure gradients computed from a sonic log yields a standard deviation of about 1. When modern well monitoring equipment is used. gal/min residual for regression analysis n N time.0 Ib/gal. The regression analysis procedure IS more easily applied in young geologic strata such as those on the Gulf Coast. psig pressure drop across the bit. rotary speed. formation types are more easily determined. 1. ft pore pressure gradient of the formation. The response of drillability to an increasing pore pressure should be a maximum in this type of geologic environment because the zones of high pore pressure are undercompacted. A comparison of pore pressures computed from a sonic log yielded a standard deviation of 1. dollars drilling cost per foot drilled. and rotating time weight on bit per inch of bit diameter. and particularly Wesley Carew for his assistance in developing software and preparing data. Inc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank the management of Baroid Div. data must be obtained from more than a single well before all the regression constants can be evaluated.1 Ib/gal after the first well was drilled and a standard deviation of 0. At the present time. bit nozzle diameter. 3.9 Ib/gal after the second well was drilled.\ a function of bit weight per inch. After formation cuttings are obtained at the surface. psi flow rate. since the lithology of this area is relatively simple. dollars/ft cost of rig. In general. In. lb/gal regression index of correlation fractional tooth height worn away constants that depend on bit type summation index for ith data point summation index parameter for frh drilling J a function of bit weight per inch and rotary speed normalized drillability parameter used for graphical presentation K m a constant friction loss flow rate exponent number of data points used in regression analysis rotary speed. We also wish to acknowledge all those who assisted in its preparation. This was observed in Wells 2 and 3 of Table 7. 4. this approach has been tested only in the Gulf Coast area. However. well depth. T. Also. Wid 379 . hours rotating time during bit run. The use of relatively simple drilling optimization equations can reduce drilling costs by about 10 percent. in.. dollars/hour bit diameter. the normalized penetration rate log provides the most current information. 2. undercompaction exponent pressure differential exponent bit weight exponent rotary speed exponent tooth wear exponent hydraulic exponent bearing constant fractional bearing wear cost of bit.= paper. Formation pressure can be estimated from drilling data with a standard deviation of about 1 Ib/gal. the formation pressure is also estimated on the basis of the density of the cuttings. a 25ft average value of pore pressure gradient is usually plotted. As the number of wells drilled in an area increases and the regression constants become better defined. hours u 5. The following conclusions resulted from this evaluation. The new procedure described here was applied on several wells in the Gulf Coast area. 6. rhe accuracy of the pore pressure calculation should improve.0001b/in. a regressional analysis procedure can be used to systematically evaluate many of the constants in the penetration rate equation. rpm pump pressure. rpm optimum rotary speed.
4. 1£ we define the residual error of the ith data point. cp 11.. API (1963) 48. 23. and Prod." ]. 47. 216. Pet. Pet. 1. Pet. and Young. A. H.: "A Monte Carlo Approach to Optimal Drilling. (Jan. Pet. J.: "Laboratory Study of Effect of Overburden. 13. Vol.. Trans.: "The 'Perfect Cleaning' Theory of Rotary Drilling. 232239. D. 8. J. and Shirley. SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM E'iGI:iEERS JOrR:iAL .: "Estimation of Formation Pressure with Regression Models of Drilling Data. Reed. E." ]. 1970). J. Maratier. and Tanner. J. Hebert. 196204. (Oct. Jr. Louisiana State U." Drill. F.: "Microbit Studie s of the Effect of Fluid Properties and Hydraulics on Drilling Rate. Lummus.. J.: "Prediction of Pore Pressure From Penetration Rate. 7. 