Penetration-Rate Performance
of Roller-Cone Bits
T.M. Warren, SPE, Amoco Production Co.
Summary. The rate of penetration (ROP) obtained with a roller-cone bit is limited by either the cuttings-
generati<;>n or cuttings-removal ~rocess. An ROP model that includes the effect of both the initial chip formation
and cuttmgs-removal processes IS presented. Laboratory observations show that the reduction in ROP at high
borehole pressure is the result of both local cratering effects and global cleaning effects.
Introduction
The selection of a bit and its operational conditions for
a particular situation can be based on trial and error, rules
of thumb, predictions from mathematical models, or a
combination of the above. A model is simply a mathe-
matical representation of a physical process. When a proc-
ess is understood thoroughly, it can be described
quantitatively by a mathematical model.
Although roller-cone bits have been used for more than
75 years, the complexity of their mechanics and hydraul-
ics has hindered the complete modeling of the drilling
process. The combined crushing-and-scraping action of
the teeth on a rolling cone makes it difficult to model the
rock-cratering process. The turbulent-flow field of the
fluid under the bit has not been modeled, so it is difficult
to predict the force available for cuttings removal. The
effect of mud properties on the equalization of pressure
around the rock chips has not been modeled, so the forces
that hold cuttings to the formation cannot be predicted very
well. Consequently, most ROP models are based on em-
pirical matching of experimental data. Even if the drill-
ing process could be completely described by a model,
the significant inputs are often unknown.
The drilling process is composed of several individual
actions that must occur so that the bit can penetrate. Ex-
perimental test conditions can be designed to identify and
to quantify certain individual processes, such as cuttings
generation and cuttings removal. Development of a model
from both theoretical concepts and data recorded under
controlled conditions simplifies the complex modeling
problem. Once a basic model is developed, it can be re-
fined by addition of a more varied set of test conditions.
The addition of new conditions will not invalidate the ba-
sic model if the physics of the process is handled proper-
ly. This was the strategy used to develop the model
presented here.
The model is intended mainly as a vehicle for describ-
ing the relationship between key parameters that control
ROP. It does not completely describe the drilling proc-
ess but quantifies the relative effects of changing various
parameters that may be altered during drilling. It facili-
tates the evaluation of field bit performance so that con-
ditions may be altered to improve ROP. The model also
provides a method for recognizing unusual effects when
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987
observed bit performance deviates from predictions. Such
cases are indicative of conditions that are not described
by the model and may be used to infer information about
conditions at the bit.
After the ROP model is discussed, several laboratory
observations for high-borehole-pressure drilling tests are
presented. These results have not been explicitly included
in the model but are partially explained by the model. The
observations about the bottomhole cleaning process are
useful for accessing the potential for improvement of ROP
in the field.
Model Development
Under steady-state drilling conditions, the rate of cuttings
removal from the bit is equal to the rate at which new
chips are formed. This implies that the ROP is controlled
by either the cuttings-generation process, the cuttings-
removal process, or a combination of the two processes.
Perfect-Cleaning Model. Warren 1 presented the devel-
opment of an ROP model for soft-formation bits under
conditions where cuttings removal does not impede the
ROP. This model relates ROP to weight on bit (WOB),
rotary speed, rock strength, and bit size. It is based on
tests that were designed to provide basic information about
the interaction between the bit and rock in the absence
of complicating cuttings-removal effects. The practical ap-
plication of this model to general ROP prediction is se-
verely limited because it does not include cuttings-removal
effects.
The perfect-cleaning model (also derived in the Appen-
dix) is reviewed as a starting point for development of
an imperfect -cleaning model:
R= (aS
NbW2
2
# +_C_)-l
Nd ................... (1)
b
The first term, aS 2 #IN b W2 , defines the maximum rate
at which rock is broken into small chips by the bit. It is .
based on the assumption that the WOB is supported by
a fixed number of teeth, independent of the tooth penetra-
tion depth. The second term of the model modifies the
predictions to account for the distribution of the applied
9
 200-
7.'15" SBRIBS 5-3-7
310 I 10-10-10, Wale, 200~-------------------------------,
. ,- Serin 6-1-1 Bit

~
.. 150
nRPM
15 RPIIIOO PSI BUP
l ia LilDestD.e

:
.;
.~ 100
a 450 GPM WATER
S! a 100 ... ~"5 GPM Mud A

~
ID
a
d: 50

_. INDIANA (5 ::: 1.0)

CARTHAGE (5 = 2.6)
--
.2
f
~ 50
280 GPM Mild A

!t
0+4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Wei,ht-On-Bit, klbs 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Weight-On-Bit, klbs
Fig. 1-WOB response for perfect cleaning conditions with
hard and soft rocks. Fig. 2-Effect of drilling fluid and hydraulics on ROP.

