.

UU3C/SPE
IADCISPE 14773
!3011erRock Bit Hydraulic Program
by P,Skalle,
U,ofTrondheim
MemberSPE
Copyright

1986, lADC/SPE

This paper waa prepared

1986 Drilling Conference

for presentation

at the 1986 lADC/SPE

Drilling Conference

held in Dallaa, TX, February

10-12,

19S6.

This paper waa aelacted for presentation by an lADC/SPE Program Commitrea fol!nwi~g raview of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, aa presented, have not been reviewed by Ihe Society of Petroleum Errgirreera or lnternariorm: Aasociatiofi of Drilling
Co, Wactors and are subject to correction by the author(s), The material, aa prasented, does not neceaaarily reflect any poeition o he IADC or SPE, its officers, or membere. Papara preaentad at lADC/SPE meetinge are subject to publication by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permisa~on to
copy ia restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illuetrationa may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowladament
of whwe and by whom the pa~r ia presented. Write Pubticationa Manager, SPE, P,O. Box 833636, Richardson, TX 75063-3S36.
Telex, 730989
SPEOAL.

ABSTRACT
In the past the hydiaulic program of rock
bits with exchangeable nozzles has been
determined by optimizing bit hydraulics,
i.e. jet impact force, bit hydraulic
horsepower etc. Bit hydraulics, however,
is alone insufficient as criteria. This
paper applied instead rate of penetration
as criteria which is a more general and
fundamental approach to determine the hydraulic program. The only factors in the
rate of penetration equation which are of
importance are the hydraulic functions,
i.e. functions of pump flow rate and bit
nozzle size. It is shown that the only
hydraulic functions which have an influence on rate of penetration are bit
hydraulics. and the difference between
dynamic mud pressure and pore pressure at
the bottom of the well. To be able to estimate the hydraulic program, unknown constants must be determined. Therefore, previously known and new empirical constants
of the hydraulic functions have been estimated. The optimal solution has been
worked into a general computer program,
and typical sample calculations show
clearly that this new approach has a distinguished effect on existing hydraulic
programs.

bit. The cleaning action is termed bit

hydraulics and expressed as jet impact
force, bit hydraulic horsepower etc.
The reason for this choice is the positive
influence bit hydraulics ;:L on rate of
hydraulics
penetration. However,
alone, do not qualify as criteria of estimation for two reasons: (i) Bit hydraulics are not directly proportional to
rate of penetration and (2) other hydraulic functions have an influence on
rate of penetration.
The uncertainty of the existing method is
further underlined by the fact that there
are at least six different ways of expressing bit hydraulics.
The solution to the problem is to find the
relationship between rate of penetration
and hydraulic functions and then maximize
the rate of penetration. Hydraulic functions are those containing one or more of
the free variables; flow rate, pump pressure or bit nozzle diame$er.
The functions and an estimate of their
empirical constants are found through a
literature survey, laboratory tests and
from analysis of field data.

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a hydraulic program for
roller rock bits is to determine the optimal magnitude of the three free hydraulic
variables i.e. mud flow rate, pump pressure and bit nozzle diameter. These variables have usually been determined by optimizing the cleaning action beneath the

THEORY DEVEILWMENT
Rate of penetration is to be maximized.
The most general relationshipbetween rate
of penetration R= an~ hydraulic terms is
stated in eqn. (15
J[ )@IuIliCS) f, (APMktm} ( 1 )
Rp = A*$ mud. prowties)*f2
(pP)*f.. lb. -

References and illustrations at end of

-paper.... . . . ._
..
-._

I
4

ROLLERROCKBITHYDRAULIC
PROGRAM

.
SPE14773

From the standpoint of designing hydraulic

programs, quibbling over maximum pm versus maximum jet imjjactforce deep not appear to be ju;tified. Comparing the two
hydraulic parakaters, Dorlan and DeaneL4
found thnt either parameker will be within
about 92% of its maximum value when the
other one is maximized. Since jet impact
force and eqn. (2) are proportional, the
resulting deviation between this hydraulic
term and any of the other hydraulic expressions is negligible.