1966) 13871394. 1972) 423438. Vidrine.: "Recent Developments in OnSite Well Monitoring Systems. A. 225. R L.." ]. A.x. 9. F. Texas Tech U. O. Bourgoyne. La. Campbell. 15." MS thesis.: "Velocities. A. and Muench. K. S.. j=2 J J In dD dt ..." Proc.. optimum bit weight per inch threshold bit weight at which the bit begins to drill.. M. Galle. lb/gal bearing constant or Ii fe of bearings at standard conditions. S. Pet. and Prod. 240. (Nov. Pet. (Oct. Pet. 17.: "Application of Drilling Performance Data to Overpressure Detection. Vol. Vol. Vol. designation of mean SUBSCRIPTS C OB calculated observed REFERENCES 1. Kinetic Energy and Shear in Cross flow Under ThreeCone Jet Bits. AIME. J. AIME. N.. API (1964) 39. New Orleans. (July 1968) 676682. Murray." Trans. Combs. 234. 19. W. Tech. L.: "Phenomena Affecting Drilling Rates at Depth. Baton Rouge. K." paper presented at API MidContinent District Spring Meeting (March 1959). 380 APPENDIX A Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. AIME. G. F. Formation and Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rate of Permeable Formations. Oct. . W.. J. Garnier. 10." Pet. and Woods. . and van Lingen.· ." S'oc. Vol." Drill. J. 1971) 13591367. (Dec.: "Acquisition and Analysis of Data for Optimized Drilling. Graham. ~ = L: a. J. hours = overbar. 917. D.. J. H. the sum of the square of the residuals. 216. J. R. Prac. Trans. L. Tech. J. J.. G. (Nov." Trans. (Nov. 1972) 915. McLean..: "Effect of Tooth Geometry on Tooth Wear Rate of Rotary Rock Bits. Baton Rouge (June 1971). S. F.0001b/in. (A2) then the problem is to select a 1 through a 8 so that for n data points. Tech. B. Tech. Tech. Nelson.. Young. 3..: "Field Verification of the Effect of Differential Pressure on Drilling Rate. j=2 J J (A1) Eq. Jorden.. Pet. Tech.(W /d)max bit weight per inch of bit diameter at which the bit teeth would fail instantaneously.. Estes. 1 yields In dD dt = 8 L: a. 14. E. C. 18. E. 2." ]. Trans. and Cunningham. lb/gal equivalent circulating mud density at the hole bottom. . and Myers. B. AIME. where n is any number greater than 8.: "Optimum Rotary Speed and Bit Weight for Rotary Drilling. Tech. J. Trans. (April 1969) 483496.. Dallas. Young. 12. ]. Prac. Pet.: "What Mud Pump Horsepower Costs.: "Computerized Drilling Control. AIME. R. A.. J. 1959. 16. 246.. Lubbock (April 1972). 1965) 71. M.: "Engineering Design of Drilling Operations. La. 5. W. Second Symposium on Abnormal Subsurface Pore Pressure. Tech. Scott. A. n i=l ~ r?. D. R. AIME (1959) Vol. 1." paper SPE 3530 presented at SPEAIME 46th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE. (J an. ..: "Analytical Determination of Optimum Bit Weight and Rotary Speed Combinations. Cunningham. Rizer. and Mitchell.. Trans." ]. 20.. C. Jr. S. Jr." ]. J. Eckel..: "Selecting the Proper Rotary Rock Bit. N. and Denit. Using The Calculus." Trans.: "Porosity and Pore Press ure Logs. 204. 1962) 12701274.: "Best Constant Weight and Rotary Speed for Rotary Rock Bits. M. normal compaction drilling parameter undercompaction drilling parameter pressure differential drilling parameter bit weight drilling parameter rotary speed drilling parameter tooth wear drilling parameter bit hydraulics drilling parameter the apparent viscosity at 10. J. and Eenink.: "A New Practical Approach to Rotary Drilling Hydraulics. Pet. Eng." paper SPE 1349G presented at SPEAIME 34th Annual Fall Meeting. (Nov." ]. AIME (1959) Vol. H. T. A·l can be checked for validity in a given formation type at each depth at which data have been collected. Edwards. Eng.x. AIME (1955) Vol.. K." Petroleum Short Course. hours formation abrasiveness constant or life of teeth at standard condi tions. 1965) 14431448." ]. (1971). A. 6." The Drilling Contractor (MayJune 1971) 36. J. 1971) 12851293.: "The Effect of Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rates. 22. G. ri' by 8 r. is a minimum.000 lb/in.000 secI. 21. Tech." ]. (April 1967) 541546. 253. (W /d)opt (W /d)t P Pc mud density. Maurer.