WOB to more teeth as the WOB is increased and the teeth
penetrate deeper into the rock. It also provides an upper
limit to the ROP for a fixed rotational speed. Eq. 1 was
found to fit experimental data for both steel tooth and in-
sert bits under conditions of uninhibited cuttings removal.
The relationship between WOB and ROP for a roller-
cone bit varies significantly for different conditions. Fig.
1 shows an example of the difference in ROP obtained
for two different rocks as the WOB is increased. Both
responses are predicted by Eq. 1.
At low WOB for a particular rock, ROP increases at
an increasing rate as WOB is increased. At some point,
ROP passes through an inflection point and begins to in-
crease at a decreasing rate. This phenomenon results be-
cause the first term of the model, aS 2 d6INhW2, is
predominant at low ROP's and the second term, clNd b ,
is predominant at higher ROP's. The inflection point
occurs at a higher ROP for bits with long, widely spaced
teeth than for bits with short, closely spaced teeth. For
a given bit and rotary-speed combination under perfect
cleaning conditions, this inflection point occurs at a fixed
ROP, regardless of the rock strength. The WOB corre-
sponding to this inflection point for a particular bit
and rotary speed is directly proportional to the rock
strength, S.
The rock strength used in the drilling model represents
the relative drillability of a rock with a new IntI. Assn
of Drilling Contractors (IADC) Series 1-1 bit under
perfect-cleaning conditions. It is approximately equal to
the compressive strength divided by 6,000 psi [41.4 MPa].
Eq. 1 accounts for the effect of bit type, bit size, WOB,
rotary speed, and rock strength on the rate at which clean
brittle rock is broken into chips. It is useful for under-
standing the effect of some basic parameters on ROP and
for establishing an upper bound on ROP. Unfortunately,
ROP in most field cases is significantly inhibited by the
rate of cuttings removal from under the bit. Thus Eq. 1
is not effective for predicting field ROP without modifi-
cation to account for imperfect cleaning.
ROP Controlled by Cuttings Removal. The ROP's for
an 8V2-in. [21.6-cm] Series 6-1-7 bit with both water and
9. I-Ibm/gal [1090-kg/m3] mud to drill Indiana limestone
are depicted in Fig. 2. (Table 1 lists the mud properties
for these and other tests reported here.) At very low WOB,
there is little change in ROP when either hydraulics or
fluid type is varied. With water as the drilling fluid, the
increase in ROP as a result of increasin WOB at high
hydraulics (4.9 hhp/in.2 [0.57 kW/cm ]) can be pre-
dicted fromEq. 1. (The IADC 6-1-7 bit was used in these
tests to exaggerate the cuttings-removal effect for a bet-
ter study of the effect of bit hydraulics. A softer-formation
bit would normally be used in this formation.)
When mud is used as the drilling fluid, the hydraulic
energy level has a strong influence on ROP. The WOB
curve breaks over and becomes almost flat at the higher
weights. An increase in the level of hydraulics tends to
make the bit more weight-responsive and to regain some
of the ROP lost because of the poor cleaning caused by
the mud; however, the full potential is rarely regained.

TABLE 1-MUD PROPERTIES USED IN DRILLING TESTS

Muds
A B C 0 E F G
Mud type Water Water Water Water Water Oil Oil
p, Ibm/gal 9.1 9.1 13.0 11.0 9.0 7.8 8.0
11-, ep 14 16 21 20 7 8 11
Yield pOint, Ibm/100 ft 2 6 10 23 10 11 8 9
Methylene blue test 36 32 30 22 28
Fluid loss, em 3/30 min 12 9 12 9 12 8 2
Oil/water ratiO, dimensionless 84/16 84/16

10 SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987

 100
125
\" I 13
13 ~
9/32 15

~
.. 100
15

'Ii
80 o 11/32
0.13/32

eo.
.:: 15/32

.. .
Ii 18

.,.
.. 18/32

,
Ii 75 ::0
60

..~
c::I
.2
50 Jets
9-9-9
'-112~ Series 6-1-7 Bit
43.000 Ib WOD
1>

eo.
40

., .. 13-13-13
15-15-15
75 RPM
Mud A .!
c::I
It 25 20

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800
. Total Impact Force, lb Calculated Impact Force, lb

Fig. 3-Correlation between total impact force and ROP Fig. 4-Correlation between calculated impact force and
for various nozzle sizes. measured impact pressure.

Fig. 3 shows data for the same bit at a wide range of
hydraulic conditions during drilling of Indiana limestone
with a 9. I-Ibm/gal [1090-kg/m3] water-based mud. The
tests were run with a constant WOB of 43,000 lbf [191
kNJ, a rotary speed of75 rev/min, and 100-psi [690-kPa]
borehole pressure. These tests were conducted in the same
rock as the tests shown in Fig. 2. The ROP was reduced
from more than 100 to less than 50 ft/hr [30 to 15 m/h]
by reducing the hydraulic impact force. These data show
a large effect of impact force and an influence of nozzle
diameter independent of impact force on ROP. For ex-
ample, 5OO-lbf [2.2-kN] impact force with three %z-in.
[0.7-cm] nozzles gives the same ROP as Soo-lbf [3.6-kN]
impact with three I%z-in. [1.2-cm] nozzles. A similar ef-
fect is observed when the ROP is compared with hydraulic
horsepower.
Hydraulic Energy at the Bit Face. The previous sec-
tion illustrates conditions where the ROP is partially con-
trolled by the cuttings-removal process. This section
discusses a method of estimating the hydraulic energy at
the bit face that is available for removing cuttings.
Warren and Winters 2 presented the results oftests de-
signed to measure the cuttings-removal ability of various
hydraulic conditions. The impact pressure on the bottom
of the hole under an Sllz-in. [21.6-cm] lADe Series 6-1-7
bit was measured. These measurements were made to
evaluate the ability of the jet stream to transfer energy
to the bottom of the hole.
The impact pressure measured under the bit can be com-
pared with the expected impact pressure for a circular jet
impacting on a flat plate 3 :
50
Pm= 1,23S.6s 2 pd;v;, ..................... (2)
where 1 ,23S.6 becomes 7991 when expressed in SI met-
ric values. This comparison gives a measure of the ener-
gy that is lost because the jet flows into a confined space
and a counterflow is caused by the return flow of fluid
from under the bit. Theoretically, the measured impact
pressure should be independent of the nozzle size for a
fixed bit size and a fixed value of the impact force calcu-
lated from Eq. 3.
Fj =0.000516pqv n , ........................ (3)
where 0.000516 becomes 0.061S3 when expressed in SI
metric values.
Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the measured peak im-
pact pressure to the calculated impact force for various
jet sizes. The impact pressure is less for the larger noz-
zle sizes at a fixed calculated impact force. Fig. 3 shows
the effect of these. same variables on ROP. The similari-
ty between Figs. 3 and 4 suggests that the peak impact
pressure is a suitable measurement of the hydraulic clean-
ing ability of various hydraulic conditions.
The reduction in impact pressure as the nozzle diameter
increases is caused by an accelerated entrainment of fluid
into the jet stream resulting from the return flow of fluid
from under the bit. The impact pressure for all nozzle sizes
is reduced to 25 to 40% of the expected value for a jet
impinging on a flat plate, depending on the nozzle size.
This is in agreement with other published impact-pressure
measurements. 3 The accelerated fluid entrainment causes
a smaller fraction of the jet energy to reach the bottom
of the hole for larger nozzles compared with smaller
nozzles.
An empirical technique was used to estimate the effect
of the accelerated dispersion of the jet on bottomhole
cleaning for various jets and flow conditions. The in-
creased fluid entrainment of a jet that flows into a reverse
flowing fluid is a function of the ratio of the jet velocity
to the return fluid velocity. 4 Because the volumetric flow
rate through the jets is the same as the return flow rate,
the relative velocities can be estimated from the nozzle
cross-sectional area and the cross-sectional area around
the bit available for return flow. The area available for
fluid return flow from under a roller-cone bit is equal to
about 15 % of the total bit area. If A v is the ratio of the

SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987 11

 100
0
200r---------------------------------.
'.5~ Seri.. 6-)-1 Bit
[]
Jets Jets

.. ..-;:g:;- n arM 100 PSI BHP

80
t/32
0111$2
o n
x 11-11-11
I i Li.o.toDe
Water Mad A
';J
~
13/32 ... 13-13-13
~ ':ijJ2 150

....
15-15-15
fi
.. 111/32 0::: 18-18-18
0

! .
60
.::I

C> ~
0
..
.....
d::
40
.. F jm = (1 - Av -O.122)F j
c:I
.2
100-

...~
0
A

-
~ = Jot Volocitl
a v Retura VelocitJ
~ 50
20- if]
If

0 O~~~~~~~~r_~~~~~~~
0 50 100 150 200 250 3QO o 50 100 150 200 250 300
Modified Impact Force. Ib Modified Impact Force. lb

Fig. 5-Correlation between modified impact force and Fig. 6-Comparison of model predictions to measured ROP
measured impact pressure. for various hydraulic conditions.

jet velocity to the fluid return velocity, then Av (for three
jets) is given by
Vn 0. 15d l to maintain a particular level of cuttings removal, but the
A v = vf = 3d; , ........................ (4)
where 0.15 is 0.97 and 3 is 19.4 when expressed in SI
metric values.
The impact pressure obtained for the various nozzles
was found to be predicted by
50
Pm =(l-A v -0.122)
1,238.6s 2
where 1,238.6 becomes 7991 when expressed in SI met-
ric values. The impact force modified for nozzle-size ef-
fects and the influence of the return flow is given by Eq.
6, when it is assumed that the impact force is affected
the same as the peak impact pressure.
F jm =(l-A v -O.I22)Fj. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
The modified impact force calculated from Eq. 6 elimi-
nates the variation in impact pressure caused by nozzle
size, as shown in Fig. 5.
Imperfect-Cleaning Model. Dimensional analysis was
used to isolate a group of variables-consisting of the
modified impact force and the mud properties-to incor-
porate into Eq. 1 to account for cuttings removal. These
factors were combined with Eq. 1 until an equation was
obtained that matched the experimental data. The resul-
tant expression for ROP is
This equation describes a continuous transition from cut-
tings generation to cuttings removal as the controlling fac-
tor on ROP. The bit diameter in the third term of Eq.
12
pdn2 v n, ......... (5)
.......... (7)
7 reflects the effect of the change in nozzle standoff dis-
tance as the diameter changes. The model shows that the
impact force must be increased as the bit size is increased
particular nozzle size used generally becomes less impor-
tant as the bit size increases.
Viscosity was identified from dimensional analysis as
the mud property to incorporate into the model. The use
of plastic viscosity did not reduce the ROP sufficiently
to match experimental data for the higher-density muds.
The mud specific gravity was added to the third term of
Eq. 7 to improve the model fit to the observed data without
altering the dimensional homogeneity of the equation. This
may be related to the mud-solids content, but definitive
tests of this were not run. A basic implication of having
the fluid specific gravity in the numerator of the third term
of Eq. 7 is that hydraulic cleaning cannot be improveq
by increasing the fluid density to increase the impact force.
Model Comparison to Laboratory Data
Low-Borehole-Pressure Tests. The bit constants a, b,
and c were evaluated for the previously shown Series
6-1-7 data. The solid lines in Fig. 2 are the model pre-
dictions for each of the three different hydraulic condi-
tions. The data from Fig. 3 have been replotted in Fig.
6 with the modified impact force as the abscissa. The solid
line included in this figure is the model prediction.
An 8 In-in. [21.6-cm] Series 5-1-7 bit was run with three
different drilling fluids and two hydraulic levels to test
the model further. These data are plotted in Fig. 7, along
with the model predictions. The low-hydraulics case with
the 9-lbm/gal [1078-kg/m3] mud is predicted to drill
slightly faster than the higher-hydraulics case with the
I3-lbm/gal [1558-kg/m3] mud. These plots show a good
match between the model predictions and the observed
ROP.
The penetration per revolution for a roller-cone bit
decreases as the rotary speed increases, indicating that
the drilling process becomes less efficient with increas-
ing rotary speed. The inclusion of a third term in the ROP
model causes it to predict decreasing penetration per revo-
lution as rotary speed is increased without the inclusion
SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987
 200 1.'- Sed.. 5-1-7 Bil 50
8.5" Series 6-1-1
15 IlPIII'O PSI BBP
180 75 HPII 11.4 D

~
.. 160
o
420 CPW WA.ttR
405 GPW WUD 8
. 40
...

