.

PETROLEUM

TRANSACTIONS

Microbit Studies of the Ef~ jet of Fluid Properties and

Hydraulics on Drilling Rate
JOHN R. ECKEL
MEMBER AIME

ESSO PRODUCrlON
HOUSTON, TEX.

ABSTRACT

co.

RESEARCH

100

It has Iong been known that mud properties a#ect drilling rare and that drilling with water is as much as SIXto
seven times jr.mter than with mud. However, it is not known
why drilling rates wfth mud are lower, Recent studies
show what jiuid properties govern tnicrobit drilling rate
mid also provide a quantitative correlation of titese jiuid
[~roperties and hydraulics with tnicrobit drilling rate.
All tire microbit tests reported in this paper wet-e made
Iti//l a low petvtreabi!ity (about 10 tnd) Iintestone. They
were conducted at constant bit we!gilt and rotary speed
witit
varying jiwid properties, fio w rate Q and nozzie di(Inletm d. Titc tests showed timt {1) driiling rate in a ~~iven
system with con$tatzt circulating rate and nozzle veIocity
is a function of the kinematic viscosity [viscosity/densiry,
IL
(cp)/ p (density.)1 of tile driliing fluid meusured at near hi
nozzle shear rates; (2) tite combined effect oj jiuid properties and hydraulics on tnicrobit drilling rate is defined by
a Reyttolds nuinber function (kQp/ alp); (3) jor the same
kinetnatic viscosity, drilling rate is independent of solids
COllItItt;
and (4) for tile same kinematic viscosity, driiiing
rate is independent t of j?uid loss.

90 -.-1-.

Y
-~>-..

80 --:..
7*

.. . ... .......

100

0
x

,- ....-

..-...:. .... ..
I
---

60 -- -:---

c
0;

..-

WATER = 100%
--- i____ :. ___
[

10
11 1
MUD WEIGHT - LB/GAL

CONVENTIONAL

JET NOZZLES

FLUID COURSES

fRC)MREF1,

INTRODUCTION
The fact that mudding up reduces rate of penetration
is well known, but the reduction varies from well to well.
The rate with mud maybe 80 percent of the water rateor
it may be as low as 15 percent. Since this reduction of up
to seven-fold takes place under conditions of constant bit
weight, rotary speed and mud circulating rate in a uniform
formation, it can only be a result of the change in fluid
properties.
Previous work- (both in field tests and in laboratory
microbit tests) showed that drilling rate with mud is lower
than with water (Figs. 1 and 2). Mlcrobit test6 also confirm, at least qualitatively, the field observation that drilling rate slows with increased pressure differential from
borehole to formation (Fig. 3). The qualitative effect of
drilling rate of bit weight, rotary speed and rate of mud
circulation are also the same for the field and microbk
rig. For these reasons, the industry generally accepts microbit results as being qualitatively meaningful in terms
of field application.
Orbrinai xnanuecrlpt received in Society

Petroleum Englneem Offfce

July 2% 196& Revised manuscript received Feb. 2, 1967. Paper (SPE
1620) W% meaented at SPE 41st find
~~1 M=tinS held in D~l*I
lkx., Oct. 2-6, 1966. @kwrfght
1967 Amerkan Institute of bfin!.m?,
Bfetaiiuwkal,
and P.rtdeum Ehr@neers, Inc.
%eferenoee given at end of paper.
Discussion of thfs and all following technical papers is invited. Dkcussion in writing (time copies) may be cent tn the office of the
Jourd of Petroleum Teehnehw. Any dlscussiOn offered aftir ~.
W
1967, should Im in the form of a new Paper, No diecudon should exceed 10 p-srcent of the manuscript being diseumed.
APRIL,

1967

of

SHALE

WELL A

II
WELL C

WELL B

FIG. 1FIELD TEST DATA SIiow] NC EFFECTOF MUD ON

DRILLINGRATL

g
x

110_______

. .. .... ...-=..-..

,
0 *
S g

._..