Eqn. (1) states that there exists (at

least) four different hydraulic terms that
have an independent influence on ra:e of
penetration. The individual independency
is assumed to be true during normal operations when the terms vary relatively littie. The constant A includes the effect
from all other variables like mechanical
parameters, formation strength, bit dullness etc.
Mud properties (fl) are not included in
the objective functions as mad properties
are chosen based on other considerations
than rate of penetratiw.

It is well documented both by laboratmy

and by field studies that the Rp irl a
function of the pressuse differential
between pore pressure and mud pressure
(f4)* The two most probable reasons for
reduced Rp due to high differential pressure are:

Characteristic features of hydraulic optimization mathodsl are that optimum flow

rate and equivalent nozzle diameter are
reached when the pump is operated at its
maximum effect, e.g. maximum pump pressure
(fz) Field investigationshave shown that
maximum pump operation performance led to
many failures of the mud pumping system
and excessive maintenance cost and lost
drilling time.

During the recent years, however, practical experience and common sense have resulted in that the pump is not run at
maximum eperating conditions~ but at a
recommended value lower than maximum. Most
pump manufacturers do not recommnd running the pump faster than 80-90% of its
maximum.
Although there is a minor dependency
maintenance cost*
between
failure, a5~ump pressure (especiallypR?
pressures above recommended)the resulting
loss of drilling time is too insignificant
to include it in the Rp-function.T~~eease
of changing parts and the availability of
two mud pumps further emphasizes that pump
pressure does have an influence on Rpo
Besides weight on bit and bit rotatior,to
create mechanical energy on the bottom of
the well, bit hydraulics (fs) is one of
the most important parameters for rate of
penetration.
Many different bit hydraulic functions
have been suggested through the years, and
the most common ones are listed in Table
1.

the forming of a filter

cake, supporting the differential pressure,
that will increase the compressive
strength and hence reduce the drilling rate.

The inflhence may be represented by the

equation2:
RP=A

II* EXP [-a4 (~ - Pp)1

(3)

both for positive and negative values of

the pressure difference.
The reasons for variations in the diffe=ential pressure, are now sought. The
dynamic mud pressure ~ may be expressed
as
~=@c*g*D

(4)

in which Pc is the equivalent circulating

density. Sample and Bourgoyne17 expressed
PC on the following form:
W!a
(5)
WC = Qm(l - fvs) + @sfvs + gD

(2)

incorporates all the hydraulic parameters

except for hydraulic horsepower (P; ~nd
nozzle velocity-------.
-

(2)

Differential pressure has limited influence on ROP in very permeable and very
tight formations, however, the :Imediumll
permeable formations, e.g., shaleu of any
kind, are the dominating type of sedimentary formation. It may therefore be said
that most sedimentary formations are influenced by the differentialpressure.

From Table 1 we see that the general form,

a3

the forming of a filtez ~ake ahead

of the bit causing a force that
holds tinechip in place, not allowing mud to fill the openxng crack of
the cuttings below the bit and thus
hindering effective cleaning.

The reduction of R dua to the strengthening effects is pro% ably small compared to
the effect of reduced cieaning efficiency,

Many laboratory and field tests have been

conducted and many papers have been written on the subject of optimizing jet bit
hydraulics, but there is a controversy
over which hydraulic parameter should be
optimized.

CONST * [ ~]

(1)

In addition to the static mud density Qm

in eqn. (5) there are two dynamic terqs;
(1).solids--concentrationand..(2) annular-.
Al
----9

.
p.

Skalle

friction pressure, both being e function

~f flow rate.

SPE 14773

estimated and presented in table 3 in

+.hreedifferent unit combinations.

rhe annular friction loss model will be

5efined as:

From both field and laboratory tests the

value 107 (SI-units)may be picked out as
a mean value of a4.

and for steady-stata conditions, the

volume fraction of cutting in the annulus
is:

The cutting transport ratio R5 in eqn. (7)

is defined as the ratio bntween cutting
transport velqcity vt and average annular
mud velocity va:
Vt

(7)

fa-Vs

(11)

Rt=~=
The term in brackets in eqn. (7) represents the feed concentrationof cuttings
generated by the bit. Rt is the transport
ratio and varies between O and 1. When

Va

value of Rt is 0.5.

equal to 1 all the cuttings are beinq

transported at the annular mud velocity.

