SPE 9324
SPE
AN EMPIRICAL CORRELATION TO PREDICT DIAMOND BIT DRILLING RATES
by Clare P. Duklet, Christensen, Inc.;
Thomas R. Bates, Shell Oil Co.
@Copyright 1980, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.
ABSTRACT
Diamond bit drilling tests have been performed
at the Drilling Research Laboratory (DRL) in Salt Lake
City, Utah. These tests were sponsored and supervised
by the Shell Development Company. The tests simulated
down hole drilling pressures on a typical diamond
drill bit and oilfield formation. Variations of
typical field operating variables were tested for
penetration rate response. An empirical equation has
been derived from the test results to predict diamond
bit drilling rates.
INTRODUCTION
Oil well profitability is determined by drilling
costs. Penetration rate is a substantial factor in
determining well drilling costs. Diamond drill bits
are used to economic advantage in many drilling situa-
tions. Design, performance, and application of dia-
mond bits has been greatly improved the past lQ to 15
years. However, only a small percentage of oil well
footage is drilled by diamond bits. If the penetra-
tion rate could be easily and accurately predicted,
more economic applications for diamond bits may be
found.
Existing methods for predicting diamond bit per-
formance range from simple charts to sophisticated
computer inalysis. Simpler methods, as cited by
Striegler , do not account for all the pertinent
drilling variables and have been found to error up to
200%. Sophisticated methods, developed by Appl and
Walker2 , consider all the drilling and bit design
variables. Accurate prediction of penetration rate
can be obtained using sophisticated computer programs,
if appropriate bit design and field data are avail-
able.
A new empirical correlation to predict diamond
bit drill rates has been derived from full scale test
results at simulated down hole conditions. The de-
rived empirical equation involves most of the perti-
nent drilling and bit design variables. The variables
References and tables at end of paper.
SocIety of PatroIetm EngIneers of AIME
have been formulated to extend the correlation to each
unique set of drilling conditions and various bit de-
signs and sizes. The empirical equation can be easily
applied to most field operations, with reasonable
accuracy.
TEST FACILITY
Drilling tests were conducted in the DRL well
bore simulator. DRL test facility details and cap-
abilities have been described previously by Tibbitts 3
Essentially, the DRL well bore simulator accomodates
a sizable rock specimen under simulated down hole
pressures for full scale drilling tests. Authenti-
cally reproduced overburden, confining, and bore hole
pressures or stresses are the key features of the fac-
ility. Although the overburden and confining press-
ures have only a weak relationship to drillability,
the capability to vary the bore hole pressure is of
upmost importance to penetration rate response.
The DRL facility is capable of utilizing any mud
system, at full scale flow rates. A computer re-
trieval system allows for an accurate and instantan-
eous record of all the pertinent test variables.
TEST PROCEDURE
Three rock specimens of Mancos shale were used
in the drilling tests. The rock properties and de-
scription are presented in Table 1. The same diamond
drill bit was used on each rock sample. Diamond bit
design and specifications are detailed in Table 2.
Each rock specimen was drilled using a different field
typical mud system. Mud system description and pro-
perties are given in Table 3.
Two different values of weight on bit, rotary
speed, flow rate, and bore hole pressure were tested
on each rock specimen and mud system. These values
of the test variables were combined to provide sixteen
unique test conditions or data sets. Tests #1 and #2
were completed for the sixteen test conditions. Test
#3, however, achieved only twelve test conditions when
2 AN EMPIRICAL CORRELATION TO PREDICT DIAMOND BIT DRILLING RATES
the rock specimen collapsed. All of the test vari-
ables were within the range of typical oil field
operating conditions.
TEST RESULTS
The test results are presented in Table 4. Each
data line or test condition represents approximately
two inches of rock drilled. The DRL computer prints
out the average variable values for five second drill-
ing intervals. Five to ten intervals are recorded
for each test condition. The interval readings are
also averaged to obtain each line of data presented
in Table 4.
The most significant testing error results from
variations in rock specimen strength. From small
cores taken from each test rock, laboratory compres-
sive strength tests were performed. A compressive
strength variation of +10% was determined, under
confining pressure. -
MOst of the test variable values, in Table 4,
are straight forward instrument recordings. The bit
pressure drop, however, was determined by the differ-
ence between the standpipe and bore hole pressure
while drilling minus the same difference when off
bottom. This calculation gives the pressure loss
generated on the face of the bit while drilling.
CORRELATION FORM
The objective of correlating the test results
was to obtain an expression for the penetration rate
as a function of the pertinent test variables. Also,
a fairly simple equation was desired to the
gap between existing, simplified and complicated
prediction methods. From the results of many previous
experimenters and present practical objectives, the
following mathematical form was assumed for analysis:
ROP
The correlation variables are defined in the
Nomenclature and explained in detail later. Equation
(1) simply states that the rate of penetration is
equal to a constant times the product of the funda-
mental variables each raised to some power. Equation
(1) is an assumed form and its validity depends on
how well it correlates with the test data.
Applying the correlation to field operations assumes
that the drilling mechanism in the laboratory tests
is similar to actual field drilling. Unusual field
conditions, such as fluid jetting or cutting of the
formation, extremely flat or worn diamonds, etc. may
render the correlation inappropriate.
CORRELATION VARIABLES
The ROP, RPM, and AFL variables are taken direct-
ly from the test data and are defined in the Nomen-
clature section. The constants a, b, c, e, and f
are derived from the data analysis and are dimension-
less values. The constant CST is also derived from
the data analysis and can be considered to have the
proper dimensions to render Equation (1) dimensionally
consistent.
SPE 9324
The correlation variables WDI, HSI, and EFS are
specifically constituted variables to generalize the
correlation to other diamond sizes, bit sizes, rock
formations, hydrostatic pressures, and hydraulic
conditions. These generalized variables require fur-
ther explanation, as follows:
WDI VARIABLE
The WDI variable is defined as the average weight
per cutting diamond per projected area of the diamond.
The projected area of the diamond is based on the
diamond diameter. The WDI variable can be calculated
from the following expression:
WDI WOB - .942 PSI (D-l! . (2)
.026 TCW DPC 28