140 P!H BHP

235 prol BHP

ladi Lime.loDe

~
1300 psi BHP

.:: 140
o
350 GPW WUO B
.::
....;., 340 GAl WUD C

~
120 ... 280 GPW "UO C
....;as 30
100 ~
CI
.9 ......
c:I .
e... 80

60
0

....
III
20


ct=
0
40 c:I

20
ct 10

0
0 10 20 30,40 50 60 70 80 0
Wei,ht-Ou-Bit. klbs 0 10 20 30 40 50
Weight-On-Bit. klbs
Fig. 7-Comparison of model predictions and measured
ROP for different hydraulics and muds. Fig. a-Effect of borehole pressure on ROP.

of the exponent on rotary speed that was used in Eq. 1.
This also causes the effect of hydraulics to be greatest at
higher rotary speeds.
The hydraulic factors incorporated in Eq. 7 provide a
measure of the ability of the fluid to remove chips that
are held in place by a fixed force. A change in the mud
properties-such as fluid loss, solids particle size, or solids
concentration-may cause the chips to be held to the for-
mation with a greater force. Neither this effect nor the
effect of bit balling are included in the hydraulic term of
Eq.7.
The pressure differential across the chips must be re-
duced to a low value before the chips can be removed,
because the drag force from the hydraulic energy acting
on the chips is low. The pressure differential across the
chips is reduced by both hydraulic scouring and mechan-
ical reworking of the cuttings by the bit teeth.
Elevated-Borehole-Pressure Tests. Fig. 8 shows three
drilling tests in Indiana limestone with an 8 V2-in.
[21.6-cm] IADC Series 6-1-7 bit and an ll-lbm/gal
[1318-kg/m 3 ] water-based mud at low and high borehole
pressures. The high-borehole-pressure (1,300-psi
[8963-kPa]) case drilled about 60% slower than the
lowest-pressure (140-psi [965-kPa]) case. The shape of
the ROP curve is nearly the same for all three cases. Fig.
9 shows the data plotted as a normalized curve with each
set of data normalized so that the ROP at 50,000 Ibf [222
kN] for each pressure is 1.0. This curve indicates that
the high-borehole-pressure effects are nearly independent
of the WOB for these tests.
The results of tests with the Series 6-1-7 bit to evaluate
the effect of muds and hydraulics on ROP in Indiana lime-
stone at an elevated borehole pressure are shown in Fig.
10. These tests show the same characteristic response to
an increase in WOB as the low-borehole-pressure tests.
The ROP increases rapidly at first and then levels off.
The maximum ROP is determined by the mud and
hydraulics just as it was for the low-borehole-pressure
tests. Tests with the same bit and mud in Carthage lime-
stone show much less effect of hydraulics on ROP.
Extending the ROP model to predict the ROP at high
borehole pressure is quite complicated. Increases in pres-
sure cause effects that are manifested in each of the three
terms of Eq. 7. These effects are functions of the mud
properties, bit design, rock properties, and pressure.

50
8.5" Series 6-)-1 '.5" SEHIES 6-1-7
...., TS HPliliad D 75 HPII 1100 PSI DBP

..
0 JETS 10-10-10, IrIiUD E. 290 GPIrII
.. 140 psi aHP
I.elia Limestoae l.'i Li.utoae JHS 12-12-12. "'UO t, 290 COPW
~ 1.6 HS psi BHP
40 ... JETS 12-12-12. "'UO E, 235 CPIroI

c:I 1300 psi BHP

~ )( JTS 11-11-11, IroIUD D, 248 GPW

....,
.S .::
..... l.2 ....;., 30
0
c:I ~

ct ...
c:I
0

.....
." 0.8
1; 20
...
0
N
;;
I rI
0

..a 0.4
c:I
ct 10
I.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50
Weight-On-Bit. klbs Weight-Ou-Bit. klbs

Fig. 9-Normalized effect of borehole pressure on ROP. Fig. 10-Effect of mud and hydraulics on ROP.

SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987 13


50 r-------------------------------~
. 5" Series 6-1-1
75 RPII 1300 PSI BHP
JETS 10-10-10, 290 GPM, Wud (1 Ii...
"" 40
~
JETS 12-12-12. 290 GPM, Mud [
JTS 11-11-11, 246 9pm. Mud 0
.:: o JETS 10-10'-10, 290 GPM, Mud [1
Ii [1 JETS 12-12--12, 290 GPM. Mud E Cartl.ale S" 2.6
.. 30
III:
.2
...
c:I
20-
...~
~ ._--------::t--------..r'i!---~
c:I
If 10
10 20
Wei,ht-On-Bit. klbs
Fig. 11-Comparison of model to observed ROP at high
borehole pressure.
In some cases, it appears that a simple solution to the
problem can be found-as shown in Fig. 9, where the
ROP at one pressure is similar to the ROP at another pres-
sure. In this case, a simple multiplying factor added to
the front of Eq. 7 is sufficient to account for pressure ef-
fects. This is the approach that has generally been taken
in ROP models.
A more complicated approach is needed to account for
the wide range of interactions between variables_ The best
solution would be to include explicitly all the effects into
one model, but so far this has not been successfully ac-
complished. An alternative approach is to use a basic
model, such as Eq. 7, and to determine the model coeffi-
cients for several sets of conditions. The true rock-
strengthening effects that result from differential pressure
can be handled as discussed in Ref. 5. The additional pres-
sure effects are incorporated by assuming that the model
coefficients have been determined for a case that is dy-
namically similar to the field case. This requires a con-
siderable amount of experimental work, but it provides
a reasonable model to relate changes in the controlled vari-
ables to the expected ROP.
Fig. 11 shows an example of the use ofEq. 7 to model
high-borehole-pressure data for the IADC Series 6-1-7
bit. The coefficients developed from these data can be used
for ROP predictions with a water-based mud under field
conditions. The ROP predicted from Eq. 7 is then adjusted
for the pressure existing in the field. The adjustment for
pressure effects is less when the model coefficients are
determined from high-pressure data than when the model
coefficients are based on atmospheric data. This results
in more accurate predictions. Different coefficients for
the basic model are also required for significantly differ-
ent drilling fluids, such as oil-based muds.
Bottomhole Cleaning at Elevated
Borehole Pressure
The field ROP obtained with a particular bit and set of
operating conditions decreases as the well depth increases.
This reduction of drilling rate is often attributed to dif-
ferential pressure, increasing in-situ stresses, and
decreases in porosity, rock plasticity, and chip hold-down.
14
Before Cuttings After Cuttings
Bed Development Bed Developed
~."'=-.
d_~cu~~~gs
S" 1.0
ft
~Fractures
/o,. _ _
'I
_-oro L Compacted Rock Debris ~
Fig. 12-Schematic of cratering process.
The cause of the reduction in drilling rate with depth
30 40 50 can be divided into two general categories: processes that
affect the unbroken rock and processes that act on the rock
once it is broken into chips. The drilling model present-
ed in Eq. 7 predicts the drilling response of bits under
low-borehole-pressure conditions. Ref. 5 discusses the ef-
fect of confining stresses on rock strength and presents
a method for determining the magnitude of the rock
strength at depth that can be ufied with Eq. 7.
The following sections discuss the reduction in ROP
as it result of processes that act on the broken rock at high
borehole pressure. The reduction in ROP caused by these
pressure effects can be divided into a local cratering ef-
fect and a global cleaning effect. Neither of these effects
has been explicitly modeled.
Local Cratering Effects. Local cratering effects are de-
fined as phenomena that occur adjacent to a particular
tooth during the penetration cycle and can be studied with
single-tooth impact tests. Fig. 12 shows a single tooth that
has penetrated the rock until the resistant force equals the
force applied to the tooth. In this case, the original rock
surface was assumed to be clean and free of debris.
The volume of a new rock that is fractured by a tooth
depends on the geometry, rock properties, and tooth-
penetration depth below the rock surface. The force ap-
plied to the tooth for a particular situation determines the
tooth-penetration depth. A bit tooth always penetrates into
the rock until the resistant force offered by the rock equals
the force applied to the tooth.
The broken chips around the tooth do not hinder fur-
ther tooth penetration when the borehole pressure is low.
The tooth penetrates until the shear stress generated by
the force on the tooth caused by WOB is balanced by the
shear strength of the rock. If the differential pressure in-
creases, the shear strength of the rock will increase. A
smaller shear area is then required to balance the stress
applied by the tooth; thus the crater volume is reduced.
The rock may also become more ductile so that a greater
tooth penetration is required to cause sufficient strain for
chipping to occur.
The broken chips resist further tooth penetration when
a pressure differential acts across them. Once a fracture
forms, the chips are held in place by a normal force from
the unequal pressure above and below the chips. This
causes resistance to additional tooth penetration in the
same penetration cycle. The resistant force of the broken
chips is a function of the normal stress across the chips
and the coefficient of friction between the chips and un-
broken rock. There is little difference between this phe-
SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987
 Fig. l4-Schematic of cross section through cuttings bed.

50
7.'75" Seri 5-1-7
Fig. l3-Photograph of bed of rock debris. 15 aPIil 2.0 GPIII 1340 PSI BUP

~
.. 40
..... B

.:::
nomenon and true plastic deformation. 6 In both cases,
the resistance to strain is maintained for large strains.
The pressure differential acting across the chips depends
-.,
~
~
30

on the fluid properties (viscosity and plugging ability), ...-.,

c:I
0

-..
20
rock permeability, and the rate at which the chips are
formed. At the time a chip is formed , the fracture volume u
c:I
increases from zero to some finite value. This requires If 10 10- 10-10 Ind iano
12- 12- 12 India na
fluid to flow into the crack to maintain a constant pres- o 10 - 10-10 Cortho9'

sure differential. The effective differential pressure across 12- 12- 12- COf"lhog:1