Ka and ml

Substituting eqn. (4), (5) and (6) into

eqn. (3) yields:

To determine the empirical constants in

the suggested annu}ar pressure loss function @a = Ka D qm both field and laboratory investigationswere carried out. For
the laboratory investigation a flow loop
was built, fig. 1.

Rp . A-

EXP[-a4(Om-OpMD]
* exe[- lLI,-Om)9Dfv,]
EXP[-a4KaD
d] (8)

In eqn. (8) the first exponential te~

including ( ~ - ~) is to be considered as
a constant for aur punoses. Eqn. (8) reduces to:
Rp

= A

EXP[

-a,

(es-e=)

gDfv~]

~ EXP[-a4KaD

The flow loop was built with a scale of

1:2 to stimulate a 511drill pipe in a
8 1/2 hole. One relevant type of rheology
was picked out and presented in fig. 2.
The Bingham values of the mud are: Upl =
23.5 cp and Yield Point = 20.6 lbs./100
ft2 In fig. 3 the recorded 8 1/2!1pipe
pressure losses are shown along with calculated pressure losses based on rheology
in fig. 2. 3. It is clearly seen that the
power law model is best suited to represent the applied rheology.

(9)

d]

Taking both pressure differential and bit

hydraulics into account the objective
equation becomes:
p

= A

(qlde)

* EXP [-a,

( o~-r)a) gDf s]

* EXP[-a4RaD

qn]

(10)

Determining Empirical Constants

In eqn. (10) the constants a3, a4, Rt, Ka
and ml need to be determined for the purpose of example calculations. Therefore
typical values of these empirical constant
are sought. The three constants a3, a and
Rt are determined on basis of publfshed
data, while the two remaining constants
are determined through laboratory and
field tests. For later field application,
all the constants must be dete~ined
through field tests.
a3, aq and Rt:

<a

In table 2 some comparable published data

of the constant a3 are summarized. IW
shown a3 varies from 0.1 to 1.2 with a
mean value around 0.7. The different
values of a3 presented in table 2 are not
directly comparable. The conditions under
which the tests were made are different
and not all the hydraulic terms are eqral
to (q/de)a3. However, a typical value of
a3 is a magnitude 1.0.
Likewise as as, a4 is found as a result of
a literature survey. Published data have
been regressed in accordance with eqn.
(3). Since the magnitude of a4 is dependent on the choice -of-units;--its-value
-is

Wall shear stresses T

rates Iw are estimated In ?~coZ&;ceZ;;
the theory of pipe viscosimeter and presented in fig. 4. From fig. 4 it is possible to distinguish between at leaecfour
different theologies. The parameters of
the four theologies which appear most
clearly have been estimated and presented
in Table 4. For typical annular shear
rates (50 - 300 s 1) the results from a
rotational viscosimeter and pipe viscosimeter are comparable. This means that
the pipe viscosimeter (the flow 10CP) is
an applicable tool for further investigations of annular pressure drop.
To obtain an estimate of annular pressure
drop, an annular flow test was carried
out. The results are shown in fig. 5.
Fitting the data from the shear rate ranges 50 - 175 s 1 and 125 - 375 s 1 in fig.5, the model defined by eqn. (6) results
in regressed data as presented in table 5.