N. . B2a becomes liD = . . 2. . . . B3a becomes dt = J 2!~ (1 + H2 h) dh. (B3b) 381 . 2r.(B2b) The toothwear equation can be rearranged to yield W a EX X2 + a 2 d dt = + • • • • + aaExa 2 The final correlation is checked for accuracy using the regression index of correlation G.. 3.. which is defined by (d) w max max  w d 4 (1n~~}]2 . 2.4 max (1 + H h) dh . ~ i=1 ~ da.. ~ i=1 d a. .x.1974 then Eq. for j = 1.(A3) = (~)  When any of the regression constants are assumed to be known. . 3. the corresponding terms aj x j can be moved to the left side of Eq. 8. which is defined by a 1 EX 3 + a 2 Ex x + a EX 2 3 2 3 3 = + • • • • + aa Ex 3 x a = Ex 3 1ndt dO then Eq. . AI and the previous analysis applied to the remaining terms.(B2a) dO + • • • • + aa Ex 2 x a = Ex 2 1n dt If the symbol] 1 is used to represent a function of bit weight per inch.. ~ i=1 J = 0 The cost per foot can be expressed by 1. can be obtained from Eq. Thus. j=2 J J dt e a 7h Ex x 2 3 3 dt. . W/d. and rotary speed.X. Expansion of . and rotary speed. AUGUST. the constants al through as can be obtained by simultaneously solving the system of equations obtained by expanding n = i=l 2 n .n d E r. given by (~) . .. J 2 APPENDIX B n = E dr.. . 8.D. . 1: = Exp(a 1 + = a 1 EX 2 + a 2 EX 2 2 + a E 1n dO 6 E a. . N.' yields z=l The footage drilled.x. (B3a) 2 • (1+H~12) !~ G = (1n) ] dt C dO 2' If the symbol h is used to represent a second function of bit weight per inch.2 'ix. J OPTIMIZA nON OF BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED TOOTH WEAR LIMITS BIT LIFE n = for j = E 2r. t . W/d.. . f\.
B1. Eq.(B6) 2 Eq. B3b gives Combil}ing Eqs. . (B4a) The pressure drop across the bit.(1+H h)dh 2 J aq = 0 and solving yields ] 1 0 and solving yields 2Ppq  (rn+2) K2qm+1 = 0 . in. which defines the optimum rotary speed. AND BIT HYDRAULICS OPTIMUM BIT WEIGHT AND ROTARY SPEED + H h) dh = O· . .25a K qrn+2] 2 Taking a( agxg) a . penetration rate will be maXimIze .75 [350 llK] 1 a a 2 [Pq = C r 0. . as = 0.000 lb/in. 14. .. by the orifice equation Trip time. d n . as = 1. which defines (W/d)o t' is obtained by . . hours Connection time. . (C3) e . and C2 gives = Combining Eqs. = Taking (aCj)/(aN) = 0 and solving yields 2P Eo rn+2 . tb' is obtained by solving either Eq. 15. . is obtained by integrating Eq. . . dollars Rig cost. (rn+2) 6P d = O. . 1 reveals that by maximizing agxg . q. The nozzle diameter. Eq. B2b and B3b gives 60 = J J h a h !o e 7 (1 + H2h) dh 1 2 .+ tt + t ) (1 c C r H1 ) +J 2!(1 a 6 APPENDIX D EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF OPTIMUM BIT WEIGHT. B5 or Eq. . Rotary speed. . Calculate using Eg. is related to the pump pressure. = 0. . . (C5) C b (.Pb. Solution = 2 0. al = 3. a4 = 0. B6 for h JO+H 2 h)dh.00004.0 12. Bit class Bit weight. . /). rpm Tooth wear (Wld)t.002.000 lb/in.0. a7 = 0. . B5 and B6. ROTARY SPEED. and B4b gives P . hours Bit cost.25 K (~) 1 (Cl) 1. . . B4a. by = P p . C1. p Simu1taneously so 1ving Eqs.0 1. .0 100 T6 0. 1.9. a 2 = 0.0002. . dollars/hour Bit diameter.6. 10: formation abrasiveness constant 382 ~OCIETY OF PETROLEI'" E'iCI'iEERS JOCR'iAL .[ Taking (aCj)/[a(W /d)] = f. d the term e . a6 = 0. 1. q. 13. .875 13 4. (C2) Integrating Eq. is related to the flow rate.4. B3a and assuming complete tooth wear.5 From regression analysis.K 2 m q .2. hours Rotating time. 8. Pp ' and the flow rate.Combining Eqs. .0 400 500 9. a3 6. Required Data APPENDIX C OPTIMIZATION OF BIT HYDRAULICS Inspection of Eq. (C·4) W a Substituting the parasitic pressure drop for K 2 qm gIves 2P p Thus. which defines bit life.
