SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 18166

Relationships Between Formation Strength, Drilling Strength, and

Electric Log Properties
by E.C. Onyia, Amoco Production Co.
SPE Member

Copyright 1988, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.

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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P .0. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT (i.e., drilling strength) may be determined for

The in-situ mechanical strengths of rocks are
very difficult properties to determine or measure
because of variation in stress sta~~s and rock ani-
sotropies. On the other hand, drilling penetration
rates in rocks which are related to some rock
strengths can be measured with a higher degree of
reliability in the field. From penetration rate and
other drilling data, a rock's d~illing strength may
be determined and related to its mechanical proper-
ties.
Wireline electrical log data have been exten-
sively used in reservoi~ characterization and some-
times give direct measurements of some elastic
properties of the rocks. However, there is still
the need to evolve some universally acceptable rock
strength determination method from wireline electric
log data. This approach has the advantage of not
requiring extensive drilling and laboratory data and
also provides a realistic estimate pf in-situ rock
strength.
This paper discusses relationships between rock
drilling strength and some wireline log properties
and shows how a formation's drilling strength can be
estimated from log data.
INTRODUCTION
The use of sophisticated computer data acquisi-
tion systems and sensors in the drilling industry
has enabled researchers to begin to qu.antify dynamic
formation drilling strength or rock drillability
with a higher degree of confidence than in the ear-
lier years in the industry. This is of special sig-
nificance in the use of drilling strength to
optimize drilling operations. Extensive work by
Warren 1 ' 2 and others 3 ' 4 show how rock strength
References and illustrations at end of paper.
roller cone bits and used in applications such as
drilling simulation and bit selection. Drilling
strength may be defined as the resistance to bit
penetration during drilling. It is a function of
the rock properties.
Previous attempts have been made to correlate
drillability, drilling penetration rate, rock
mechanical properties with el~ctric log data and
elastic properties of rocks. 5 28 Walker, et al., 5
proposed some equations relating weight on bit,
depth, in-situ compressive strength, porosity and
average grain size to penetration rate for roller
cone bits. But, the in-situ compressive strength
used in their work requires the use of data such as
weight on bit and angle of internal friction which
come from drilling and rock mechanics tests, respec-
tively.
Gestalder and Reynal 6 related sonic velocity,
Young's modulus, and specific disintegration to rock
drillability by using Schreiner rock hardness tests.
Results from their studies led them to suggest that
it might be possible to predict rock drillability
from sonic log data.
Elkington, et al. 7 studied the relationships
between the diametrical point load tests performed
on different rocks and log properties and concluded
that the neutron, gamma ray, and sonic logs have the
greatest rock strength prediction potential of all
the logs they analyzed.
Somerton, et al. 8 ' 9 extended the work by Ges-
talder and Reynal and proposed that a mineralogical
factor should be used in correlating sonic veloci-
ties to rock drillability in carbonate rocks.
These were good efforts in drillability corre-
lations, but the tests were mainly static laboratory
tests conducted at atmospheric conditions on limited
number of samples and rock types, so they may not be

605
 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMATION STRENGTH, DRILLING STRENGTH, SPE 18166
2 AND ELECTRIC LOG PROPERTIES

suitable in dynamic rock strength predictions. To
shed some light on the complex relationships between
rock type and drilling strength, a brief review of
some general ·relationships between rock elastic pro-
perties an.d strength is necessary.
Rock Properties and Strength Relationships
Elastic wave propagation in rocks provide a
means to determine the dynamic mechanical properties
of rocks. Some general equations have been devel-
oped in the gast relating sonic waves to elastic
proper~ies. 1 ' 11 These are as follows:
and drilling strength from sonic compressional and
shear logs.
Since rock density is a direct relationship
between the volume of void spaces in the rock and
the matrix material for a particular lithology, the
higher the density of a rock, the stronger the rock
and the lower its porosity. Smorodinov et al. 12
derived some relationships between rock compre~sive
strength, bulk density, and porosity for a group of
carbonate rocks. They proposed that compressive
strength may be related to density and porosity as
follows:

9 Kp v2s 6ult = 0.88e2.85p •••••••••••••••••••• ( 9)

E= 2
••••••••••••••.•••••••••••• (1)
3K + pv
s
6 = 2590e- 0 " 91 ~p •••••••••••••••••••• ( 10)
ult
K = p vc2 - 4/3 v2s •••••••••••••••••••••• ( 2)
Grain size and shapes are very often ignored in
analysis relating rock strength to rock properties.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ( 3)
It is important to note that grain size, shapes and
imperfections in the rock play important roles in
rock strengths. The finer the grain size in compe-
tent rocks, the stronger they are.
-2
v2 The preceding sections describe in general the
(-c-) relationships between rock mechanical strength and
v2 rock properties, with particular attention to com-
s
v = 1/2 -1
•••••••••••••••••••••• ( 4) pressive strength. These relationships provide the
v2 key to the determination of the influence of log
(-c-) derived formation properties on penetration rate and
v2 drillability.
s
Drilling Applications
In terms of travel time,
Several workers 5 - 21 have tried to relate one
drilling strength model, or another and rock hard-
ness to rock properties. From experience, the most
comprehensive drilling strength and ~enetration rate
model is that developed by Warren. 1 ' Warren's
roller cone penetration rate model has been exten-
sively used to predict rock drilling strength
according to the following equation: 3