Comparing these results with the viscosimeter recorded rheology (fig. 2), we
see that the potens mt corresponds more or
lees to the flow behavior index in corresponding shear rate range. We may there___fore..
conclude:_ ._ -----.- -.
-_----7 ,Q

$~E14773

4
ml=n

(12)

The magnitude of KaD must be converted

from 1:2 scale to a full scale well. TO
transform pressure drop data from laboratory tot: field conditions, it is suffirequire identical Reynoldscient
numbers (as long as uniform geometry exists) The multiplication factor then beC0213eS
(dfield IE2 dlab):

Pfield
.
Pldb

Re,

field

Re,

lab

= *3n-4

(13)

The multiplication factor is a function of

the flow behavior index n. For n equals to
0.61 the multiplication factor becomes
0.225. By ntultiplyingthe constant term
KaD with the multiplication factor,
laboratory data are transformed to field
data. Knowing the term D (Depth) to be 9m
in the flow loop, the annular pressure
drop constant Ka may now be estimated:
Xa)field

= 23 9359 0225 = 5 348.4

[Pa/m/

(J/#]

(14)

Estimated pressure losses for some bit

runs from one North Sea well resulted in
estimated Ka values as shown in table 6.
Other interesting field parameters are
shown as well. For the 8 l/2i~ bit Ka
values corresponds rather well with
laboratory data, and a typical value is of
magnitude 6JO0 (S1 units).
Optimal Solution
The basic theory of optimizing the hydraulic parameters is given by Kendall and
Goinsl. The objective function, eqn. (1),
is maximized with respect to flow rate and
subjected to the limitations of the mud
circulation system. The limitation and
the optimal solution are presented in Appendix A and B.
When the pressure differential function is
neglected the optimal solution of flow
rate presented in Appendix B reduces to
the solution found by Kendall and Goins
based on jet impact force. This shows that
the optimal solution found here is directly comparable with previous methods.
The nozzle diameter is a function of the
optimal flow rate and determined on the
basis of the bit pressure drop equation.

All the results are presented graphically

in figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Fig 6 is
the basic figure, with the remaining figures referring to this one. The eolid line
in fig. 6 results from the basic set of
data and represents the new hydraulic program. Between depths DI and D2 an optimal
flow rate exists (pump range 11, fig. 11).
At D2 the smallest liner of the mud pump
is applied. Between depthe D2 and D3 the
highest flow rate of the smallest liner ~
is applied, while at depth D3 an optimal
flow rate exists (pump range I, fig. 11).
By neglecting the assumed influence of
pressure differential at the bottom of the
well, i.e. a4 = 0, the resulting hydraulic
program is shown by the dotted line. This
dotted line represents previous hydraulic programs. The difference between
these two approaches results in a difference of up to three 32nds of an inch of
the equivalent nozzle diameter.
In fig. 7 the effect of the two individual
hydraulic functions causing
a pressure
difference at the b~ttom is shown. The
effect of annular pressure drop is much
higher than the effect of cutting concentration. In a larger annulus, however,
where friction is low, the effect is
opposite.
The next figure, fig. 8, then shows the
effect of a3. In previous hydraulic programs the magnitude of a3 had no influence. But by including other hydraulic
functions, the true importance of bit hydraulics is seen from this figure to be
surprisingly large. It is therefore of
importance to be more specific than before
when dealing with bit hydraulics.
Figs. 9 and 10 shows the influence of the
friction factors Ka and m. The large
variation in the hydraulic program that
these parameters cause emphasizes the importance of their correct estimation.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the work reported, the following
conclusions can be reached:
1.

RESULTS
The optimal solution is a function of
depth. The calculation of depths, optimal
flow rates and nozzle diameters are subjected to boundary conditions is administered by a computer program. All the applied input data are presented in table 7.
Mud pump data refers to a 1600 horsepower
single acting triplex pump and the data in
table 7 are chosen as the basic set of
data.

The most important hydraulic functions which have an influence on

rate of penetration have been determined. These are; bit hydraulics and
the difference between pore and
hydrodynamic mud pressure. The objective function can be expressed
as
follows:
RP=A

2*

(q/dnl%

*HP

[-%

APtwo.]

The pressure differential at bottom

has two dynamic causes. These are;
annular cuttings concentration and
annular friction drop.

.
P.

SPE 14773

3.

4.

5.

6.