the chips increases as the ability of the drilling fluid to w ~ ~ ~

flow through narrow cracks decreases. Thus the effec-
tive pressure differential across the chips varies for differ-
ent fluids, rocks, and rates of loading. The upper limit
of the pressure differential across the chips under adverse
conditions is the total wellbore pressure. A more detailed
discussion of these effects can be found in Ref. 7.
Local cratering effects reduce the ROP the same as an
increase in rock strength. These effects appear to modifY
the first term of Eq. 7. Additional WOB tends to over-
come the reduction in crater volume, but an increased lev-
el of hydraulics has little success in overcoming local
cratering effects. A change in mud properties to reduce
the differential pressure either by reducing the hydrostatic
head or by improving the filtration has a beneficial effect.
Global-Cleaning Effects. The rock-crushing action of
roller-cone bits creates a global-cleaning problem because
a layer of rock debris is generated on the bottom of the
hole after only a few inches are drilled. This debris build-
up is created because the teeth on most bits are blunt to
some degree. A zone of compacted rock debris is created
at the bottom of each tooth crater. Fig. 12 schematically
shows the buildup of this rock debris into a considerable
layer that may be as thick as the length of the teeth on
the bit.
The bit tooth tends to compress and squeeze water out
of the crushed rock powder under the tooth. Once the tooth
moves out of the crater, the crushed rock is still held in
place by a pressure differential. The magnitude of the
pressure differential is a time-dependent function of the
compressibility and permeability of the compacted rock
debris.
The rock debris continues to build up until it reaches
an equilibrium where the rate of removal of the debris
is equal to the rate at which new chips are made. The force
applied to a particular tooth to penetrate virgin rock may
Wei,ht-OD-Bit, klbs
Fig. l5-Comparison of ROP for a Series 5-1-7 bit in Car-
thage and Indiana limestones.
be diminished because otherteeth on the bit are support-
ed on the bed of cuttings. This phenomenon is similar to
the variation in tooth loading discussed in the Appendix,
except the resistant force comes from a bed of cuttings
rather than the formation .
The turbulent energy of the hydraulics has a signific.ant
influence on the thickness of the bed at the equilibrium
state. The thickness of the bed controls the fraction ofto-
tal WOB .that is applied to a particular tooth to form new
crater volume. This shows up as an increase in the im-
portance of the bit hydraulics and as a decrease in the ROP
response to increases in WOB . This effect is manifested
mainly in the second and third terms of Eq. 7 .
Laboratory Observations. The bottomhole pattern left
by the Series 6-1-7 bit after a high-borehole-pressure test
in the Indiana-limestone test consisted mainly of a thick
layer of compressed rock debris. Fig. 13 is a photograph
of the bottomhole pattern with a section of the rock debris
removed. X-ray diffraction analysis of the material
showed that it was composed of 96 % rock minerals and
4 % mud material. The median particle size of the rock
debris was 200 ILm.
Fig. 14 is a schematic of a cross section through the
debris. The top layer in each tooth imprint is composed
of a layer of highly compressed, smooth rock powder that
looks like an eggshell. Under the eggshell layer is a much
thicker layer of crushed rock . This layer may be almost
as thick as the length ofthe bit teeth. The compacted rock
can be scraped off with a knife. In many cases, it is
difficult to distinguish the crushed rock from the unfailed

SPE Drilling Engineering. March 1987 15

 30
50 r-----------------------------------, '.5" Seriu 6-1-7
lad i Li.estoDc
1.5" SBRIBS 6-1-7
1400 PSI BHP
Oil II II'

... 25
Oil".' II' o
~
280 GPtot, 2 7 HSI, '400 psi BHP
280 GPM, 10-10-10
280 GP.... 1.5 HSI,1400 psi BHP
.:: 20
280 GPW. 12-12-12
t::. 288 GPW. 10-10-10
216 GPM, 0.75 HSI,1400 psi BHP

ti o 220 CPU, 12-12-12 270 GPIo4, 250 psi BHP

~ 15
1=1 ~~'"
.2 ,,,,,,to "
~ \"'~
....... 10

8
d! 5-
0 t-
c

o ~~~_r~--~~~~_r~-r~~--~~
O'~~~~~~~-r~~~~~~~--~~~ o 10 30 30 40 so
o 10 20 '30 40 so Wei,ht-On-Bit. klbs
We~4t-On-Bit. klbs
Fig. 17-Effect of borehole pressure on drilling rate with
Fig. 16-ROP with a Series 6-1-7 bit and oil mUd. oil mUd.

rock visually. The bed of rock debris had distinct tooth
indentations, but no tooth indentations could be seen un-
der the bed. Similar findings have been reported in Refs.
8 through 10.
The debris from the Indiana limestone built up to a
thickness of more than 0.25 in. [0.64 cm], but there was
very little buildup for the Carthage limestone. The debris
bed for the Carthage seemed to be limited to a distinct
eggshell layer in each tooth impact. The thicker bed of
debris for the Indiana limestone may have been related
to the difference in either rock strength or permeability.
Flow into the permeable (5-md) Indiana limestone may
have exacerbated the buildup of the cuttings bed.
Longer teeth and more cone offset tend to reduce the
magnitude ofthe global-cleaning problem. Fig. 15 shows
the results of tests with a 7%-in. [20-cm] Series 5-1-7 bit
in Indiana and Carthage limestones. The Series 5-1-7 bit
drilled significantly faster than the Series 6-1-7 for all con-
ditions tested. The ROP does not level off at high WOB
with the Series 5-1-7 bit as it does with the 6-1-7 bit. The
improvement in ROP at the higher hydraulics for the Ser-
ies 5-1-7 bit in Indiana limestone is similar to that for the
Series 6-1-7 bit. There is no change in the ROP of the
Series 5-1-7 bit in Carthage limestone because the hydraul-
ics is varied.
The lack of hydraulic response in the harder Carthage
rock for both bits indicates that the reduced ROP at the
elevated pressure resulted mostly from a local cratering
effect. This is consistent with the absence of the thick cut-
tings bed at the end of the test. The thick cuttings bed
for the Indiana limestone tests and the good hydraulics
response indicated that Ii major part of the inhibition to
ROP resulted from a global-cleaning problem. This is also
consistent with the fact that the bit with the most cone
offset had good WOB response and greatly reduced the
cuttings buildup even in the Indiana limestone.
In some cases, there is little distinction between the lo-
cal cratering and global-cleaning effect. This was observed
when Mancos shale was drilled with a Series 5-1-7 bit.
Large chips-in some cases as large as 1,4 in. [0.64 cm]
thick and 1 in. [2.54 cm] wide-were stuck on the bot-
tom of the hole after the test. These chips did not adhere
to the rock, but they were obviously still in their original
position. They were easily removed intact after the bore-