~ b cNpm!JD
= [ a:2e l~---o_-_D_-_-_I~m== +_L l].s
....£._ 10 ••••••••••••••••• ( 7)
4ae
G= 2 X 1.34 X 10
~t
s
••••••••••••••••••• ( 11)

v = ••••••••••••••••• ( 8)
Sonic wave velocities increase in rocks and
other materials as their strengths and hardness
increase. Logging companies for some years now
exploited the relationships between ~onic velocities
and elastic properties to predict dynamic elastic
constants (Young's, Shear and Bulk moduli). There-
fore, the potential exists that relationships may be
determined to directly predict compressive strengths
It has been shown by Winters et al. 3 that rock
strength predicted from this equation correlates
very well with laboratory measured rock compressive
strength from core data. Therefore, the drilling
strength obtained from this model is an estimate of
dynamic rock compressive strength. This has pro-
found implications:
1. In-situ rock compressive strength can thus be
estimated from rock strength derived from
drilling data. In its current form, the

606
 E. C. ONYIA
SPE 18166
equation is mainly used in a post analysis
mode.
2. Based on this rock strength, the model can be
used in a predictive mode to predict pene-
tration rate. An example of this application
is its use in the Engineering Simulator for
Drilling. 13
3. If this rock strength is correlatable to wire-
line log properties, then the possibilities
exist to predict not only rock strength from
wireline logs but also drilling penetration
rate for an area before drilling.
4. These profile logs of rock strength may be used
to monitor drilling performances and bit
selection.
5. This technique may be used with MWD derived
drilling and formation data to predict rock
strength while drilling. Thus, a continuous
"synthetic" pre-drilling rock strength log and
ROP log for offset locations based on log-der-
ived information alone can be constructed.
FIELD WORK
Data Acquisition
Field drilling and geological data were col-
lected while drilling a research test well in Rogers
County, Oklahoma (called the DM. #2 well). These
data were used to generate a continuous rock
strength log for the site using Equation 11. The
following 8-1/2" bits were performance-tested in the
laboratory and used in the drilling operation:
IADC Bit
Depth (ft) Series
79-1273 4-3-7
1273-1799 5-3-7
1799-3049 6-2-7
The interval drilled was from surface to a
depth of 3049 ft and encompassed several litholo-
gies. These include, shales, sandstone, limestone,
dolomite, granite porphyry and some mixed litholo-
gies. The rocks are well-consolidated and range in
age from the Pennsylvanian to the Precambrian
system. Detailed lithological descriptions were
obtained from drill cuttings analysis and log data.
The logs included the Borehole Compensated (BHC)
sonic, Resistivity, Gamma Ray, Density, Neutron,
Calipers and Full Wave sonic logs. Porosities were
calculated from the density and BHC sonic logs.
Core data were obtained from an adjacent well
approximately 100 yards away from the the DM #2
well. The cores were continuous cores obtained from
the surface to approximately 3500 ft hole depth.
Twenty-three vertical core samples were t.aken for
triaxial compression tests. Eleven cores were also
tes.ted for rock properties, porosity and p,ermeabil-
ity. . a definite trend exists in the relationship between
From this information, a continuous rock
strength log shown in Fi.gure 1 was .gen.erated for the
location. The figure shows how well rock strength
(RSTC) and ROP "t.rac.k" t.he variations .in lithologies
607
3
and rock properties from wireline logs. Statistical
analyses were performed on the various data sets to
try to determine the correlation between the log
data, rock strength and penetration rate. These
correlations are discussed below.
DATA ANALYSIS
Correlation of Log Properties to Rock Strength
Can penetration rate and rock compressive
strength be predicted from electric log data? Bear-
ing in mind that this is outside the conventional
objective in log analysis, a totally new approach
can be made available in the applications of elec-
! tric logs if a good correlation exists between
either ROP or compressive strength and any of the
wireline log parameters. A "quick-look" examination
of Figure 1 shows a very good agreement in trends
between the calculated dynamic compressive strength
of rocks with the electrical logs--Deep Induction,
Acoustic, Gamma Ray, Porosity, and Bulk Density.
The agreement is good not only in one lithology
type, but in several types -- shales, sandstones,
limestone, dolomite, granite, and some mixed lithol-
ogies.
The Induction Log
Induction tools measure the responses of forma-
tion to induced electromagnetic fields. From the
responses, formation conductivity and its inverse,
resistivity, are determined. The deep induction log
approximately measures the true resistivity (Rt) of
the virgin formation. It is important to be aware
of certain factors which can affect or limit the use
of induction resistivity logs in the determination
of rock strength or penetration rate. These logs
are run only in non-conductive muds, and their reli-
ability in rock strength correlation can be affected
by the shaliness of the formation, porosity, and the
resistivity of the formation fluid or connate water.
In Figure 2A, formation.deep resistivity
obtained from the induction log is correlated to
rock strength calculated from the model shown in
Equation 11. The relationship between the deep
resistivity and the calculated rock strength from
the roller cone penetration rate model is logarith-
mically linear. Figure 2B shows a comparison of the
actual rock strength and statistical predictions
using Equation 12. Separations between the two
curves show that the prediction are not very good in
some zones because of the scatter in the data in
Figure 2A. The statistical correlation yielded the
following equation:
~ult = -5.668 + 14.606 * log 10 (Rt) • ••••• (12)
and gave a correlation coefficient of 0.907.
Although there are some scatter in the data
shown in Figure 2A, it is evident in the plots that
the deep induction resistivity and rock strength.
To further investigate the cause pf the separation
or poor predictions in Figure 2B, an analysis was
made incorporating all log properties which indicate
porosity, density, and formation shaliness to derive
 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMATION STRENGTH, DRILLING STRENGTH,
AND ELECTRIC LOG PROPERTIES
4
a better relationship between the rock strength and
electric log responses. A multiple linear
regression analysis was performed using a combina-
tion of the deep induction log, gamma ray, density,
and acoustic logs .and yielded the f.ollowing
relationship:
ault
K4*P + K5*~t c .....•...••••.•..•••.• ( 13)
These predictions are compared with the actual
data in Figure 3. With only a few exceptions, the
two curves (the predicted and field data) agree
within practical limits. Compared to the deep
.induction log only predictions, the .multiple log
predictions agree better with the field data espe-
cially in the softer drilling rocks from 200 to
1200 ft.
It is highly questionable whether the relation-
ship between the induction log and rock strength is
a direct one because the.oretically, most sedimentary
rocks are nonconductive. The governing factor in
the relationship between the deep resistivity and
rock strength can be attributed to porosity rather
than any other rock property. However, the effect
of connate water or formation fluid should not be
ignored. The presence of significant formation
fluid (water) will lead to the reduction of rock
strength especially if the rock is permeable.
SONIC LOGS
The use of sonic velocity to determine elastic
properties of rock is not new. 11 ' 14 ' 1 5,l6,17 The
relationship between the sonic compressional travel
time and the calculated dynamic rock compressive
strength is shown in Figure 4A. In this comparison,
note the marked segregat.ion of rock strength based
on lithology. The high travel time or the high
porosity rocks have the lower rock strengths. The
dolomites form a distinct cluster bounded between
the 50 and 60 scales on the X a~is and 2 to 25 on
the Y axis. A hyperbolic function was used to fit
the data shown in Figure 4A. The resulting
relationship is as follows:
ault •••••• •.•. •.• ••••••• ( 14)
The correlations shown in Figure 4A and 48 are
poor because the dolomite cluster shown in the
figure exerted a very strong influence on the shape
of the "best-fit" line and reduced the correlation
quality. It is possible to use two curves to fit
the data. One curve will include all the data in
Figure 4A, and the other will include all data
except the dolomites. Using the later approach, a
better correlation was obtained by isolating the
dolomite data from 1630 ft to 3000 ft. The result-
ing correlation diagram is shown in Figure 5A. A
nonlinear regression equation relating sonic travel
time to rock strength was derived, and the equation
is as follows:
608
SPE 18166
a lt = l.oo 2+ 2.o •••••••••••••••• (15)
u Ka(~tc - Kg)
Predictions from the above model are compared
to the calculated ro.ck strength in Fig,ure 58. The
agreement is quite good. Note that the above model
is valid only in sandstones, shales and limestone
lithologies. By considering only Figure 4A, one may
hastily conclude incorrectly that the predictions
from the sonic log are very sensitive to dolomite
lithologies. The problem seems to be related to
variations in porosity within the dolomite zone.
The increase in strength in the dolomite data with-
out any significant change in travel time is attri-
buted to porosity variations. The Arbuckle dolomite
at this location varies from highly vugular (calcite
filled) to very tight cherty dolomite. So, we see a
wide range in rock strength variation without any
significant change in travel time. The porosity
variations in going from vugular rocks to non-vugu-
lar rock material is quite abrupt, thus the abrupt
oscillations in the rock strengths through the
Arbuckle dolomite (Figures 1 and 48). This could
explain why Somerton, et al. 8 ' 9 proposed the use of
a mineralogical factor in the correlation of sonic
velocities to rock drillability. The problem may
not be caused by a "mineralogical factor". Rather,
it is a porosity variation phenomenon. This is a
classic example of the effect of vugular porosity on
sonic velocities. In low porosity rocks, especially
carbonates where the porosity is predominantly sec-
ondary (fractures and vugs), sonic waves tend to
travel via the continuous phase (i.e. the rock rock
matrix here) and "miss" the randomly distributed
secondary porosities. 28 Thus the travel time does
not vary significantly in such formations. This is
why the sonic model gave very good predictions in
the Mississippi Limestone and poor predictions in
the Arbuckle dolomite (Figure 48).
Rock Strength and Porosity
Rock strength determined from Equation 11 is
correlated with porosity calculated from the sonic
log in Fig,ures 6A and 68. Figure 6A shows a non-li-
near decrease in rock strength with increase in
porosity. The high porosity rocks, especially the
san,dstones and shales have lower drilling strength
tha.n the low porosity carbonates. This ag.rees with
the findings by Howarth 18 and Smorodinov et a1. 12
The curves shown in their work are identical to the
results shown in Figure 6A. Thu.s the relationship
between rock strength an.d porosity does not seem to
be logarithmically linear as proposed by Wiebenga 20
and Hoshino 21 • The relationship between rock
strength and porosity is described by the following
equation:
3.2205 •..••••••... •.• •• ( 16)
ault
P.orosity obtained from the density log did not
correlate very well with rock strength (Figure 6C).
In correlations similar to those in this paper, the
use 9f sonic porosities rather than density porosi-
tie.s is recommended. ·
SPE 18166 E. C. ONYIA
Other Factors
The effect of permeability on rock strength and
ROP as exemplified in the Skinner sandstone (552 -
604 ft.) and Bartlesville sands.ton.e (850 - 900 ft.)
in Figure l is an indirect effect. Th~ir basic rock
properties are shown in Table 1. The Skinner is 4
times as permeable as the Bartlesville sandstone and
their rock strengths are approximately 6000 psi and
12000 psi respectively. The difference in their
rock strengths cannot be totally ascribed to the
differences in their permeabilities. The Skinner
sandstone is a medium-to-coarse grained, carbona-
ceous, laminated sandstone with interbedded shales,
whereas the Bartlesville is a gray, massive well-
consolidated sandstone. Since cementation, grain
size and shapes directly influence permeability, the
difference in the rock strengths is more likely
caused by the differences in grains and cementation.
Shear Travel Time
Compared to the compressional travel time, the
shear travel time correlation with rock strength was
not very good (Figure 7). The harder carbonate
rocks form a distinct vertical cluster between 80
and 100 ~sec/ft. The Pennsylvanian sands and shales
form a horizontal band between the 100 and
190 ~sec/ft interval.
DENSITY LOG
There is apparently some correlation between
the formation bulk density and rock strength
(Figure 8). The dynamic rock strength shows an
increase in strength with increase in bulk density.
The correlation is similar to that observed by Smo-
rodinov.12 For rocks with bulk densities less than
2.5 g/cm 3 , there is no significant change in rock
strength with density changes. However, between 2.5
and 2.9 g/cm 3 the range for most sedimentary rocks,
the relationship assumes the shape of an exponential
function.
GAMMA RAY
No good correlation was found bet.ween the gamma
ray readings and rock strength at this location. It
is doubtful if a ~ignificant direct correlation
exists between them (Figure 9).
So far, this paper has discussed various
relationships between log properties and rock
~trength. The sonic model (Equation 15) has the
advantage of requiring only the sonic travel time
obtainable from core measurements or wireline Bore-
hole Compensated (BHC) sonic log. In consolidated
sandstones, shales, and carbonates (with no vugs),
the sonic model is preferred. In other cases, the
resistivity model (Equation 12) and the multiple log
model (Equation 13) give good results.
Drilling Rate of Penetration (ROP) and Log Data
In the following discussion, the objective is
to show the influence directly or indirectly of log
derived properties on penetration rate. It should
be borne in mind that drilling operational control-
lable variables have overriding influence on ROP.
609
5
Very often while drilling, changes in ROP are
associated with poro~ity changes in th~ formation.
Although there were limited number of data in his
work, Howarth 18 determined that ROP increases line-
arly with increase in apparent porosity. ROP an~
porosity data from the DM #2 well show the relat~on­
ship is rather non-linear in trend (Figure lOA).
The data includes shale, limestone, sandstone and
dolomite lithologies. Some important pbservations
may explain the characteristics of Figure lOA. It
is possible that below 8% porosity, penetration rate
is not affected very much by changes in porosity.
In that range, the governing effects then become the
drilling operating variables. Beyond 15% porosity,
we see an almost direct increase in ROP with
increase in travel time. The regression equation
derived from this figure is as follows:
ROP = K10 * ~ a 2 + K *
11 ~ a + K12 •••••••••••(17)
This may explain why Howarth 18 asserts that ROP
relation in crystalline rocks are ill-defined.
The relationship between the deep resistivity
and ROP is illustrated in Figure llA and llB. The
harder the rock, the less the influence of resistiv-
ity on ROP (similar to porosity effects). The
effect of shear travel time on ROP (Figure 12) is
similar to the compressional travel time comparison.
This observation suggests that ROP increases for
both shear and compressional travel time logs. In
the hard rocks (limestone, dolomite) with low travel
time (high velocity), ROP is less influenced by
travel time.
It should be pointed out that the ROP relations
with log data do not imply that one should directly
predict ROP from log data only. The ROP relation-
ships with log properties presented suggest that
there are some effects of rock properties on ROP.
Field Application
Several models have so far been developed
relating either rock strength or ROP to log proper-
ties. A field verification of the sonic log model
(Equation 15) was performed using wireline sonic and
core sonic data to determine how well the model's
prediction agrees with laboratory measured compres-
sive strength. Compressional travel times were
obtained from continuous cores from a 5000 ft sand-
stone section in a well drilled in central United
States by Amoco. The conventional wireline sonic
log (BHC) was also run through the hole interval.
Compressional travel time data from both sources
(core and sonic logs) are compared in Figure 13.
There is a good agreement between the rock strength
predictions from the model and laboratory measured
compressive strengths. Figure 14 is another example
where the sonic model (Equation 15) was used to pre-
dict rock strength in a well at a different location
from the previous example and the agreement is sat-
isfactory. These .ex.amples provide confidence in the
application of th.at model, and also show that rock
strength derived fro~ Equation 11 is a good estimate
of rock compressive strength. By this technique,
one can estimate formation drilling strength from
either offset well data or from geophysical data
before drilling. Coupled with Measurement While
 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FORMATION STRENGTH, DRILLING STRENGTH,
6 AND ELECTRIC LOG PROPERTIES
Drilling (MWD) data, it may be possible to predict
dynamic rock strength as the drill bit advances
while drilling.
LIMITATIONS
Models presented in this paper are not totally
immune to the common problems met in log interpreta-
tions. Results from the predictions may be influ-
enced by
• connate water in the formation
• formation fluid type
• common log quality problems (e.g., enlarged bore-
holes, mud types)
unconsolidated sediments
Therefore, it is recommended that the user
carefully edit any input data into the models,or at
least be aware of the possible sources of errors.
Given good data, the equations presented above can
be used to predict in-situ rock strength.
CONCLUSIONS
The models developed and described in this
paper show good correlations between sonic travel
times, porosity, formation resistivity and rock
strength. This rock strength has been shown to cor-
relate very well with triaxial compressive strength
of rocks. Therefore, the models can be used to
estimate the in-situ dynamic rock strength. Results
obtained from the sonic model (Equation 15) has
shown very good agreement with triaxial test results
from cores obtained from two wells in central United
States. Any of the models, preferably the sonic
model, may be used to obtain a continuous rock
strength log. Given a formation rock strength and
drilling parameters, it is also feasible to predict
approximate drilling ROP for an area before drill-
ing.
Porosity appears to be the governing factor in
the relationships between rock strength, ROP and
wireline log data.
The assumption is not being made that the cor-
relations shown in this paper will be valid in all
geologies. However, it is expected that in older
consolidated rocks, it should be possible to use
some of the relationships presented in this paper to
obtain an approximate continuous rock strength log
for an area. The observed relationship between the
dynamic rock strength, the deep resistivity and
sonic porosities, holds some promise in the applica-
tion or use of the roller cone drilling model and
E-logs to predict drilling performances.
NOMENCLATURE
a,b,c, Bit design constant (dimensionless)
D Bit diameter (inches)
E Young's Modulus
K Bulk Modulus
G Rigidity Modulus
GR Gamma Ray (API)
Rt Formation Deep Resistivity (ohm-m)
I Modified Jet impact force (lb)
m
610
SPE 18166
K = Bulk Modulus
K1,K2oooK Regression constants
N n Rotary speed (rev/min)
R Penetration rate (ft/lm)
v Compressional velocity (ft/sec)
vc Shear veloc.ity (ft/sec)
ws Weight-on-bit (KLb)
p Bulk density (g/cc)
Llt Compressional travel time (~sec/ft)
Lltc Shear travel time (~sec/ft)
s Poisson's Ratio
Ultimate compressive strength, kg/cm 2
Porosity (%)
Porosity (%)
= Mud Viscosity (cp)
=Mud density (lb/gal)
Cone pffset coefficient (1/LO
Rock 4uctility (dimensionless, %)
Ultimate compressive strength, psi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My appreciation is expressed to Amoco Pro-
duction Compnay for the permission to publish this
work and to Geir Hareland (WILL-I-TEC., Inc.) for
his evaluation of the .sonic log/rock strength model
presented in this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Warren, T. M.: "Drilling Model for Soft-.Forma-
tion Bits," JPT (June 1981), 963-70.
2. Warren, T. M.: "Pe.netration Rate Performance
of Roller Cone Bits," SPE Drilling Engineering
(March 1987), 9-18.
3. Winters, W. J., Warren, T. M. and Onyia, E. C.:
"Roller Bit Model With Rock Ductility and Cone
Offset," paper SPE 16696 presented at the 1987
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, Septemb.er 27-30.
4. Mason, K. 1.: 11 Tricone Bit Selection Using
Sonic Logs, 11 paper .SPE 13256 presented at the
1984 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, Texa~, September 16-19.
5. Walker, B. H., Black, A. D., Klanker, T. L.,
a.nd Khodavierdia.n, M.: "Ro.lle.r-Bit Penetrating
Rate Response as a Function of Rock Properties
and Well Depth," paper SPE 15620 presented at
the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, LA, October .5-8.
6. Gstalder, S. and Raynal, J.: "Measurement of
Some Mechanical Properties pf Rocks and their
Relationship to Rock Drillability," JPT
(August 1966), PP• 991-996.
7. Elkington, P. A. s., Stouthamer, P. and Brown,
J. R.: "Rock Strength .Predictions from Wire-
line Logs," Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and
Geochem. Abstr. Vol. 19, pp. 91-97, 1982.
8. Somerton, w. ~., Esfandiari, F. and Singhal,
A•: "Further Studies of the Rela.tion of Phys-
ical Properties to Rock Drillability," paper
SPE 2390 ( 19.69) •
 E. C. ONYIA 7
SPE 18166

9. Somerton, W. H. and El-Hadidi, s.: "Well Logs
Predict Drillability, Aid Computers," Oil and
Gas Journ. (Nov. 23), 1970, PP• 78-86.
10. Dresser Atlas Log Interpretation Charts (1979).
ll. Kowalski, J.: "Formation Strength Parameters
from Well Logs," SPWLA Sixteenth Annual Logging
Symposium, June 4-7, 1975.
12. Smorodinov, M. I., Motovilov, E. A. and Volkov,
V. A.: "Determination of Correlation Relation-
ships Between Strength and Some Physical Char-
acteristics of Rocks," Proceeding of the Second
Congress of the Int. Soc. for Rock Mech., Beo-
grad, September 21-26, 1970.
13. Onyia, E. c.: Geology Drilling Log -A Com-
puter Database System for Drilling Simulation,"
SPE Drilling Engineering (March 1987), 27-36.
14. D'Andrea, D. v., Fischer, R. L. and Fogelson,
D. E.: "Prediction of Compressive Strength
from Other Rock Properties," Quarterly of the
Colorado School of Mines. (October 1964),
val. 59, No. 4, pp. 623-640.
1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symposium held in
Denver, Colorado, May 27-29.
23. Coates, G. R. and Denoo, S. A.: "Log Derived
Mechanical Properties and Rock Stress," SPWLA
21st Annual Logging Symposium, July 8-11, 1980.
24. King, M. s.: "Static and Dynamic Elastic Prop-
erties of Rocks from the Canadian Shield," I.nt.
J. Rock Mech. Sci and Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 20,
No. 5, PP• 237-241, 1983.
25. Zoeller, W. A.: "Rock Properties Determined
from Drilling Response," Petroleum Engineer
(July 1974).
26. Zoeller, W. A.: "Instantaneous Log Is Based on
Surface Drilling Data," World Oil (Jan. 1978).
27. Robertson, E. C.: "Experimental Study of the
Strength of Rocks, 11 Bull. of the Geol. Soc. of
America, Vol. 66, pp. 1275-1314, October 1955.
28. Serra, 0.: Fundamentals of Well-Log Interpre-
tation; The Acquisition of Logging Data, Elsev-
ier, 1984.

15. Kazi, A., Zekai, s., and Bahaa-Eldin, H. s.:

"Relationship between Sonic Pulse Velocity and
Uniaxial Compressive Strengths of Rocks," Proc.
of the 24th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics
held at Texas A&M University, June 20-23, 1983,
PP• 409-419.
16. Lo, T., Coynev, K. B., Toksoz, M. N.: Exper-
imental Determination of Elastic Anisotropy of
Bere~ Sandstone, Chicopee Shale, and Chelmsford
Granite. Geophysics, Vol. 51, No. 1
(Jan. 1986).

11. White, C. G.: "The Development of a Rock

drillability Index," Society of Mining Engi-
neers, VII Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Penn
State Univ. (June 14-16), 1965, PP• 187-204.

18. Howarth, D. F.: "The Effects of Pre-existing

Microcavities on Mechanical Rock Performance in
Sedimentary and Crystalline Rocks," Int. J.
Rock Mech. Sci. and Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 24,
No. 4, PP• 223-233, 1987.

19. Howarth, D. F., Adamson, W. R., and Berndt,

J. R.: "Correlation of Model Tunnel Boring and
Drilling Machine Performances with Rock Proper-
ties, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech.
Abst~. Vol. 23, No. 2, PP• 171-175, 1986.

20. Wiebenga, W. A. and Wanganwidjoyo, A.: "Some

Correlations Between Rock Parameters, Derived
from Wuerker's 'Annotated Tables of Strength
and Elastic Properties - 1956, "' AIME Trans.,
(1960), Vol. 217, PP• 377-380.

21. Hoshino, K.: "Effects of Porosity on the

Strength of the Clastic Sedimentary Rocks,"
Advances in Rock Mechanics, Vol. II, Part A,
PP• 511-516.
22. Sethi, D. K.: "Well Log Applications in Rock
Mechanics," paper SPE/DOE 9833 presented at the

611
 seE 1 BI 6 6

TABLE 1

BASIC ROCK PROPERTIES en a.

w ::J

ffi <!l~
en
Sample Depth, Porosity Permeability
Number · Feet Percent to Air, md DescriEtion

ERl 553 18.1 25.7 Sd,fngr,mic

ER2 580.3 17.4 27.1 Sd,fngr,mic

ER3 871 15.6 6.18 Sd,vfngr

ER4 1258 7.8 <.01 Ls,ool,foss ~

ER5

ERG
1340.2

1360.6
4.3

2.6
<.01
<.01
Sd, vfngr, carb

Sd, vfngr, sl ty, carb

i
ER7 1532.3 8.5 <.01 Dolo, xln, pyr

ER8 1768 7.5 .49 Dolo, xln, ppvug

ER9 1773.9 8.9 <.01 Dolo,crptxln

ERlO 1905 5.1 <.01 Dolo, xln

g:
ER12 1895.2 3.7 <.01 Dolo,crptxln gj
gj
~

TABLE 2

REGRESSION CONSTANTS

Constant Value Eguation No.

K1 10.7616 (13)

Kz 7. 9018 (13)

K3 -0.0187 (13)

K4 -2.0149 (13)

K5 -0.0383 (13)

Ks -3.0444 (14)

K7 881.1229 (14)

Kg 5 .15E- (15)

Kg 23.8700 (15)

K1o 0. 0284 (17)

Fig. 1-Drllling and geological conditions, DM No. 2 well site.
Ku 1.0498 (17)

K12 15.0000 (17)

612
 40~----------------------------------------------------~

:50

~ ~
0 0
0
Q ~
)<:
'<
~20
~
~
20
(!)

e:~
(I) ~
~ WE:ASURCD
ROCK S711£NGTH
0 l'fi£D/CTED
Q::

-
ro ~mP.!9!!1

~ -
0'+----r--~----~--~--~----~--~--~----~--~--~----~--~---r--~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DfPTH. FT.

o M£ASUR£D RST
Bl PR£DICT£D RST Fig. 28-Comparison of calculated rock strength from Eq. 11 and statistical predictions using formation resistivity.
o+---~--~~~~~~--~--~~~~~----~~~-r~~
1 to 100 1000
RESISTIVITY, OHMM
...
C>

Fig. 2A-Correlation between rock strength and formation deep resistivity.

c.n~
\J
l
rn
g
5!
1-A
tzo
(X)
~ -~ :
.-
~
II£ASURCDRsr
0'
PR£D/CTfDRST
0'
UOD
Dopfh, Ft.

Fig. 3-Rock strength predictions from multiple logs.

 40~----------------------------------------------------~

0
30

~
0
0
2
;r:
.,.;;;
(!) 20 iC
~ ~
e:tl'l )(

~ ..
t50 ~
Ct: ~
ro g
o IICASURCD

·~~
o W£ASURED
~~~ •-+-----~--~~~.--~-----~~---~ro--~U®~--~~.---~~~----~--~--~----~---r--~~
0~--~.---~--~~~-r----~--~----~--~~---r----i DEPTH. FT
~ 50 60 ro ~ ~ ~ oo 130 140 w
SONIC TRAVEL TIM£, MICROS£CS/FT
Fig. 48-Comparison of actual vs. predicted rock strength from sonic compressional travel time.

Fig. 4A-Rock strength predictions from sonic compressional travel time .

.......

40

l
~
0
0
2
)(
30
t

'
I

~
0
0
2
)(

~
(!)
20
~
~
e:
tl'l
e:~
tl'l

t5 t5 '(/)
0
Ct: ~
ro
6 W£ASURED ~
o AI£ASUREO
{SOUO CURVE)
• PREDICT£:0
{ll~f/!_(!1!~~
....
0~--~~~~~~--~~~-.~~--~~~-.~~--~~
~ 60 80 roo 120
SONIC TRAVEL TIM£, US£CSjFT.
.. ~
140
11 PREO/CT£:0
~CJ4."i
~0 600 800 rooo
DEPTH, FT.
1200 uoo 1600
(X)
..-.
0'
0'
Fig. SA-Rock strength vs. compressional travel time (without dolomite data). Fig. 58-Measured compared with predicted rock strength from sonic travel time.
 40,-~--------------------------------------------------~

30
iii
ll..
c
c
~
:X:
""'
(!) 20 X!
iS ~
e:
II)

t5
0
~
Cl::
10
o=~crH
• I'II£DIC1D>
ROCKSFIIf:HGrH

o MEASURED ._,~~-~~.--~~--~~~.--~~~.---MTO~--M~0--~000--~~--~---T~--~--~--~--~
IB~ DE:PTII. FT.
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SONIC POROSITY, % Fig. 58-Measured compared with predicted rock strength from sonic porosity.

Fig. SA-Rock strength vs. sonic porosity.

en
en

~,-----------------------------------------------------, 40,-----------------------------------------------------,

30-l·. 30
~ ~:·~:· ~
C)
c ......,:..,_.... :.
~ C)
~
>< -
...
-':. .,.,
:'· ....
~~~~: ... ·
·.
c
~
:X:
~
(!)
20
~ ""'
(!) 20

Gj
:.:.. ••:-- : • • #

t ·,1. .~.:··. • •.
:
iS
e: e:
II)

t5
.,.~·.;_.: :~.
~·.Jtil•-; .. .. ::·
-. II)

t5 "(/)
ro.
.
-~-r·~·~ . . *· ...
.' . 0

·~~ ·. ... . .·1·.. .. .-.·•. .. . . ...