Skalle

The annular friction drop may be

expressed by the following eqUatiOn:
~va=I,nqn

~Re

Reynolds number =

Pm

mud pressure

Bmpirical constants in the hydraulic

functions have been
determined
through laboratory and field investigations and published aata.

Pp

pore pressure

(Pp)max

maximum recommended pump pressure (pressure rating of smallest liner size)

pressure drop in annulus

The hydraulic program is determined

by maximizing rate of penetration.
compared with previous hydraulic
pfagrams the new approach causes a
reduction in equivalent nozzle diameter. The reduction may become as
high as three 32nds of an inch.

Apa
Ap~

Friction losses in the circulation

system have a significant influence
on the hydraulic program. This emphasizes the importance of an accurate determination of empirical
constants.

area under the bit

.
A, A*, Alldrilliabilityconstant. Function
of ROP-parar.sters
not considered
otherwise
as

bit hydraulic exponent in Rp

model

ad

differential pressure exponent

in Rp model

depth

db

bit diameter

de

equivalent nozzle diameter =

di?,neterof nozzle number one

fv~

volume fraction of cuttings in

the mud

gravitationalacceleration

K1

constant of pressure drop in the

circulating system except the
bit

Ka

constant of pressure drop in the

annulus

Kb

bit
constant depending
on
orifice coefficient and mud
clens
ity

flow rate exponent [slope of

lw( APd) vs. lo9 (q)]

rate exponent [slope of

10g( Apa) VS. 109 (q)]
flow behavior index, parameter
in power law theologicalmodel

pressure drop in the circulating

system except the bit
hy-

volume flow rate

maximum flow rate of smallest

liner

Rp

rate of penetration (ROP)

Qc

equivalent circulating density

ep

equivalent pore fluid density

Qm

mud density

Qs

density of solids or cuttings

cW

shear stress at the wall

Va

mean velocity in annulus

Vs

cutting slip velocity

Vt

cutting transport velocity

REFERENCES
1.

Kendall, H.A. and Goins, woc.:

~lDesign and Ope~;ra~m of Jet-Bit
Programs for
Hydraulic
Horsepower, Impact Force or Jet
Velocity,!!J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1960)
738-250; Trans. , AIME, 219.

2.

Garfiier,A.J. and van Lingen, N.H.:

Phenomena Affecting Drilling Rates
at Depth,tlTrans., AIME (1959) 216,
232-239.

3.

Tibbits, G.A., sandstr~m, J.S.,

Black, A.D. and Green, S.J.: The
Effects of Bit Hydraulics on FullScale Laboratory Drilled Shale,!!SPE
paper 8439, presented at the 54th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26,
1979.

4.

Eckel, J.R.: l!MicrobitStudies of

the Effect of Fluid Properties and
Hydraulics on Drilling Rate, J.
Pet. Tech. (April 1967) 541-546;
Trans., AxMl%t 240.

d12 + d22 + d32

dl

g~dh

(PHP)max maximum recommended pump

draulic horsepower

NOMENCLATURE
Ab

flow

T.

,
ROLLER ROCK BIT

HYDRAULIC

PROGRAM
$PE 14773

5*

McLean, R.H.: llCrossflowand Impact

Under Jet Bits,!!J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1964) 1299-1306.

6.

,Kinetic
McLean, R.H.: ItVelocities
Energy and Shear in Crossflow Under
Three-cone Jet Bits, J. Pet. Tech.
(Dec. 1955) 1443-1448.

Determining the Carrying Capacity of

Drilling Fluids,!!SPE paper 7597,
presented at the SPE 53rd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Oct. 1-5, 1968.
APPENDIX A
Boundary Conditions

Smalling, D.A. and Key~ T.A.: Optimization of

Jet
Bit Hydraulics
Using Impact Pressure, SPE paPer
8440, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

7.

There exists three specific boundary conditions in the circulation system with
respect to flow rate. These are specified
below.
1) Limitations of the mud pump.
---------------------------.--

Zeidler, H.U.: Better Understanding

Permits Deeper Clear Water Drilling,lWorld Oil (June 1981) 167178.