Ob

:.0,.,0.:.0..

. ..*-

4(J . !. _. _.. .

STORMER VISCOSITY - CPS

FIG. 2LABORATOiiY
DATA SHOWINCEFF.SCTor MUD ON
DiWLLINCRATE.

Although not recognized at the time of these previous

field tests, the degree to which mud affected drilling rate
was also related to bit hydraulics, since the reduction due
to mud was less with jet than with conventional bits (Fig.
1). While early microbit work at atmospheric pressure
showed the effect of viscosity on cleaning and drilling
rate (Fig. 2), it could shed no light on the long-held belief in the field that fluid loss was a property significantly
affecting penetration rate. Tests to determine the effect of
fluid loss on drilling rate required laboratory equipment
which would reproduce the press~re environment of a
rock being drilled at depth, including the differential from
the borehole into the formation.
About 12 years ago Humble Oil & Refining Co. built
the first microbit rig that would suitably simulate the
down-hole environment and used it to study the effect of
pressure on rock drillability.z These tests showed that differential pressure across the borehole was the only pressure
strongly affecting rock drillability. The effect of this pressure differential on drilling rate at constant overburden
and hydrostatic pressures is shown in Fig. 3. An improved
microbit rig (Figs. 4A, B and C) was built during 1963.
This rig was used to determine the effect on drilling rate
of tluid properties (filtration, density, viscosity) under constant mechanical and environmental conditions, and then
to determine the interaction of fluid properties and hydraulics.

(A)

LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURE

Because a large quantity of uniform rock was required
for the microbit tests, a quarry stone, Indiana (Bedford)
lime, was selected. Permeability of this rock is about 10
md. It was felt that if laboratory results showed PO effect
on drilling rate due to fluid loss in a rock of this permeabilityy, the results would be applicable to most field drilling
situations since most of industry drilling costs are incurred
in drilling formations with even lower permeability. Any
fluid loss effect should be greater in 10-md rock than
rocks of Iower permeability.
Samples were prepared by the procedure described in
Ref. 2, except that in our tests the saturating fluid was 3
percent salt water. A relatively high differential pressure
(500 psi) between the borehole and the rock was selected
to maximize filtration effec~ the over-balance carried in
routine field operations is 500 psi or less. For these tests,
the bh weight and rotary speed were arbhrily
selected,
but held constant; weight W was 1,000 lb and speed N
was 75 rpmfor all tests reported here.
Most of the tests were made at acirculating rate Qof
3.5 gallmin using nozzles with a diameter d of % in.
Later tests were also run at 8, 10,5 and 16 gal/rein with

!:-

P, =OVERBURDEN PRESSURE =3000 PSI

12 PH=MUD COLUMN PRESSURE =300C PSI . .

(B)
n
MUD COLUMN PRESSURE
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE

[
[-

i
1!

-. FORMATION

. .. .

:lQ5KLEd

2000
1500
2500
1000
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE - PSI
(WELL BORE OVER FORMATION PORE)

500

e42

rLccyLND

3000

FXG.3-EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIALPasssuaa ON DEULLINCRATE.

PRESSURE

(c)

Fxc.4-(A)

LABORATOSSY
DRIWNGRIG; (B) LABOFtATORY
DRILLINCRIG; (C) MICROBITDRILLINGCHAMBER.
JOURNAL

OF PESTSIOLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

.
.

both ~8- and Y4 -in. nozzles. Conditions for each point are
shown in the figure legends, Each point plotted is an average of tests in from four to six rock samples to minimize
the effect of variation in rock drillability, Data are summarized in Table 1,
EFFECT