New variables introduced in Equation (2) are
defined in the Nomencl.a.ture. The numerator, an the
right side of Equation (2), is composed of the meas-
ured weight on bit (WOB)minus the pump off force. The
pump off force is approximated by an empirical express
ion derived from previous Christensen tests. The pump
off force can be a SUbstantial hydraulic force created
by the differential pressures on the bit, due to the
bit face pressure drop. This force tends to unload
the cutting diamonds and is subtracted from the meas-
ured load to obtain the actual drilling weight. The
actual drilling weight is then divided by the number
of face cutting diamonds and the projected diamond
area. The expression in the denominator of Equation
(2) is derived in Appendix A and yields the number of
cutting diamonds times diamond projected area. The
WDI variable generalizes or compensates for bit size,
diamond size or sharpness, and number of cutting
diamonds.
HSI VARIABLE
The HSI variable is defined as the hydraulic
horsepower per square inch of projected bit area. HSI
can be expressed as follows:
PSI GPM
HSI ( 3)
1346 D2
Equation (3) is simply a calculation of the hydraulic
horsepower expended at the bit face and divided by
the hole or projected bit area. This variable has
been used by Christensen for many years to relate the
cleaning, cooling, and drilling efficiency attribut-
able to hydraulic factors. The HSI expression gener-
alizes the hydraulic variables for any bit size.
EFS VARIABLE
The EF$ variable or effective formation strength
is defined as the sum of the unconfined compressive
strength and the hydrostatic pressure below the bit.
The EFS variable is expressed as follows:
EFS UCS + .052 PPG DEP . . . . (4)
SPE 9324 C.P. DUKLET AND T.R. BATES
The unconfined compressive strength (USC) is the aver- isiana and two bits in the Wasatch trend of Utah. The
age of standard laboratory test results. The hydro-
static pressure is calculated by the product of a unit weight on bit, well depth, and diamond size. The
conversion constant, mud weight, and well depth. The
EFS variable is expressed in psi and is analogous to
the down hole compressive strength. For the test
data, the expression for hydrostatic pressure is re-
placed by the regulated bore hoZe pressure. Investi-
gators, such as Appl and Rowley, have demonstrated
that diamond bit drilling performance is proportional
to strength calculations similar to Equation (4).
Field experience indicates that penetration rates are
strongly related to formation strength, mud weight,
and well depth.
CORRELATION RESULTS
Given the assumed correlation form and the de-
fined correlation variables, the test data in Table
4 can be analyzed. In Appendix B, Equation (1) is
transformed into the mathematical form of Equation
B-9. Equation B-9 is in the required form for multi-
ple linear regression analysis. One of the standard
computer routines was used for the regression analy-
sis. Based on the 44 test conditions of Table 4, the
resulting co~relation equation was obtained:
WDI. 62 RPM. 60.HSI.26AFL.14j
ROP = 1,220,000 . (5)
( EFS 2 1
The empirical correlation expressed by Equation
(5) fits the test data of Table 4 to within an aver-
age error of 6.6% and a maximum error of 19.5%. The
computer analysis had a standard error of 3.5%, based
on the logarithmic test data. This degree of acc-
uracy appears somewhat remarkable, considering the
number of variables, extent of test conditions, and
rock specimen inhomogeneity. It appears that the
assumptions of Equations (1), (2), (3), and (4) are
sufficiently validated by the correlation result and
the test data.
Other than using Equation (5) to predict diamond
bit drilling rates, the equation can be solved to
predict the unconfined compressive strength.
WDI' 30RPM 29HSI ' 12AFL' 07)
UCS 790
( ROp 48
- .052 PPG DEP . . . (6)
Equation (6) can be applied to past performance data
to obtain an approximation for field formation uncon-
fined compressive strength. This strength approxi-
mation can be used for future penetration rate pre-
dictions, using Equation (5).
The results of Equations (5) and (6) are some-
what similar to the results Cunningham) obtained for
roller bits.
FIELD APPL
Nine diamond bit field runs are presented in
Table 5, where laboratory tested compressive strength
had been determined from core samples. Seven of the
diamonds bits were run in the Tuscaloosa trend of Lou-
3
field data in Table 5 represents a good variation of
Tuscaloosa bit runs were in a relaxed fluid loss oil
base mud and the Wasatch runs in a water base mud6
The Wasatch bit runs were those reported by Primm .
In Table 6, Equation (5) was used to calculate
the predicted penetration rate for the nine field runs
in Table 5. Using the average laboratory tested com-
pressive strength and field reported data, the pre-
dicted penetration rates compare to the actual rates
with an average error of 15.3% and a maximum e~ror of
40.5%. Using Equation (6), the compressive strength
was calculated from the field data and is shown in
Table 6.
In Table 7, 280 field run diamond bits have been
analyzed for formation strength and predicted drill
rates. Six formation trends are represented from five
state locations. Using the actual drill rates and
reported field data, the unconfined compressive streng
th was calculated from Equation (6). The minimum,
average, and maximum calculated strength is presented
for each formation trend. Using the average calcul-
ated strength, the predicted penetration rates were
calculated from Equation (5). The average error of
predicted versus actual drill rates was 27% for the
280 diamond bit runs.
CONCLUSIONS
An empirical correlation to predict diamond bit
drilling rates has been derived from full scale labor-
atory tests at simulated down hole conditions. The
derived correlation relates accurately to the test
data and considers most of the fundamental drilling,
formation, and bit design variables. The correlation
variables have been uniquely formulated to extend the
correlation to other rock formations, bit designs, and
drilling conditions. Applying the correlation equat-
ions to actual field data reveals an acceptable de-
gree of accuracy with a minimum amount of calculation.
It appears that the correlation results can be applied
to field drilling operations to improve planning, bit
selection, operating parameters, drill rates, and
economics.
NOMENCLATURE
A,B,C - Designates test mud system.
a,b,c,e,f - Exponential constants, dimensionless.
AFL - A.P.I. fluid loss, cc/30 min.
CST - Proportionality constant, dimensions
consistent with Equation (5).
d - Diamond diameter, in.
D - Drill bit diameter, in.
DEP - Average drilling depth, ft~
DPA - Diamond projected area, in
DPC - Diamonds per carat, dia/carat.
EFS - Effective formation strength, psi.
GPM - Flow rate, gal/min.
HSI - Hydraulic horsepower per square inch,
hp/in2 .
M - Constant, dimensionless.
NCD - Number of cutting diamonds.
PSI - Diamond bit pressure drop, psi.
PPG - Mud weight or density, Ib/gal.
ROP - Rate of penetration, ft/hour.
RPM - Rotary speed, rev/min.
4 AN EMPIRICAL CORRELATION TO PREDICT DIAMOND BIT DRILLING RATES SPE 9324

T -
Designates Tuscaloosa formation.
TCW -
Total bit carat weight, carats. DPA (A-2)
UCS -
Unconfined compressive strength, psi.
W -
Designates Wasatch formation. 4
WDI Average weight or load ~er diamond per
- The diamond diameter is related to the diamond
inch squared, lb/dia-in size variable DPC, as follows:
WOB - Weight on bit, lb.
X - Independent variable designation.
Y - Dependent variable designation. d
.193 . (A-3)
DPC 36
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Combining Equation A-I, A-2, and A-3, the num-
We would like to thank the staff and management ber of cutting diamonds times the diamond projected
of the Shell Development Company and Christensen, area is ob tained.
Incorporated for their cooperation, assistance, and
permission to publish the test data. NCD DPA = .026 TCW DPc 28 (A-4)
Equation A-4 is the expression used in Equation
REFERENCES (2) of the text.
l. Streigler, J.H.: "Proper Use of Diamond Bits
Reduces Drilling Costs," World Oil (July 1979), APPENDIX B
109-116.
Multiple linear regression analysis requires
2. MOore, N.B., Walker, B.H., and Appl, F.C.: tlA that relationships or equations be of a certain mathe-
MOdel of Performance and Life of Diamond Drill matical form. Equation (1) of the text is not the
Bi ts, n Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology exact form required. However, if the natural logar-
(May 1978), 164-171. ithm is taken on both sides of Equation (1), we
obtain:
3. Tibbitts, G.A., Sandstrom, J.S., Black, A.D., and
Green, S.J.: tiThe Effects of Bit Hydraulics on In( ROP) = 1n( CST WDIWHSl cAFL eEFSf)
Full Scale Laboratory Drilled Shale, n paper
SPE 8439 presented at SPE 54th Annual Fall Meet- Or:
ing, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 23-26, 1979.
In( ROP) = In( CST )+aln(WDI )+bln( RPM)
4. Appl, F.C. and Rowley, D.S.: "Analysis of the
Cutting Action of a Single Diamond," Society of
+cln(HSI)+eln(AFL)+f1n(EFS) (B-1)
Petroleum Engineers Journal, (September 1968),
268-280. Defining: Y 1n(ROP) (B-2)
5. Ctmningham, R.A.: nAn Empirical Approach to
Relate Drilling Parameters," paper SPE 6715 pre- M" 1n( CST) (B- 3)
sented at SPE 52nd Annual Fall Meeting, Denver,
X = In(WDI) .( B-4)
Colorado, October 9-12, 1977. 1