gal/min 225 Maximum desirable pump pressure.6.N.75 + 3(. the optimum rotary speed USlllg 4.0) + 0.A(f3) .1 .6 Bit nozzles. Calculate Eq.400Ib/in.0 .) A(7)/fL?. 3.0.6~*(GP9. 0 ) I ( wn M4 • ) ) 1 0 C • / N ) ~. 13 through 15b in an iterative manner. Additional data: Depth. psig 3. 2. lb/gal 10 Pore pressure gradient. lb/gal 9.5.NI) M • HI.)+A(4)*D*(GPRHO)+ 1 A( 5) *ALOG( (WD'hDT)/(4. H3 = 0.D)+A(3)*D**O.1 C02. H 2 = 6. (3.2) S TllP END AlJCLST.9.1 • ) * wI7ITE(6.84.0.2 (1.84)(8.1 (8 .!). (Wld)max A costperfoot table (see Table 8) for this example problem was generated using the Fortran IV program below. 13: (Wld)opt (Wi d)opt = = 1.8. Subtract the pressure drop through the bit from the pump pressure to get total parasitic pressure drop at each flow rate.84.C.: ) ) J2 =T 1\ L f Tll=J2~'( U::: I H3 v.0.4. 14 \lID="'D/? .5 DO S0 J=I. 1.14F9. PF!\L DATI\ I.2 (1.C( 1{~.000 Mud density. Calculate the expected bit life using Eq. •• 1 • • I~ 0 ') •• 5 '1 'J •• 70 (. HI = = 8.84 (1) 1+3 (12) 0. H 2.)+0.0.C::l2. 13: tb = (400 + 6 + 1) (3.:.7 hours.6 6.6J)( Fr'RMAT( lX.1) Maximum desirable flow rate. Calculate the optimum bit weight using Eq. Calculate pressure drop through bit at each flow rate.0.563) T/I = 15.J2.84) + 0. fH2/2.5) 1. lb 900 OPTIMUM HYDRAULICS T/I = (0. C F< • 0 .8) (1)1.*SGRT(I. The program solves Eqs.7 (8 . ALTERNATE SOLUTION From Table 3.::: (C 9 + C R T T + T C + T ~l) ) / ( J 1 I FXP(A(7)/H2 + 1. RequiTed Data Thus a Class 11 bit operating at standard conditions should last 15.+2.. 32nd 121212 Flow Rate Pump Pressure (gal/min) (psig) 485 2.) Jl.») C( I.J )=CF *( * J 2 *H 2 / A( 7) ** 2 *( 1 • + A ( 7 ) / H 2 +( U. .2.N opt = O 543 100 [ 15.40 N=J*lC Jl=FXP(A(l )+A(2)*(lOCOO.0. 0 • f3 • 1:J . 13: 1.1974 383 . ft 7. lb/gal 9 Jet impact force.4/ \If) T .*H2*TP/J2) j *(( *( *H 1 / ( 1• + H.6(0.40)J • 16.800 247 900 Solution 500 tb = 16. 6.40) 1\ T A D A T 1\ A /j.0 •• 1 0 •• 9 •• 90 0 • / DO 50 WD=1 1=1. 1. H 3 • T A UH/!) .000 Mud densi ty.I .:> / 2 • ) C F .6.07 . gal/min 650 Minimum desirable flow rate.7/ T T • T C • CR.""DT) )+A(6) *ALOG( N/IOO. R HO • G P • F J / (.7 hours in this type of formation.1 hours.::>.OOC04. D '" .00) = N opt = 60 rpm. )+A(8 )*ALOG(FJ/IOOO.V.
Calculate nozzle area that will yield the optimum bit pressure drop.000 .894 906 485 247 491 409 900 2.Pb nozzle area = = = 650 3. 2p = 2 (3000) = 1.. Read optimum flow rate and parasitic pressure loss from graph..300 0. q /'I. Determine slope.. 19 and plot path of optimum hydraulics.700 *** = rn+2 .47 in. 2.E.1. Calculate the optimum parasitic pressure loss using Eq.Flow Rate (gal/min) Pump Pressure (psig) Bit Loss (psig) Parasitic Loss (psig) 3. 6).2+2 1875 384 SOCIETY OF PETROL}:CM E~GINEERS JOURNAL . Plot parasitic pressure loss vs flow rate (see Fig.:. 2 1. Tll.800 1.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.