Fluids used were water, water solutions of salts and glycerin, oils and both water-base and oil-emulsion muds. Fluid density varied from 0.803 to 1,42 gin/cc. Vkcosity at
10,000 seconds- ranged from 0.77 to 74.0 cp. The theological meaning of viscosity as used in this report is discussed in Appendix A. Viscosities were measured in a
capillary viscometer.
Tests confirmed the strong influence of viscosity on drilling rate found in earlier tests. 13gs, 5 and 6 show drilling
rate vs kinematic viscosity at 3M and 101/2 gal/rein, respectively. Kinematic viscosity is the viscosity ~ cp of
the fluid under flow conditions divided by density p. A
good experimental correlation between kinematic viscosity
and drilling rate was obtained. Fig. 6 also shows drilling
rate vs Farm apparent viscosity. The correlation here is
fair to poor, indicating that normai Farm measurements of
flow properties made at low shear rates (1,020 seconds-)
do not directly predict drilling rate performance at shear
rates as high as 10,000 to 50,000 seconds-. The correlations obtained in these experiments show that drilling rate
is a specific function of kinematic viscosity, when this viscosity is measured at the proper shear rates. The best shear
rate was determined experimentally and approaches the
nozzle shear rate.
COMBINED EFFECT OF VISCOSITY
AND HYDRAULICS
The correlation of drilling rate and kinematic viscosity
TABLE

Spe%ific
Gravity

0.77
7:.:

:;95
1:06
1.04
0.994
:.::4

2:3
2.3
;::
8.15
;~:

1:16
1,20

1.11
1,19

17:8

1.42

3;:
::

1.21
0,82!5
0.803
::!3;

0:77
2.05
3.45

1:013
1.02
1.025
1.025
;,:::

:$
10.5
11.7
20.0
37.2
41.5
74.0
0.77
Q = 8 gal/rein

1:017
1.013
1.013
0,995

0.995
0.995
APRIL,

1967

m
co

0.77
0.77

1
_

.__._.!

= 29 ..... L~

B IS ..-

.__ .,

17
W = 1000 LB
N =75 RPM .
AP = 500 PSI
3S (3PM

.-.

d = J~8

Ii

OF VISCOSITY

Q = 3.5 gal/rein
API Fluid
Viscosity
at 10,000
Loss
(cc/30 rein)
sec.- (Cp)

25

lLABORATORY

5
g

10 :---

i
~

~- -

.O?..Q :
Oo&

;0

!
q

:.

.UI Oi

01
o

.J . . ...-

I
..1
. . .... . ~.... - ; .__ . .

l,

*
g5

._._:

10

20

\l

:._, .

:....

~.

.. .

-.-&__J

30
40
50
60
KINEMATIC VISCOSITY - CS

FJG, 5DRILLINGRATEvs

..

70

KINEMATIC
VIscosrrv Ar 3!4

80

CAL/MIN.

having been established for constant circulating rate and

nozzle velocity, tests were run at a three-foId increase in
circulation rate. The resulting drillkig rates were the same
as would have been obtained with a three-fold reduction
in viscosity. This indicated that a relationship similar to
the Reynolds number (kQp/dK) might control the conlbined effect of fluid properties and hydraulics on rate of
penetration. Further tests using both the standard %-in.
nozzles at 3% and 101/2 gal/rein and M -in. nozz[es at
these same circulating ratm, plus tests at 8 and 16 gal/rein
with both sets of nozzles, confirmed the empirical correlation with the Reynolds number function. This is shown
in Fig, 7 which is a plot of drilling time vs the Reynolds
number function in rectangular coordinates, and in Figs.
8 and 9 which are plots of drilling rate vs the Reynolds
number function in rectangular and logarithmic coordlnates. Under the weight-speed conditions of these tests
(W = 1,000 lb, N = 75 rpm), maximum cleaning and
rate appear to occur above values of about 90 to 100 for
DRILLING

RESULTS
Q = 10.5 gal/rein

Nozzle

D;l$g

Diw#r

?8
1!8
%6
%8
1/8
%8
1?8
%8
%8
%a

1/8
%8
g
/8
1/8
1/8
/8
%8
1/8
/8
=/8
1/8
/8
%a
v
4

&

Nozzle
Diameter

(ft/hr)

(in.)

