SPE-186166-MS

A Novel Probabilistic Rig Based Drilling Optimization Index to Improve

Drilling Performance

A. Ambrus, P. Ashok, A. Chintapalli, and D. Ramos, Intellicess Inc.; M. Behounek, T. S. Thetford, and B. Nelson,
Apache Corp

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Offshore Europe Conference & Exhibition held in Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 5-8 September 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Currently, real-time adjustments to drilling parameters such as weight on bit (WOB), drillstring revolutions
per minute (RPM), flow rate, etc., are based primarily on experience. This is mainly due to the uncertain
nature of information (both downhole and surface) available and inability of humans to aggregate multiple
data streams in real-time to make optimal decisions. The objective therefore is to build a decision
support tool that can overcome these limitations by automatically aggregating this data, identifying drilling
inefficiency and suggesting optimal drilling parameters.
The methodology presented in this paper uses a Bayesian network to represent the drilling process and
is capable of representing uncertainty in a way that is robust to bad sensor data. The model is updated in
real-time and tracks variations in drilling conditions. Various dysfunctions such as bit balling, bit bounce,
whirl, torsional vibrations, high mechanical specific energy (MSE), auto-driller erratic behavior, etc., are
identified by tracking the movement characteristics of various sensor data in relation to model predicted
values. A holistic drilling optimization index is thus derived by aggregating all this information. This index
coupled with the drilling dysfunction prediction ultimately enables recommendation of drilling parameter
corrections.
The drilling optimization index has been integrated into a drilling rig data aggregation system currently
in operation on twenty rigs in North America. The system has access to real-time data, both at low frequency
(less than 1 Hz) as well as data in the 1 to 10 Hz range, and also contextual data (such as data typically
available in a tour sheet or well plan). In deploying the system, human factors aspects were given significant
consideration. A typical driller is not familiar with concepts such as Bayesian networks, MSE, etc. By
displaying the effectiveness of drilling as a single, dimensionless parameter, an index that varies between 0
and 1, with 0 representing inefficient drilling and 1 representing optimal drilling, the message is effectively
communicated to the driller. The index is currently depicted in a very intuitive "speedometer" type of visual.
Values are low and closer to 0 when dysfunctions occur, and when that happens suggestions are provided on
how to mitigate the dysfunctions. These suggestions are visually presented in the form of operational cones
in the WOB-RPM space. Additionally, the variation of the index with drilling depth is displayed to enable
2 SPE-186166-MS

the driller to identify how formation changes impact drilling performance. This was found to be useful to
drilling engineers who are generally tasked with optimizing the drilling process.