50
o 7.815~ Seti.. 5-1-7. Mod F 7.87S" SERIES 5-1-7 BIT
U ',50" Seri 6-}-7."" P
7.'15- Seri.. 5-1-7.11..4 G 60 RPM 1300 PSI BHP
'.50- Seriu 6-1-7. II G
... 40
280 GPM JETS 10-10-10

~
MANCOS SHALE

.::
o ....as.; 30
-0-

~
=
/'
/'
/' .2
.... 20 /
/,'

...as... f
o
_.-
/
CI /

-.- 1=1 /'

/'c
70 _.-
d! 10
/J
/'

" /'
/. o Wolorhjud [
b QilMud F

0
10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Wei,ht-On-Bit. kips Wei,ht-On-Bit. kips

Fig. 18-Effect of fluid loss on ROP with oil mUd. Fig. 19-ROP with water and oil mud for Mancos shale.

16 SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987

hole pressure was eliminated, but they appeared to have 10
been held to the bottom during drilling. Field Data From O.. rthrust Wells
9- 12 114 Serie. 6-1-7
M

These chips are the result of brittle chip formation but

p,. Silt.toae
they remained on the bottom of the hole because of the
~'"
8
pressure differential across them. They could not be re-
moved until the pressure was equalized around them,
.:: 7
/'

primarily by regrinding and mechanical reworking. Chips ...

.;
III
6 ,. /
I'll::
of this size may be removed without further size reduc-
c:l
/
tion during drilling with low borehole pressure and a clean
drilling fluid.
...
.2
4

/
/e.

...'"
III

~ 3
/
c:l /
Oil-Mud Tests. Tests with an oil-based mud were con- &: 1 /
ducted with both the Series 5-1-7 and 6-1-7 bits. The re- /


Wohtr Mud, 71 RPM
Oil Mud, 67 RPM
sults of these tests were considerably different from those /.

with water muds. The oil mud caused the drilling response
in both Indiana and Carthage limestones to appear as if
the rocks were stronger than they were with the water
muds.
Fig. 16 shows an example of the ROP response for the
Series 6-1-7 bit in Indiana and Carthage limestones with
the oil mud. In both cases, the ROP continues to increase
as the WOB is increased. The oil mud seems to inhibit
local cratering, probably because of the poor fluid flow
into the fractures around the chips. This is supported by
the fact that the oil mud drills as fast as a water mud at
low borehole pressures, as shown in Fig. 17.
The reduced ROP with the oil mud seems to be caused
by its inability to relieve the pressure differential during
the initial cratering process. Fig. 18 shows tests comfar-
ing oil muds with API fluid losses of 8 and 2 cm /30
min. The ROP was lower with the 8-cm 3/30 min fluid
loss than with the 2-cm 3/30 min fluid loss with both bits
tested. The bit with the longer teeth and more offset tends
to overcome the lower-fluid-loss effect at the higher WOB.
The Series 6-1-7 bit could not overcome the lower-fluid-
loss effects because a bed of cuttings was built under the
bit.
The oil mud drilled considerably more slowly in both
of the limestones tested than did the water mud. Tests were
also conducted in Mancos shale with the Series 5-1-7 bit
,in both oil and water mud. The water mud drilled only
slightly faster over most of the WOB range and actually
drilled more slowly at the highest WOB, as shown in Fig.
19. For field drilling, the oil mud may drill faster than
the water mud because of the reduction in hydrostatic head
when the oil-mud density is less than the water mud's.
Comparison of the field performance of an 8-lbm/gal
[959-kg/m3] oil-based mud to a. 9.5-lbm/gal
[1138-kg/m3] water-based mud during drilling of the
12 JA-in. [31. 12-cm] intermediate hole section of two Utah
Overthrust wells confirmed the results seen in the labo-
ratory tests. The ROP-vs;-WOB curves for 40 drill-off
tests with the oil mud were compared with 36 tests with
the water mud. Seventy-two percent of the tests with the
oil mud-which showed distinct curvature between
30,000- and 60,000-lbf [133- and 267-kN] WOB-were
concave upward, while 65 % of the tests with the water
mud were concave downward. About 10 to 20% of the
tests showed no distinct curvature.
These tests indicate that the ROP is more responsive
to increases in WOB with an oil mud and that the best
results with an oil mud are obtained at the higher weights.
Fig. 20 shows examples of the drill-off tests that demon-
strate the different response to increasing WOB for the
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Weight-On-Bit. kips
Fig. 20-ROP response to increases in WOB for water and
oil mud in two Utah Overthrust wells.
two muds for 12 lA-in. 131. 12-cm] Series 6-1-7 bits drill-
ing a siltstone below 9,600 ft [2926 m]. These curves
should not be interpreted as showing the relative drilling
rate of the oil mud to the water mud because of possible
differences in the formation and bit condition in these two
tests. The overall ROP for the intermediate hole was about
15% greater with the oil-based mud than with the water-
based mud. -
Conclusions
A model has been presented for predicting .ROP for roller-
cone bits under low-borehole-pressure conditions. This
model accounts for both cuttings generation and cuttings
removal.
Drilling data obtained under high-borehole-pressure
conditions were analyzed to determine the cause of the
reduction in ROP as the borehole pressure increases. In
some cases, the reduced ROP is caused by a buildup of
rock debris under the bit. When this occurs, the ROP can
be improved by an increased level of hydraulics. In other
cases, the reduction in ROP seems to be caused by a lo-
cal cratering effect that is much less responsive to in-
creases in hydraulics. Comparison of model predictions
to the observed ROP can help identify the mechanism that
limits the ROP and provide insight into ways to improve it.
An increase in WOB will increase the ROP more with
an oil mud than with a water mud at the higher weights.
Consequently, the best performance of an oil mud com-
pared with a water mud is obtained when high WOB is
run.
Nomenclature
a,h,c = dimensionless constants
A v = ratio of jet velocity to return velocity
db = bit diameter, in. [cm]
d n = nozzle diameter, in. [cm]
F = force applied to single tooth, Ibf [N]
Fj = jet impact force, Ibf [N]
Fjm = modified jet impact force, Ibf [N]
L = tooth-crest length, in. [cm]
L t = total tooth-crest length for bit, in. [cm]
N = bit rotary speed, rev/min

SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987 17

 Pm = maximum impact pressure under jet, psi By assuming that the total WOB is distributed over a fixed
[kPa] number of teeth and that both the total tooth-crest length
q = flow rate, gal/min [dm3/s] and the tooth-crest length in contact with the bottom of
R = penetration rate, ft/hr [m/h] the hole are proportional to the bit diameter, we find that
s = distance from jet to impact point, in. [cm]
S = rock strength, psi [kPa] NW2
R = - - . ............................ (A-3)
vf = return fluid velocity, ft/sec [m/s] ad~S2
v n = nozzle velocity, ft/ sec [m/ s]
V c = crater volume per unit width of cutter, Eq. A-3 is not a realistic expression for ROP because it
in. 3/in. implies that there is no upper limit to ROP as WOB is
W = WOB, lbf [N] increased. Limitations are imposed on ROP because of
'Yf = fluid specific gravity, dimensionless both mechanical design and cuttings-removal considera-
J), = plastic viscosity, cp [Pa' s] tions. As the teeth penetrate deeper into the formation,
p = fluid density, Ibm/gal [kg/m3] the load is distributed over more teeth. If it is assumed
that the fraction of the weight that is supported by adja-
cent teeth is proportional to the total depth of tooth
References penetration, and inversely proportional to the tooth length,
1. Warren, T.M.: "Drilling Model for Soft-Formation Bits," JPT
then ROP is given by
(June 1981) 963-70.
2. Warren, T.M. and Winters, W.J.: "The Effect of Nozzle Diameter
on Jet Impact for a Tricone Bit," SPEJ (Feb. 1984) 9-18.
3. Sutko, A.A. and Meyers, G.M.: "The Effect of Nozzle Size,
Number, and Extension on the Pressure Distribution Under a
................. (A-4)
Tricone Bit," JPT (Nov. 1971) 1299-1304.
4. Rajaratnam, N.: Turbulent Jets, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,
Amsterdam (1976) 226-44.
5. Warren, T.M.: "Bottomhole'Stress Factors Affecting Drilling Rate
at Depth," JPT (Aug. 1985) 1523-33.
6. Maurer, W.C.: "Bit-Tooth Penetration Under Simulated Borehole
Conditions," JPT (Dec. 1965) 1433-42; Trans . AIME, 234.
7. Myers, G.M. and Gray, K.E.: "Rock Failure During Tooth Impact
and Dynamic Filtration," SPEJ (June 1968) 163-73; Trans., AIME, For reasonable values of R, N, and db, the last term is
243.
8. Cunningham; R.A. and Eenik, J.G.: "Laboratory Study of Effects negligible and ROP is given by
of Overburden, Formation, and Mud Column Pressures on Drilling
Rate of Permeable Formations," Trans . AIME (1959) 216,9-17.
9. van Lingen, N.H.: "Bottom Scavenging-A Major Factor Govern-
ing Penetration Rates at Depth," JPT (Feb. 1962) 187-96; Trans ..
R= (aS2d~
NW2
+_C_)
Nd
-1
'
................. (A-6)
b
AIME,225.
10. Feenstra, R. and van Leeuwen, J.J.M.: "Full-Scale'Experiments
on Jets in Impermeable Rock Drilling," Reprint Series, SPE, where c in Eq. A-6 equals 2c in Eqs. A-4 and A-5.
Richardson, TX (1973) 119-26. The exponent on the rotary speed in Eq. 1 was added
to give a better fit to the experimental data.
Appendix-Derivation of Basic
ROP Model 51 Metric Conversion Factors
Numerous single-tooth impact tests and theoretical models cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
have shown that the crater volume for a chisel-shaped ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
tooth is given by gal/min X 6.309020 E-02 dm 3/s
hp X 7.46043 E-Ol kW
in. X 2.54* E+OO cm
Vc= (~r, .......................... (A-I) in. 2
kip
X
X
6.451 6*
4.448222
E+OO
E+03
cm 2
N
lbf X 4.448222 E+OO N
where V c is the crater volume per unit width of cutter. Ibm/gal X 1.198264 E+02 kg/m3
If each tooth impact is considered to be equally effective, psi X 6.894757 E+OO kPa
then ROP can be given by
Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
4NL t V c Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 16.
1984. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 14. 1966. Revised manuscript received Sept.
R= ..................... , ..... (A-2) 29.1986. Paper (SPE 13259) first presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Con-
7rdl; ference and Exhibition held in Houston. Sept. 16-19.

18 SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1987