8.

The performance characteristicsof the mud

pump are schematically hewn in fig. 11.
The performance characteristicsare idealized, as pump range II is represented by
smooth lines.

Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr. and Young, F.S.

Jr.: llAMultiple Regression Approach
of
Optimal Drilling and Abnormal
Pressure Detection, Sot. Pet. Eng.
J. (Aug. 1974) 371-384; Trans., AIME
257.

9*

10*

11.

2) Friction losses in the circulating

system
------------------------------------

combs, G.D.: !IpredictionOf pore

Pressure from Penetration Rate, SPE
paper 2162, presented at the SPE
43rd Annual Meeting, Houston, Sept.
29- Oct. 2, 1968.

It is desirable to transmit all of the

pump pressure Pp to the bit and apply it
there as bit pressure drop pb for Cleaning purposes. This is not possible due to
friction losses pd in the remaining circulating system:

die
mechanische
Gorisch, K.: t!~er
Bohrgeschwindichkeitvon Rollermeisseln,i Zeitschrift fur angewandte
Geologi (1982) 28, heft 2, 85-92.

= bPd + APb
JP

(A-1)

Both friction loss and bit pressure drop

12.

13.

14.

rate.

16.

Mu~hy, D.: What

Factors
Affect
Drilling Wte?,1 Oil and Gas J.
(Feb. 17, 1969).

17

Sample, KoJ, and Bourgoyne, Jr.,

A.T.:
Development of
Improved
Laboratory and Field.Procedures for

(A-2)

APb = Kb *L

(A-3)

3) Limitations of the flow rate in the

uncased bore hole
------------------------------------

Dorion, H.H. and Deane, J.D.: A New

approach for optimizing Bit Hydraulics,n SPE 11677, presented at
1983 California Regional Mtg., Venture, March 23-25, 1983.
Sifferman, T.R. et. al.: llDrillcuttings Transport in Full-scale
Vertical Annuli,O$ J. Pet. Tech.
(NOV.
1974) 1295-1302.

~P~= KfDqs
;

Cunningham, A.R.: An empirical approach

to
relate
drilling
parameters,~tSPE paper 6715, presented at the SPE 52nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Denverr Oct. 9-12, 1977.

15.

may be expressed as a function of flow

Cunningham, A.R. and Eenink, J.G.:

ItLaboratory
study of Effect of OVerburden, Formation, and Mud Column
Pressures on Drilling Rate of Permeable Formations,Jr J. Pet. Tech.
(Jan. 1959) 9-15; Trans., AIME, 216.

One of the main tasks of the mud is to

transport cuttings to the eurface. To
avoid high concentrations (4 - 5 vol %) of
cuttings in the annulus, a certain minimum
flow rate qr is required. On the other
hand also a maximum flow rate ~~~ must be
determined to avoid serious erosion problems of the filter cake and the wall of
the hole. In vertical holes this flow rate
is chosen below turbulent flow.

----- ._
A442

__________

WE

14773

P. Skal le

APPENDIX B
optimal solution
The derivation of eqn. (10) with respect
to flow rate subjected to boundary conditions in pump range II gives the following
optimal solution.

4a402

~.nq(nta*2)

- 130K,(9

~ ,

745.5qn
- 4~40KaR[pHdMx
* 745.s q

4(db *

.0254
)20

+ 2M

+1)+

(m + 2)

3[pNJMx

dPBJMX
745.5
(B-1)

*E[&l(os
-0.)
%-=o

-oR1(m+ 2)q(B+1)+[pMJmx

745.5=0

(B-2)

The derivation of eqn. (10) with respect

to flow rate subjected to boundary conditions in pump range I gives the following
optimal solution:

(m+n+l)
4a402KaK,n
q

402(db
-

.0254 )2qK1r

3DK,
~
[%(,,-

(m + 2)q(

+ )

,J;q

4a4DKan[PJxq n 1) + a32[pJMxq

+ ,40(db*

.0254
)2q[pJm&?&S

FOt a, . 0 nd 3 # 0, w.

(B-3)

- O#t-l = o

(9-31reducesto

OK, (a+ 21q* 2[Pp]um=0

(B-4)

which is identical with the solution of

jet impact force.

HYDRAULIC
FUNCTION
1,2,3

Bit hydraulic
horsepower
Jet

impact

2,3

force

i?ozzle velocity

2,3

Crossflow 567
wave

Table 1. Different

HYDRAULIC

Hb

COlfST
* q31de4

IF

CONST* (q/de)2

COtWT* qlde2

Pit Reynoldsnu;.ber

Impact pressure

SYMBOL

bit hydraulic

CONST q/de

Re
v
c

CONST* qlde

1P

CONST (q/de)z

functions.

Litterature
source

Type of test

Type of
formation

a3

Ecke14

lab.

limestone

0.42

Zeidler

field

soft
hard

0.9
none response

Gamier &
van Lingen2

lab.

limestome

0.7

Bourgo~ne &
Young

field

shale,

D)1OOOO

0.2

- 0.9

combs 10

field

shale,

D<1OOOO

0.7

- 1.2

Gdrisch 11

field

different

0.1 -0.4

Tibbits

lab.

shale

0.4

Table 2. Magnitude of a. taken from different

ype of test

Literature
source

lab.

Cunniuglfjm & x
Eenik
Bourg~yne &
Young

sandstone
limestone

Smalling

shale

Cunningham13 x

G~rishll

data sources.

6,37*10a
8,95*10-S

10.08*10-4

14.62*10-E

14.62*10-3

4.18*1Q-8
3,12*16-8
0.8410-8
1.32*10-8

4.18*10-3
3.12*10-3
0.8410-3
1.32*10-3

10.OO*:O+ 14.50*10-8

shale

I x I=heI 63,*1~4

9.27*10-6

Table 3. Magnitude of a. regressed

6.37.10-3
8,95*103

4.39*10-6
6.17*10-q

2.88.10-4
2.15*10-4
(). 58* 10-4
O.91*1O*

shale
red beds
~sandstone
Idolomite
+

&

Xey F

- 0.7

Type of
a, for different
unit combinations
formation
mlh - bar
ftfh-psi
mls - pa

Field

fron different

1
,94
.92

14.50.10-3

9.27*10-3

data sources.

-J
.93

--1

s%
rheology
;
i

y-range

k(Pa)

1- 24
23- 90
65-100
90-135

.132
.343
.440
.662

3,02
7.43

Table 4. Theological

parameters

::;;

Number

of

Regression
Constant

Potens:

range (s-l)
data

28

m (= n)

44

of annular

IN

105PA

12*

1760
1840
1920

.0392
.0392
.0391

200.2
198.9
198.2

2661
2663
2666

2791
2800
2808

TABLE 6.

213 935

pressure

.6095

drop data from fig.

~~

KL

PA-1

106

.58
.58
.58

.32

1.77 1.37
1.77 1.28
1.77 1.23

.0325 203.1
.0336 205.3
.0336 203.6

.68
.68
.68

.18

.0256 208.6
.0259 206.3
.0262 212.6

.74
.74
.74

.13

?43/s

5.

ESTIMATED DATA

PP

8+

,9941

.4322

DRILLING
DEPTH
Q

8+

8
.9953

r2

RECORDED DATA

14

125 - 375

50 - 175

KAD [Pa/(rn3/s)rn]
79 821

able5, Regression

BIT NO DB

3 andfig,4.

pohts

canstant:
tern:

from fourdifferent

flowcurvesappearing
in fig.