Introduction
Recent advances in drilling technologies, rig instrumentation and data aggregation systems have set the
stage for significantly improved drilling rates as well as reduced non-productive and invisible lost time. One
such advance is the drilling of multi-lateral wells from the same pad, which facilitates drilling optimization
and performance benchmarking in a systematic fashion. To leverage these newfound opportunities, drilling
advisory systems and decision support software have been developed to assist drillers and operators with
the selection of optimal drilling parameters that improve the efficiency of the drilling process.
These systems often rely on holistic concepts, such as MSE, which combines information from several
real-time data streams into a physical quantity representative of the drilling performance. The concept of
MSE, originally developed by Teale (1965), has been related to more conventional drilling performance
benchmarking tools, such as the "drill-off" curve and "founder point" (Dupriest and Koederitz, 2005). MSE
trends over time are useful in identifying inefficient drilling as well as drilling dysfunctions, even though
the nature of the dysfunction (bit balling, bit bounce, stick-slip, whirl, etc.) may not be evident from MSE
trend analysis alone. Proper identification of the dysfunction type is essential in making the appropriate
correction in drilling parameters (for instance, a reduction in WOB and/or increase in RPM when stick-slip
is detected, or an increase in WOB and/or reduction in RPM for whirl conditions).
The root cause of the dysfunction may also vary. Transitions from a softer to a harder formation, poor
hole cleaning or insufficient bit hydraulic horsepower cause the most common dysfunctions, while some
dysfunctions may be induced or worsened by poorly tuned drilling control systems (e.g. auto-drillers).
Therefore, without additional information, such as rock strength or hydraulics parameters, MSE analysis
may provide very limited insight into drilling inefficiency and dysfunctions. A mechanical efficiency factor,
typically 0.35, is used to correlate the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) to the MSE (Dupriest and
Koederitz, 2005). For more accurate representation of the rock strength under downhole pressure conditions,
confined compressive strength (CCS) can be used instead of UCS (Caicedo et al., 2005). The basic MSE
formula derived by Teale can also be augmented to include the hydraulic horsepower generated at the bit,
resulting in Hydro-Mechanical Specific Energy (Mohan et al., 2009) or Drilling Specific Energy (Armenta,
2008). The inclusion of hydraulic energy allows for better identification of drilling dysfunctions caused by
poor hydraulics management, such as bit balling. Additionally, if a downhole motor is present, the effective
downhole RPM and torque generated by the motor can replace the surface values in Teale's equation (Logan,
2015).
Plotting and real-time monitoring of drilling parameter operating envelopes (e.g. WOB and RPM)
has also been attempted as a means to improve rate of penetration (ROP) (Dunlop et al, 2011). This
approach generates "heat maps" that are easy to visually interpret by the driller. A similar approach, utilizing
conditional probability tables from which such heat maps can be extracted, was proposed by Ambrus et al.
(2015). The conditional probability tables were derived from physics-based models of the drilling process,
equipment specifications and operational constraints. Another embodiment of the heat map technique for
drilling optimization was illustrated by Payette et al. (2017), where individual maps, such as MSE, ROP
and torsional severity estimate (TSE), are combined into an objective function which is optimized to arrive
at the desired control parameters (WOB, RPM, or differential pressure).
This paper proposes a novel metric for quantifying drilling efficiency /drilling optimization computed
using a Bayesian network. The network combines identification of drilling dysfunctions (i.e. vibrational
modes), auto-driller dysfunctions and MSE tracking into a single, normalized quantity, upon which the
driller can make decisions on which control parameters to adjust. The driller may be provided with
operational cones on a WOB-RPM plot to assist in this task.
SPE-186166-MS 3

Methodology
The method proposed in this paper combines real-time surface measurements available on a drilling rig,
derived quantities such as MSE and bit aggressiveness, and formation data (e.g. rock strength) into a
probabilistic framework capable of handling the inherent uncertainty in the data and process. The measured
and derived parameters are encoded into a set of probabilistic features indicative of either the location of
a particular physical attribute, or a trend / movement of the attribute. These features are used to infer the
beliefs of various drilling dysfunctions, as well as the belief of an optimal drilling condition. The end result
is a drilling optimization index calculated at every time instant when a drilling activity occurs. Due to its
holistic nature, this index factors in the presence of various dysfunctions as well as sub-optimal drilling rates.
Additional dysfunctions can be easily added to the index, and the Bayesian network is forgiving when some
data is missing. The index can be easily integrated into a decision support system for monitoring drilling
performance and providing recommendations for improved efficiency. Figure 1 below shows a detailed
flow chart of the method, which will be elaborated in the following sections.

Figure 1—Flow chart for drilling optimization index calculation.

Processing of Real-Time Drilling Inputs

The method starts by reading real-time drilling parameters, such as surface torque, rotary speed, WOB,
ROP, differential pressure, and control set points. If different rig sensors report data at different frequencies,
a time synchronization of the sensor measurements is performed to accurately depict the trends of the data
collected by various sensors as a function of time. Next, preprocessing of the data collected from the sensors
4 SPE-186166-MS

is performed. Preprocessing steps include removing obvious data outliers, as well as null or missing values,
and/or summarizing high-frequency data to one or a few data points.
The next step involves identifying the rig activity. If the rig activity is drilling (either rotating or sliding),
the system proceeds to calculate the MSE, bit aggressiveness (μ), and stick slip alarm (SSA) magnitude
using the collected sensor readings. The MSE derived from surface rotation rate (N) and surface torque (T)
is shown in Eq. 1, based on Teale (1965). Downhole MSE, used for slide drilling instances, is shown in
Eq. 2 (Logan, 2015).

(1)

(2)

In Eqs. 1 and 2, AB is the total bit area, Q is the flow rate through the mud motor (in gal/min), K represents
the mud motor revolutions per gallon, ΔP is differential pressure, and Tmotor,max, ΔPmotor,max, are the mud motor
maximum torque and differential pressure, respectively.
Bit aggressiveness, given in Eq. 3, is a measure of the friction generated at the bit (Pessier and Fear,
1992), with DB denoting the bit diameter.

(3)

Finally, Eq. 4 shows the calculation for the SSA, where the maximum (Tmax), minimum (Tmin) and average
surface torque (Tavg) are taken over a moving window of samples. The SSA is only calculated for rotary
drilling intervals, whereas for slide drilling, it is set to zero.

(4)

Feature Extraction for Drilling Dysfunction Detection

Once the measured and derived drilling parameters are obtained, their instantaneous values and / or trends
are converted into location and movement features, illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. As
shown in these examples, each feature outputs a probability value. For example, as depicted in the left plot
in Figure 2, a probability may be determined for the location of an attribute value based upon a threshold
range from a low threshold to a high threshold. The example shown in the right plot in Figure 3 illustrates
a probability function calculated in relation to a normal threshold, a low threshold, and a high threshold for
a given attribute value. Location features used in this paper include ROP, SSA, and the ratio between MSE
and the UCS of the rock, assuming that UCS data is available. A heuristic is used where SSA values above
80 indicate high stick-slip likelihood, while SSA below 40 indicates no stick-slip. The range in between the
two thresholds represents the transition from low to high stick-slip probability. Similarly, an MSE to UCS
ratio above 5 is selected as the cut-off for inefficient drilling, while a ratio of 1.5 or less indicates drilling
close to optimal conditions from an MSE point of view.
SPE-186166-MS 5

Figure 2—Calculation of location features. The plot on the left shows a location feature
with two states (Low and High) and the associated probabilities, P(Low) and P(High).
The plot on the right shows a location feature with three states (Low, Normal and High).

Figure 3—Calculation of movement features. The plot on the left shows a feature indicating a monotonic trend (Increasing,
Decreasing or Constant) and the associated probabilities. The plot on the right shows a feature indicating an erratic trend.

Movement features may be classified using linear curve fitting performed over a moving window of
attribute values. The left plot in Figure 3 depicts movement features indicative of monotonic trends. A
probability function for the attribute of interest having an increasing, decreasing, or constant trend is
determined by comparing the coefficient related to the slope of the linear fit to a negative or positive
fit threshold. Movement features may also be analyzed by determining if a feature is erratic by looking
at the standard deviation of measurements over a moving window. The right plot in Figure 4 depicts a
probability function based upon a standard deviation threshold defined for an attribute value. Derived
drilling parameters such as MSE and bit aggressiveness may have highly erratic trends that indicate the
presence of bit bounce or stick-slip. By combining the probability of a feature being erratic with its mean
trends (increasing, decreasing or constant), differentiation of specific dysfunctions can be further enhanced.
If UCS data is available, the UCS variation over depth may be compared to the MSE trends as an additional
feature to distinguish between dysfunctions and normal trends resulting from formation changes.
6 SPE-186166-MS

Figure 4—Bayesian Network for drilling dysfunction detection. The probability associated with
the "NONE" outcome represents the instantaneous value of the drilling optimization index.

Bayesian Modeling of Drilling Dysfunctions

The location and movement features are aggregated into a Bayesian network representing the drilling
process, shown in Figure 4. A set of discrete probabilistic weights, or conditional probability tables (CPT)
connect the various nodes in the Bayesian network model. The Drilling Dysfunction node is assigned a prior
probability distribution based on the expected frequency of occurrence for each of the modeled dysfunctions,
which include bit balling, bit bounce, stick-slip, whirl, and a lumped category for other dysfunctions (e.g. top
drive failure, downhole motor failure, malfunctioning auto-driller system, etc.). The posterior probability
distribution of the Drilling Dysfunction node is updated at every time instant where a drilling activity is
recorded. The outcome of the Drilling Dysfunction node corresponding to no dysfunction detected yields
the instantaneous value of the drilling optimization index. The probabilistic formulation naturally results in
a drilling optimization (drilling efficiency) index between 0 and 1, with 1 representing optimal drilling and
0 inefficient drilling. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the detection probabilities and instantaneous value of
the drilling optimization index for a theoretical stick-slip and whirl case, respectively. The model presented
here is better suited for rotary drilling. Slide drilling efficiency was found to be more difficult to quantify
in the absence of real-time directional drilling data, such as toolface angle, and contextual data, such as
bottom-hole assembly (BHA) build / drop tendencies and accurate mud motor performance specifications.