Viscosity
at 30,000
sec.- (cp)

Drilling
Rate

(ft/hr)

1;:;
;::;
6:91
6.60
7.15
5.51
3.39
4.24
;~
3:22
4.79
10,35
lg.;:
5:82
4.56
4.55
4.21
4,42
3.98
4.08
3.56
3.70
5.88

%8
%8
1/8
1/8
1/8
?4a

:.;;
2:63
4,33
7.57
8.34
1::;

21.5

:*

28.4
48.7
0.77
Q = 16 sral/min
-.

!8
%

0.77
0.77

25.7
13.6
13.7
9.86
7.18
8.34
6.89
5.47
4.83
3,87
4.37
12.81
13.2
33.0
84a

the Reynolds number func[ion. At the lower end of the

scafe, there appears to be only mechanical cleaning due
to the offset and skew in the bit for values less than about
two for the Reynolds number function,
EFFECT

OF SOLIDS

While both solids type and amount affect viscosity and

reduce drilling rate, the same viscosity obtained without
solids reduces rate by the same amount. Fluids with and
without solids are not distinguishable in Figs, 5 and 6,
for example. Solids content, then, does not independently
affect drilling rate. Appendix B is an additional discussion
of the effect of solids and fluid loss on dri[ling rate.

FUTURE

Additional microbit work is planned to determine the

combined effect of bit weight, rotary speed and cleaning
on drilling rate, Based on past field and laboratory experience, the essential shape of the curves in Figs. 5 through
10 should be preserved, but the actual scale may change
with weight, speed, pressure and rock type.
A better representation of the drilling-rate equation is
required. The form of this equation can best be developed
in the laboratory where the variables are easier to control
than in the field. Field verification of the laboratory results
is then a relatively simple matter.
The usual equation for drilling rate R is
R=

EFFECI OF FLUID LOSS

API fluid loss varied from 2.4 to more than 100,000
cc, extrapolated 30-minute volume. As Fig. 10 shows,
API fluid loss did not influence rate of penetration. Considering the range of fluids used in these tests, the data
strongIy suggest that fluid loss, no matter how measured,
can have little if any effect on drilling rate in low permeability formations. Further, the magnitude of the effect
of viscosity previously discussed appears to account for
all of the variation observed in drilling rate. In high[y
permeable formations, some laboratory data indicate areduc(ion in drilling rate with low fluid loss, This condition,
however, probably applies to a small part of our drilling
opcrutiuns- and costs.

20

~25.u

E
~

15

c1
z
~ ,0
z
Q

;O

_ ..__.;._.,..
,

0
.;::

;20
*

g15

o
g

*
S5

-o

.L
O

20

40

60
80
100
VISCOSITY - CP, CS

120

N=75

RPM

~ ..:

L _.
.;

,,,

:...

I(J

AP = S00 PSI
:...
;
,,i:
;..

.,

_ .. ..

.,

8A

;!
:.;

.
!,

:.;.

. GA?MIN

bIAMETER

,0 .,.-,

1/8

3-1/2

$~:::

30

40

50

60

140

160

70

60

.. .

;
~

so ..;
--

I
,
GAL/MIN

0:
40 8-...:

;-

. -- ; _:

30 %:@-i-

,, ;

20 q

_..!_

o 00

I.

Al

100

10

-;

vs REYNOLDS

Vv

90
130 140

80

NUMBER

DIAMETER:::,

80~AL/MIN
60

g
%49;
3-1/2
~ To :lo-1/2u*.
8
E

1/8

1/4
..

0*

FUNCTION.

::~~
,( ,!

,,.
1

!:4.

:.:xo.

AA

16
0-7:

:--:

4 _6,-:

a
n

~-

:..;;

-;-;:-

.-

2 -...
k

. .....+- ..... . .

..

:-::::.

F$.~:._-:%

. M..-#

I
10

I
20

I
30

I
40

. ..-.

ltiOLB

- -. .
L..