~ Cl::
rn
10
.·~-~~ 10

~;~~ . ':.
'!f-1"'~-~, .....
~~11 ·:·~. .. ..... ....... . ...
•. . .~......
•••X •• •• I •
,..
~.- -1 ·:.
1&-..•~.•a .... ·.. . -& ... - ••••• . ....... : .. o MEASURED 0)
1:
a a a

IJDO
0 0
0
1B
ROCK STRENGTH
PREDICTED
,_
ROCK STRENGTH
0~~------~----------~.-~----~--------~--------~
0 10 20 30 40 50
o+-~~---r--~--~----~~~~~--~---r--~--~--~
~ 90 100 oo w m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0'
DENSITY POROSITY,% SHEAR TRAVEL TIME, uSEC/FT 0'

Fig. 6C-Rock strength vs. density porosity. Fig. 7-Rock strength vs. shear travel time.
 40,-----------------------------------------------------, 40~----------------------------------------------------~

0
~

30
~00
~
c
c
52
><::
~
c
c
52
"1 0
J"\rbl~~ _oo" 0
0

><::
~
(!)
20 ~
(!)
20

~ 0 0 ~
e:
(/)
,pCO 0 e:
(/)
0 0 0
of!€ 'b 0 0
~ ~ 0
0
a::: o 00
8 cP
0
Sbo
ccP
0
a::: 0 0
10 o8@ o0° 10 0 oo 0
~ 'bcfBOCb

l
0 0 oo0 €l
o~
(J)

0 0 0 ~0 °<9 0 ~ 0::>~ oafJ d>o

sooo o 'b:>Cb o~~~ ecW (j:X)O 0
o oor:::PCY €l 8 o
0 0 0
0 0
oo o 0
o+---~~--~~--~--~-----r----r---~----,-----~~-4
2 2.2 2..4 2.6 2.8 0 20 .40 60 80 100 120 1.40 160 180 200
BULK DENSITY, G/CM3 GAMMA RAY, API

Fig. 8-Rock strength vs. formation bulk density. Fig. 9-Rock strength vs. gamma ray.

"'
"'

0
0
0 co
0
0
a:::
s 0
oo
no...,.. ... p g 0

"1-J" 0
8
~
f;;;:

~ 0
oo

~
j:: &
~
~
~ g '(f)
"""'
~
lt
~
~
~
50 0

0~
.....
.. ~~CO!!!! (X)

o IIEASURED ROP
.-
()""
Ill etm'SWJ:.
30 40 50 60 ~
SONIC POROSITY, % Fig. 108-Measured compared with predicted ROP from sonic porosity.

Fig. lOA-Drilling penetration rate (ROP) vs. sonic porosity.

 200.

1 0

' ~00
1 L,
150

!~ ~
~
~
W" g
"""
~
100 ~
~ ~
i::
~
.-::
~ oii£ASURED

::e II. PR£DICTm

50
DEPTH, FT

Fig. 118-Measured compared with predicted ROP.

o AIEASUR£D

04-----~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~
m ew>se.
1 10 100 1000
RESISTIVITY, OHMM

Fig. 11A-Drilling ROP vs. formation deep resistivity.

C>
....

200,-----------------------------------------------------,

150

s....
Cl::

(/)
W" "'\)
"""
~ rn
100
~
i::
~
,....
""" ())
~
~
,_
50 0'
0'
o AIEASUR£D ROP
&I e!!rP.!f!!D...!!9!
~ ~ 00 w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SHEAR TRAVEL TIM£, usecs/ft.

Fig. 12-ROP vs. shear travel time.

 see. 1816 6

40

35

'iii 30
a..
0
0
~ 25
)(

:£
Ol
20
c: ROCK STRENGTH
e
lfi• 15
FROM CORE SONIC DATA
ROCK STRENGTH
-n f._R_QM _Vf!IJglt~_£; _?9JY!c;_ ~9_q
& 10
• COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
FROM TRIAXIAL TESTS
5

0
7500 2700 3100 3500 3900 4300 4700 5100 5500 5900 6300
Depth, ft

Fig. 13-Eq. 15 rock strength predictions compared with laboratory-measured compressive strengths.

40

JO
iC
c
c
S!
)(
~
I' 20
(!)

iS
~
!I)

~
~
10
SONIC LOG DERIVtD
99!?_E_ ~9_/'{I<;_Q~[~ ('!.s_e_c_s/!V
• COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

700 900 HOO IJOO 1soo r1oo 1900 2100 2JOO 2500 2700
DEPTH, FT.

Fig. 14-Eq. 15 rock strength predictions compared with laboratory-measured compressive strengths.

618