Figure 5—Detection of stick-slip dysfunction. The drilling optimization index is 0.28.

SPE-186166-MS 7

Figure 6—Detection of whirl dysfunction. The drilling optimization index is 0.08.

Field Application Results

In this section we will discuss a few examples from several horizontal wells drilled in North America. For
the purpose of a more uniform comparison, six wells from the same pad are selected. The results are filtered
to only include instances of rotary drilling. Figure 7 highlights the calculated drilling efficiency index in the
WOB-RPM space (assuming surface values) at a particular depth in the vertical hole section. It can be seen
that Well 1, Well 2, Well 6 and, to a large extent, Well 3, are operating reasonably well and have high drilling
efficiency indexes. Well 5 and Well 4 have stick-slip at this depth which causes their drilling efficiency
index to fall. Note however that the ROP is still high for the wells experiencing lower drilling efficiency
values. The general means to reduce stick-slip when a stick-slip mitigation controller is not available is to
reduce WOB and increase RPM. For both Well 4 and Well 5 this would have led to different operational
points. This figure also helps to highlight the fact that it is not reasonable to expect that drilling parameters
that were optimal for one well would work for all other wells on the pad.

Figure 7—Drilling efficiency index at 2051 ft Measured Depth (MD) for the six wells in the field
study. If the drilling efficiency is below 0.9, the dominant dysfunction belief is also indicated.

Figure 8 is a snapshot taken at a different depth. All the wells are in the lateral section and in the same
formation. Here whirl is the more prevalent dysfunction, as seen in Well 1 and Well 2, while Well 5 has
8 SPE-186166-MS

reduced drilling efficiency due to bit bounce. Wells 3, 4 and 6 have high drilling efficiency index values,
which are generally matched with high ROP, except for Well 4 which has notably lower ROP than the
other wells (this could be due to filtering used in the ROP calculation). Note that, despite the RPM and
WOB parameters for Wells 3 and 5 being very close to each other, there is a notable discrepancy in drilling
efficiency (0.99 vs. 0.4). This can be due to other factors, such as bit condition, wellbore tortuosity, hole
cleaning, mud motor condition, etc.

Figure 8—Drilling efficiency index at 11550 ft MD for the six wells in the field study.

The following section presents attempts at generating drilling optimization maps directly from the drilling
data. This is accomplished by plotting the drilling efficiency index in the WOB-RPM space over a range of
depths within the same formations, for all the six wells investigated in the present study. Linear interpolation
was used to draw the contour plots from the scattered operating points. The corresponding ROP values,
stick-slip and whirl beliefs are plotted in a similar fashion (the beliefs for bit bounce and other dysfunctions
were generally low; therefore they were not included in this analysis). Formation A comprises the lower part
of the vertical hole section and beginning of the build section, while Formation B is in the lateral section.
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the drilling optimization maps for Formation A. Two regions of reduced
drilling efficiency can be observed in the left and bottom portions of the map, which include operating
points from Well 4 and Well 5. These regions correspond to the lowest ROP, as well as largest stick-slip and
whirl beliefs. Stick-slip is dominant in the bottom left part of the map, where low RPM and moderate WOB
values are used, while whirl is dominant (albeit with low beliefs) in the low WOB and moderate RPM range.
The center and top right areas have high drilling efficiency indexes and ROP values, as shown in Figure
9, coupled with low stick-slip and whirl beliefs (except for some outliers, most likely due to sensor noise).
Most of the operating points for Wells 1, 2, 4 and 6 are concentrated in these zones, which are located at
moderate to high WOB and RPM values.
SPE-186166-MS 9

Figure 9—Drilling efficiency index (left) and ROP (right) maps for all wells for Formation A. The
colored markers in the left plot indicate the operating points for the six different wells. The
regions with the highest drilling efficiency index and ROP are in the center and top right areas.

Figure 10—Stick-slip (left) and whirl belief maps (right) for all wells for Formation A. A high stick-slip
region can be seen in the bottom left corner of the map, while whirl is dominant in the bottom section.

Figure 11 and Figure 12 illustrate the drilling optimization maps for a depth range from 13000 to 14000
ft MD located within Formation B. The drilling optimization index remains high for most of the operational
region, except for the top left area (high WOB and low RPM), where the stick-slip belief peaks at 0.5,
and ROP is very low. This region includes several operating points used by Well 4. Intermittent zones of
reduced drilling efficiency can be observed in the center and right areas of the map, largely concentrated
around operating points in Well 3 and 5. The dominant dysfunction in those areas was found to be whirl,
seen particularly around 50 RPM. The operating points for Wells 1, 2, and 6 form clusters of high drilling
efficiency and ROP, spread out over a wide range of WOB and RPM values. This indicates that drilling
parameter optimization maps can be highly non-linear and non-convex; therefore arriving at a global
optimum may be difficult, if not impossible to achieve in practice. Furthermore, drilling optimization heat
maps generated from idealized models may be quite inaccurate when compared to actual drilling data.
10 SPE-186166-MS

Figure 11—Drilling efficiency index (left) and ROP (right) for all wells for Formation B. Drilling efficiency index and ROP
are high for the most part except for the lop left corner and spots in the center, right and bottom portion of the maps.

Figure 12—Stick-slip (left) and whirl belief maps (right) for all wells for Formation B. Stick-slip is dominant
in the top left corner of the map, while whirl is detected predominantly in the center and right regions.

Using the Drilling Optimization Index in a Real-Time Data Aggregation

Software
This section details the integration of the drilling optimization index into a real-time drilling data aggregation
and distribution software (Behounek et al., 2017a). The software is currently in use on 20 onshore rigs in
North America. The drilling optimization index and drilling dysfunction beliefs have dedicated displays
such as the ones shown in Figure 13. A moving average of the drilling optimization index over a predefined
period of time or depth interval is computed to filter out noise in the calculations. A dial indicator
with intuitive color coding (e.g. green for optimal drilling, yellow for intermediate values, and red for
inefficient drilling) allows for facile monitoring of the drilling efficiency by the operator/driller. Human
factors engineering principles were used in designing the displays (Behounek et al., 2017b). The drilling
optimization index may also be graphed on a depth-based chart. This information may be used to generate
daily reports and to benchmark drilling parameters for various depths and geological formations. The goal
SPE-186166-MS 11

of providing drilling efficiency/inefficiency data may be to improve driller skills, to set benchmarks for
drilling in conjunction with internal knowledge, and to prevent drill bit and/or mud motor failure.

Figure 13—Display showing drilling efficiency index as dial indicator, time-based and
depth-based trend charts (reproduced from Behounek et al. (2017b)). The dial indicator
is color coded to indicate regions of good, intermediate or poor drilling efficiency.

Furthermore, the system automatically determines whether the drilling optimization index is below a
specified threshold. When the value falls below the threshold, the system provides a recommendation for
improving the drilling performance. This recommendation is in the form of a suggested parameter change,
such as increasing or decreasing the rotary speed, weight on bit, or a combination of these actions (for
example, decreasing weight on bit while increasing rotary speed to avoid stick-slip). The suggestion may be
presented as a text input or more visually (Figure 14). The figure shows operational regions for the driller
to move to in response to several different dysfunctions. The cone angle, height, and reference angle are
calculated based on all values of dysfunction beliefs and the current operating point. A recommendation
may also be made to engage or disengage an automatic control system, if available, such as an auto-driller,
or a stick-slip mitigation system.
12 SPE-186166-MS

Figure 14—Visual display of suggested action for different drilling dysfunctions.

SPE-186166-MS 13

Conclusions
The following are the main results and conclusions from this work.

• An index that aggregates all the drilling dysfunctions makes it easier for the driller to find good
WOB and RPM operating points. The driller is thereby freed from the task of monitoring trends.
• The optimal drilling regions on a WOB-RPM plot vary quite a bit even amongst wells on the same
pad. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to arrive at such regions through models. This is due
to the large uncertainty in knowing formation changes, hole geometry, tortuosity of the well, bit
condition etc. Heat maps generated through models are likely to be flawed and simplistic.
• The drilling efficiency index and the dysfunction belief values enable the driller to move towards
a better solution, but global optimality is not guaranteed due to the highly non-linear nature of the
drilling dynamics.
• Post-well analysis for drilling parameters should be done with caution. While these drilling
parameters may be good starting points, real-time data reflect reality better, and can provide
pointers for better drilling parameters.
• Operational cones can be calculated and provided to the drillers to help them trial out drilling
parameters which attenuate dysfunctions and improve drilling efficiency.
This paper has focused on the methodology used to derive a drilling efficiency index. This index along
with the dysfunction beliefs allows the calculation of an operational cone. A case study on the use of
operational cones will be published in the near future.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Apache Corp., and Intellicess Inc., for granting permission to publish
the results of the project. The authors would also like to thank John Lutteringer (Genesis RTS), Marcos
Taccolini, Vanessa Mueller, and Roberto Vigiani (Tatsoft LLC), for their contribution to the building of
the data aggregation and distribution system on which the drilling optimization index was implemented
and trialed. Eric van Oort from the University of Texas at Austin is also thanked for providing background
material on drilling dysfunction identification and mitigation.

References
Armenta, M. (2008, January 1). Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Drilling-Specific Energy. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/116667-MS
Ambrus, A., Pournazari, P., Ashok, P., Shor, R., & van Oort, E. (2015, March 17). Overcoming Barriers to Adoption
of Drilling Automation: Moving Towards Automated Well Manufacturing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/173164-MS
Behounek, M., Hofer, E., Thetford, T., White, M., Yang, L., & Taccolini, M. (2017a, March 14). Taking a Different
Approach to Drilling Data Aggregation to Improve Drilling Performance. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:
10.2118/184741-MS
Behounek, M., Thetford, T., Yang, L., Hofer, E., White, M., Ashok, P., Ambrus, A. & Ramos, D. (2017b, March 14).
Human Factors Engineering in the Design and Deployment of a Novel Data Aggregation and Distribution System for
Drilling Operations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/184743-MS
Caicedo, H. U., Calhoun, W. M., & Ewy, R. T. (2005, January 1). Unique ROP Predictor Using Bit-specific Coefficient
of Sliding Friction and Mechanical Efficiency as a Function of Confined Compressive Strength Impacts Drilling
Performance. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/92576-MS
Dunlop, J., Isangulov, R., Aldred, W. D., Sanchez, H. A., Flores, J. L. S., Herdoiza, J. A., Belaskie, J. & Luppens, C. (2011,
January 1). Increased Rate of Penetration Through Automation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/139897-
MS
Dupriest, F. E., & Koederitz, W. L. (2005, January 1). Maximizing Drill Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical
Specific Energy. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/92194-MS
14 SPE-186166-MS

Logan, W. D. (2015, September 28). Engineered Shale Completions Based On Common Drilling Data. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/174839-MS
Mohan, K., Adil, F., & Samuel, R. (2009, January 1). Tracking Drilling Efficiency Using Hydro-Mechanical Specific
Energy. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/119421-MS
Payette, G. S., Spivey, B. J., Wang, L., Bailey, J. R., Sanderson, D., Kong, R., Eddy, A. (2017, March 14). A Real-Time
Well-Site Based Surveillance and Optimization Platform for Drilling: Technology, Basic Workflows and Field Results.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/184615-MS
Pessier, R. C., & Fear, M. J. (1992, January 1). Quantifying Common Drilling Problems With Mechanical Specific Energy
and a Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/24584-MS
Teale, R. (1965, March). The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. In International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 57-73). Pergamon.