Shear rate

14773

.32

.18

KA

558
704

1.76
1.76
1.76

1.24
1.08
1.05

4287

1.68
1.68
1.68

.98
.92
.94

5130

RECORDEDAND ESTIMATED DRILLING DATA FROM ONE NORTH

SEA EXPLORATION WELL

4296

~pE

14?73

Description

Parameter

.
c=

BIT FRICTION FACTOP

DEPTH INCREMENT
START DEPTH
TOTAL DEPTN
BIT HYDRAULIC EXPONENT
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL EXPO .
BIT DIANETER
GRAVITATIONAL &CCELERATION
ANN . P. LOSS CONSTANT
sYsTSN ( -BIT)
P. LOSS CONST .
SYSTSN
( -BIT)
P. LOSS EXPO .
ANNULAR P. LOSS EXPO .
NAX RECOISI . PUNP PRESSURE
NAX RECOM . FUMP HORSE POW.
NAX FLOW RATE- SNALLEST LIN
NAX FLOW RATE-LARGEST LIN .
NIN REQUIRFO
FLOW RATE
NUD DENSITY
SOLIDS OR CUTTINGS OENSITY
ROP
CUTTINGS TRANSPORT RATIO

,95

DINCR
DST
DTOT
A3
M
DIABIT
G=
KA
K1
N=

=
=
=
=
=
=

Ml

=
=

PHPNAx
PPPSAX =
Q141
=
QU2
=
QR
=
ROM
=
ROS
=
RP
=
RT
=

Table

7.

100,
500.
3000.
1.00
.0000001C51
8.50
9.81
6000.
13DDDOD.
1<70
.65
1440.
38300000.
.02800
.04870
,01500
2400.
1200.
10.
.50

Input

M
M
M
l/PA
IN

NISIS
-

HP
PA
Cwvs
CUM/S
cuM/s
KG/CUN
KG/CUtl
N/H

data.
pipe
c ou~ing

I
-

. . ______v
_

PI
~ ..-
- -.==---.-. :.
- .-=--
-- - =- -- --- ~

___-

.- - .--

flow
straightener

t!;;;~!er

=-:
:-._..

]&

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

mud

pit

temperature

with
contro~

centrifugal~
rate

with

flow

rester

control

,,
Fig.

1,

The

laboratory

flow

loop

sb5$

1 *n

Aor4

...

recorded

rrA

100 mm
wSM RATE 1,-1I

Fiq. 3. Recorded
Fig.

-.

2.

Mud rheology

ctdcuktted

nd celculatad

pressure

losse$.

~pE

14773

30

3
2

1
1

45670910

Fig

4.

Flow c!rve

resulting

304050

200

200

from pipe viscosimeter

300400
SHEAR RATE

Ic
[ s-l

ccmsiderations.

Ap(brw}
.

1oo-

9oo -

zmo-

J=132c?3
0t3M

0,!0

lm lWJ -

0.s.
.

,.
.

. . .. .

recorded

power

m-

law

2300-

D2

2s002100w

2900-

r
a9tol11213

; ([/s)
Fiq.

5. Presss

re

losses

recorded

in .s 9 ~ long

flow

/
D3,. I
r

wtstinwit9

20
OIA 3 (hrh/32)

looP
Fig.

6.

The ef tect

of a, on the hydraullc

program

SPE 147743
b

X4-

7009oo =lloo

9oo -

=llcQ -

=lm5
09300 -

i::

lmo -

7mO-

19Q0-

1900-

2CQ-

2mo -

2300-

2m-

2s00 -

2500-

2700-

2700-

2mo -

2900,
B

Fig.

7. The ef feet

,
,
r
r
8910111213141516171819

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2!1
DIA 3 (hch/32 )

of cuttings
on the

concentration
hydraulic

and

annular

,
MA

presau~a

Fig.

lose

9. Tha effect

of R, on the hydraulic

20
3(hch/32)
proqram,

program.

-1
724

900

Em

9X4

i m

m
mo

m
2N0
2s00

D>3

Iwll
Ml I

I
I

II

891011

Fig.

8. The ffect

t2131&

of

a,

15161718

1920
LIIA 3(hCh/32)

on the hydraulic

10.

The

effect

89101t121314151617t0
Fiq.

of m on the

,
hydraulic

I
d
1920
OIA 31hch/32)
proqram,

proqr.sa.

P-php
~
%

.,

Fig.

11. Mud PIUP ch.sracteriatics.

.,,