75 RPM-

AP = 500 PSI

0.40.6

1.0

4 6

10

20

4060100

REYNOLDS NUMBER K ~
() d~
FUNCTION

RATsvs RI~YNOLW
NUMIU:R

III NCHON.

WKlf
.

W=

IOOOLB

N~75RJM
AP = 500 PSI

----o

60

TO

80

3.5 GPM
d = 1/8

II

90 130 140

REYNOLDS NUMBER (K ~)
FUNCTION

FrG. 7DRILLINGTME vs REYNOLDSNUMBEa FUNCTION.

844

0.2

,,

16

ldm
50

0.060.1

Ftc. 9DKILLING

,
1
DIAMETER
~
o

.; ...x_ _

mJ%:- \ ..+--4.

10 j-

-!-

@*
3-1/2
10-1/2

I*

- !
!

.~

1:

2
E

]
A

l% G--DINLLINGRATEvs KXNEMATIC
VISCOSITYANDFANN
AWARENTVISCOSITY AT 10~2 GAL/M IN,

~
g

10-1/2
8
16,

FIG. 8-DSNLLXNGRATE

..(1)

()

.. .

m.+-;--.

REYNOLDS NUMBER K w
+
FUNCTION

,
Q,.__!__

Q,.......

W=1OOOLB

oi;~-~o
10 20

KINEMATIC VISCOSITY - FLOW COND.

FANN-APPARENT VISCOSITY
a
.

KWN

restricted to constant cleaning in a particular formation.

Our work suggests that using

30 ---------- ------------------------7------":------.------7----W=1OOOLB
N=75 RPM
LIP 500 Psl
25 ----10,5 GPM
d 1/6

WORK

API FLUID LOSS - CCS/30MIN.

Fxc, N-DRILLING RATE vs FLUID Loss (API).

JOURNAL

OF PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

/(@p

() tip

R = KWNb

c,2<kQp<

100
dp

(2)

will remove the cleaning restriction, Exponents a and b

are generally considered constant for a particular formation, and c is constant within these limits, Outside these
limits. drilling rate does not seem to vary with k~ p/d p.
APPLICATION:

PROGRAMMED

DRILLING

Present programmed drilling techniques make use of

1 to calculate drilling rate, and the program results
are sensitive to the rate equation used, The fact that Eq.
1 does not account for the important effects of hydraulics
and fluid properties currently limits the application and
value of programmed drilling.
In all mathematical models used to predict drilling rate,
the general equations apply equally well to both the Laboratory and full-scale operation, In the field, the exponents
and coefficients must be experimentally determined for
each case considered. Weight and speed are now used in
Eq. 1 by determining K, a and b from drilling test data.
We expect to include the effects of fluid properties and hydraulics in the more general drilling rate Eq. 2 by the
additional determination of k and c.
Eq.

APPLICATION:

or, in linear or Bingham form, as T = A + BD. In

terms of the Farm V-G meter, A corresponds to yield
point and B to plastic viscosity.
For carrying capacity estimation, the Bingham model
is possibly adequate, and it is simple. The Farm 300- and
600-rpm readings correspond to about 510 and 1,020
seconds- rate of shear. The shear rate in the bit nozzles
in both the laboratory and field, however, is between 10
and 10 seconds-, The extrapolation with the IMngharn
linear model over several orders of magnitude is not good,
With the power law model, it is somewhat better. The best
is measurement in the actual working range with a high
shear rate capillary or rotational viscometer.
The important thing to remember is that for muds, viscosity varies with shear rate D.

stants,

For Bingham Model: p = ~

+ B

For power model:

~ =

Actual:

_ measured stress
t measured rate

M~M

This shear rate is the one due to the flow condition at

the point being considered.