Primm, L.A.: "Diamond Drilling at Altamont, X = In(RPM) (B-5)

6. 2
Utah," paper SPE 5073 presented at SPE 49th Annual
Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 6-9, 1974. X3 = 1n(HSI) .( B-6)
X In(AFL) (B-7)
4
APPENDIX A
X5 = In(EFS) (B-8)
The number of cutting diamonds on a bit can be
calculated from the following expression: Substituting the definitions of Equations B-2
through B-8 into Equation B-1, we obtain:
NCD = .9 TOW DPC (A-I)
Y = M+ a~
+ bX + cX +ex + fX .(B-9)
2 3 4 5
The 90% factor in Equation A-I approximates the
carat weight of the face cutting stones. Ten percent Equation B-9 is in the required mathematical
of the total carat weight is used for gage stones or form for multiple linear regression analysis. The
stabilization and does not sustain a vertical load. constants M, a, b, c, e, f can be determined from
Multiplying the carat weight of the face cutting dia- a standard computer routine for the best fit accord-
monds times the diamonds per carat yields the number ing to Equation B-9. Constants a, b, c, e, f are ob-
of face drilling stones. tained directly and CST is equal to the natural logar-
ithm base e raised to the M power.
The projected area of a diamond, based on the
diamond diameter, is straight forward as follows:
 TABLE 1 TABLE 2

TEST ROCK TEST BIT

Name Mancos Shale Diameter 6 1/8 inch

Description Shale-Sandstone Style MD 262

Compressive Strength - 7500 psi Total Carat Weight 317

Grain Density 2.67 gms/cm3 Diamonds Per Carat 3

Porosity 5.2% Total Flow Area

Water Saturation 75% Diamond Quality SP Grade

Coring Location Central Utah Manufacturer Christensen Inc.

TABLE 3

TEST MUD SYSTEMS

Letter General Specific Mud A.P.I.

Designation Type Characteristic Fluid Loss
00/30 min

A Water Base Non Dispersed 10.3 7.8

B Oil Base Relaxed Fluid Loss 12.5 4.2

C Oil Base Conventional 12.4 .1

 TABLE 4

TEST DATA

Test Weight Rotary Flow Bi t Pressure Bore Hole Drill

Condition On Bit Speed Rate Drop Pressure Rate
Designation Ibs rpm ~ psi psi ft/hr

Test #1: Mud System-A, Overburden Pressure-4000 psi, Confining Pressure-3200 psi

A-I 12,004 100 160 427 1991 9.06

A-2 12,018 140 160 441 1998 10.37
A-3 19,890 100 160 590 1965 12.36
A-4 19,936 140 160 642 1973 14.41
A-5 11,969 100 200 533 1959 9.51
A-6 12,003 140 200 552 1962 10.93
A-7 19,804 100 200 681 1954 13.37
A-8 19,875 140 200 689 1968 :l5.55
A-9 11,929 100 160 432 469 10.88
A-1O 11,959 140 16o 439 454 14.78
A-ll 19,834 100 160 538 449 16.62
A-12 19,853 140 160 545 465 20.86
A-1] 11,988 100 200 600 488 12.71
A-14 11,980 140 200 586 509 14.02
A-15 1$),892 100 200 769 490 16.95
A-16 19,904 140 200 740 514 23.04

B-1 ll,850 102 160 497 2051 8.26

B-2 12,032 144 160 513 1934 9.23
B-3 19,961 101 160 595 1928 12.97
B-4 20,030 144 160 604 1898 16.90
B-5 ll,995 104 200 690 1956 8.21
B-6 12,021 144 200 691 1941 10.16
B-7 19,966 104 200 802 1940 13.71
B-8 20,086 146 200 832 1916 17.82
B-9 11,818 104 160 .501 524 11.67
B-I0 11,715 145 160 539 544 13.64
B-ll 19,501 100 160 670 443 15.98
B-12 19,608 144 160 702 522 18.28
B-13 ll,592 101 200 970 515 12.63
B-14 11,644 145 200 953 466 16.54
B-15 19,553 101 200 ll34 586 17.49
B-16 19,637 144 200 1178 598 22.76

Test #3: Mud System-C, Overburden Pressure-7200 psi, Confining Pressure-6400 psi

C-l 12,238 101 160 600 2246 3.75

C-2 12,165 142 160 599 2164 4.91
0-3 20,472 102 160 766 2066 6.97
C-4 20,103 145 160 777 1922 9.24
C-5 12,266 102 200 756 2074 4.69
0-6 12,315 142 200 809 2092 5.29
0-7 20,267 102 200 958 2174 7.35
0-8 20,520 145 200 962 2082 9.91
0-9 12,114 103 160 569 492 7.03
0-10 12,089 144 160 614 538 8.29
O-ll 20,013 103 160 735 540 11.35
0-12 20,242 145 160 787 531 14.02
 TABLE 5

FIELD DATA - 6-1/8 INCH DIAMOND BITS

Bit A.P.I. Average Total Diamonds Actual

Bit Weight Rotary Flow Pressure Mud Fluid Well Carat Per Drill
Run On Bit Speed Rate Weight Loss Depth Carat Rate
Designation ..lE.!!.... ...!!?!!!.- ~ .J2ElL cc/30 min ft dia/cts ft/hr

T-l 14,000 100 183 600 14.5 3.8 18,230 298 3.0 ).64
T-2 16,000 110 200 600 15.0 3.2 18,705 298 3.0 2.67
T-3 16,000 110 190 600 15.4 3.2 19,0)0 298 3.0 2.60
T-4 17,000 100 200 500 15.0 3.0 18,262 298. 3.0 4.00
T-5 12,000 110 160 500 15.0 3.4 18,660 298 3.0 1.71
T-6 12,000 110 160 500 15.0 3.4 18,904 193 6.0 1.90
T-7 12,000 110 160 500 15.0 3.4 19,140 277 1.5 2.06

W-l 22,000 108 175 900 15.9 4.8 11,632 385 2.5 5.72
W-2 32,500 120 160 900 15.9 4.8 12,636 484 1.5 10.00

TABLE 6

EMPIRICAL PREDICTION COMPARED TO FIELD DATA

Actual Predicted Prediction Laboratory Prediction

Bit Drill Drill Percent Tested Predicted Percent
Run Rste Rste * Error* UCS UCS
** **
Designation' f't/hr ft/hr psi psi

T-1 3.64 2.25 -38.3 5000 1150 -77.0

T-2 2.67 2.51 - 5.8 5000 4460 -10.8
T-3 2.60 2.22 -14.8 5000 3520 -29.6
T-4 4.00 2.38 -40.5 5000 800 -84.0
T-5 1. 71 1.80 + 5.4 5000 5500 +10.0
T-6 1.90 1.99 + 4.5 5000 5420 + 8.4
T-7 2.06 2.07 + .7 5000 5070 + 1.4
W-l 5.72 6.08 + 6.3 4000 4390 + 9.8
W-2 10.00 7.25 -27.5 4000 1960 -51.0

Based on equation (5)

* Based on equation (6)
**
TABLE 7

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DERIVED FROM

EMPIRICAL EQUATION AND ACTUAL FIELD BIT DATA

Number Unconfined Compressi ve Strength Drill Rate

Formation Formation General Bit Runs Predicted + Prediction
Name Type Location Used In Minimum Maximum Average Error
Analysis psi ~ ++

Lewis-Almond Sand-Shale Wyoming 50 2100 6100 9600 22

Miocene Sand-Shale Louisiana 45 930 3800 9300 33
Morrow-Springer Sand-Shale Oklahoma 65 2400 4800 7600 20
Vicksburg Sand-Shale Texas 40 1000 5200 8900 30
Wasatch Sand-Shale Utah 25 2000 6900 9400 18
Wilcox Sand-Shale Texas 55 1000 5100 10,000 35
+ Based on equation (6)
++ Based on Average Predicted UCS and equation (5)