FIELD MUD TREATING

APPENDIX

The results of this study can now be applied qualitatively

to field mud treating for maximum rate of penetration.
For fixed hydraulic conditions, maximum rate will occur
at minimum kinematic viscosity.
Subject to pressure control and mud cost considerations,
mud weight is usually specified within rather close limits.
Viscosity can be and is being varied over rather wide Iimits. In terms of the Farm V-G meter, if we specify an apparent viscosity for cuttings-carrying capacity, maximum
drilling rate will occur for a minimum plastic viscosity at
the apparent viscosity specified.

EFFECT OF SOLIDS AND FILTRATION

ON DRILLING RATE
If the solids fraction of a drilling fluid has a constant
analysis (all ChlC, all bentonite, all shale or a constant per-

oo~~

REFERENCES
1.Eckel, J. R.: Effectof Mud Properties on Drilling Rate, Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API (1954).
2,

Eckel, J. R.: Effect of Pressure on Rock DrilIability, 7runs.,

AIME (1958)
213,1.6.

3. Cunningham,
R. A: and Eenink,
Effect of Overburden,
Formation

J. G.:

(Lrrboratory

Study

of

and Mud Column Pressures

on Drilling Rate of Permeable Formations, Trans., AIME
(1959) 216,9-17.
4. Walker, R. E.: Practical Oil Field Rheology, Paper No. 926.
9-D, API

(March,

1964 ).
SHEAR RATE, D - SEC-l

APPENDIX
THEOLOGICAL

1967

11SHEAB

RATE-SHEAR
STRESSDhmrm

NOTFS

There are three properties of a liquid that control its

behavio~ density, elasticity (not generally important in
drilling fluids) and the shear stress-shear rate relationship.
Density is self-explanatory, but a brief discussion of the
shear stress-shear rate relationship and viscosity may help
some readers.
In Fig. 11, if the ratio of stress T to rate D which is
the viscosity P is constant (Curves 1 and 2), the fluid is
called Newtonian. If this ratio changes (Curve 3), the
fluid is called non-Newtonian, For most muds, viscosity
decreases with increasing shear rate and the fluid is called
shear thinning. But, since the viscosity varies with rate,
both rate and viscosity must be specified.
The mud cume (Curve 3) can be closely expressed as a
power function T = mLY, m and n being the mud wnAPRIL,

Fm,
40
36 :

-4..

32

0T
0

. . --

10

20

-;--

30
40
SOLIDS - lB/B~
,

8.4

:-

8.5

B.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
MUD WSIGHT - LB/GAL

9.0

9!1

FIG, M-TYFXCAL Mua AODITIVESEFFECT.

64a

~+

10

150
100
50
CONCENTRATION - LB/BBL WATER

e.5

9.0

,.

200
1

,
2oolCd

10.5

MUD W~GHT - LB/G:iO

a
20
40
YIELD - BBL MUD/TON CLAY

I
10

Fxc. 13INTERRELATION
OF FLUKIPROPERTIES,

centage of each solid), the viscosity of the fluid increases

with solids content in a predictable manner (Fig. 12). This
leads, for a particular system, to reduced drilling rate with

666

increased solids content. The reduced viscosity recommended in Ref. 1 was widely misinterpreted in the field
to mean low solids. This gave good results in some cases
and only fair to poor results in others, The reason is that
drilling rate is a function of kinematic viscositv. and different-solids affect this quantity differently, A mud with 5
percent solids from low-yield clay has a lower kinematic
viscosity than a 2?42 percent CMC mudand drills faster.
Experimental resu~s show (Fig. 10) that fluid 10SSdoes
not control drilling rate in low-permeability formations.
The belief that fluid loss does affect rate is widely held.
Fig. 13 shows why. For a particular mud system, viscosity
increases with solids content and water loss (and drilling
rate) decreases. This correlation, which holds for a particular system, was thought to be general. But it is not,
as Fig, 10 shows.
For selection of one mud type over another from a
drilling rate standpoint, the variable which controls rate
and which is independent of the mud type must be considered. This variable is kinematic ~i$cosity, Once a mud
type has been selected, other properties can be used to indicate treatment if good viscosity measurements are not
possible.

JOURNAL

OF PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY