Proper Nozzle Location, Bit Profile, and
Cutter Arrangement Affect PDCĆBit
Performance Significantly
Daniel GarciaĆGavito, SPE, Inst. Mexicano del Petróleo, and J.J. Azar, SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary
An experimental study comparing the effects of polycrystalline-dia-
mond-compact (PDC) -bit design features on the dynamic pressure
distribution at the bit/rock interface was conducted on a full-scale
drilling rig. Results showed that nozzle location, bit profile, and cut-
ter arrangement are significant factors in PDC-bit performance.
Introduction
During the past 20 years, the drilling industry has looked to new
technology to halt the exponentially increasing costs of drilling oil,
gas, and geothermal wells.1 This technology includes bit design in-
novations to improve overall drilling performance and reduce dril-
ling costs.1-4 These innovations include development of drag bits
that use PDC cutters, also called PDC bits, to drill long, continuous
intervals of soft to medium-hard formations more economically
than conventional three-cone roller-cone bits.5,6 The cost advantage
is the result of higher rates of penetration (ROP’s) and longer bit life
obtained with the PDC bits.
Drilling rate and bit life are two factors that significantly affect the
drilling cost per foot, which is a tangible measurement of drilling-bit
performance. For instance, an increase of 100% in drilling rate or bit
life may reduce drilling cost by 50% or 11%, respectively.7 There-
fore, any parameter that can be modified to increase drilling rate or
bit life will improve drilling performance further and thus reduce
drilling costs.
Drilling rate and bit life are in turn governed by the applied oper-
ating conditions on the bit (weight, rotary speed, and bit hydraulics),
fluid and formation properties, and drill-bit design. Among these,
proper control of bit hydraulics has been recognized as a major fac-
tor in the successful application of PDC bits.4,8,9 “Proper control of
bit hydraulics” is meant to describe the conditions of drilling-fluid
flow rate and bit pressure drop that are available at the bit to influ-
ence efficient removal of bottomhole rock cuttings, reduction of
chip (cuttings) hold-down pressure, bit and bottomhole cleaning,
and bit cooling. Bit balling, bottomhole balling, and pre-
mature bit wear are some of the problems that may arise when poor
bit hydraulics occurs. This will reduce bit performance and increase
drilling costs.
Although the beneficial effect of proper control of bit hydraulics
on drilling efficiency has been demonstrated, the mechanisms by
which this factor affects the drilling process and its interaction with
the controllable variables have not been defined properly. The opti-
mum selection of independent variables to control bit hydraulics ef-
fectively requires a complete knowledge of fluid behavior at the
hole bottom. This behavior can be characterized by the fluid veloc-
ity profile or the resulting pressure distributions beneath the bit.
The ability to determine the effect of pressure changes at the hole
bottom as a function of independent variables on ROP is an impor-
tant step in understanding how the hydraulic energy is expended at
the hole bottom and how its beneficial action can be improved. Fur-
thermore, several hydraulic parameters have been used as criteria to
design bit hydraulics (i.e., nozzle sizes and flow-rate selection for
minimum cost per foot). These include nozzle fluid velocity, hy-
draulic horsepower, impact force, and pressure. However, there is
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 2, 1990. Revised manuscript received
Sept. 21, 1993. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 12, 1994. Paper (SPE 20415) first pres-
ented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Sept. 23–26.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994
no general agreement regarding which of these criteria has the great-
est effect on the drilling rate. Therefore, the objectives of this exper-
imental work were (1) to study the fluid-flow behavior underneath
PDC bits by measuring the dynamic pressure distribution at the
rock/bit interface under simulated drilling conditions, and (2) to
study how the fluid-flow profile, which is a function of flow rate,
number of nozzles, nozzle sizes, and bit design, affects ROP when
PDC bits are used.
Problem Background
Published field experience with PDC bits has shown that these bits
have been used successfully to drill many soft to medium-hard
formations.3-7 Proper hydraulic control for effective cleaning and
cooling of PDC bits is recognized to be a major factor in their suc-
cessful application.8,9 The ability to clean and cool the bit depends
on bit mechanical and hydraulic designs as well as on the operating
conditions. Several laboratory and field studies related to this area
have been performed and published.
The mechanisms by which hydraulics contribute to enhanced
drill-bit performance have been well-established.10-27 These mech-
anisms include bottomhole and bit cleaning, reduction in chip-hold-
down pressure, and bit cooling. The contributions of these mecha-
nisms to efficient drilling is strongly related to the bottomhole fluid
velocity profile, which in turn is dependent on the initial hydraulic
conditions and the geometry of the crossflow field. Flow rate and
total flow area will set the initial hydraulic conditions; bit and cutter
profile and nozzle configuration will establish the crossflow field
profile shape.
Studies dealing with drilling-fluid behavior underneath rock bits
have been reported.17-27 Their objectives have been to understand
bottomhole fluid behavior as a function of the hydraulic indepen-
dent variables by measuring some property of the fluid crossflow
under the bits. Among these are pressure distributions, velocity pro-
files, and chip removal forces.
Facility and Test Description
Drilling Rig Simulator. A full-scale drilling rig located at the U. of
Tulsa’s Drilling Research Laboratory was used for this experimen-
tal work. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the rig.
Pressure Cell. A 5-ft long, 20-in.-diameter low-pressure cell was
used to provide required simulated drilling conditions. Seven small
holes were drilled along the cell bottom to provide passages from
embedded capillary glass tubes in a cement core. Fig. 2 shows the
radial locations of the pressure taps along the bottom cell. A 4-in.
return line with a variable choke was installed to the cell to provide
annular backpressure (differential backpressure). The maximum
working pressure for this cell is x300 psig. Fig. 1 shows a schemat-
ic of the drilling rig/low-pressure cell assembly.
Instrumentation. Fig. 1 also lists the drilling variables and the loca-
tion of the instrumentation on the drilling rig. All the pressure vari-
ables, which include pressure beneath the bit, chamber pressure, and
circulating or standpipe pressure were measured with strain gauge
pressure transducers.
The bit vertical-displacement signal source was a rotating poten-
tiometer turned by the vertical motion of the drillstem. The bit-
weight signal was measured with strain gauges located on the drill-
stem, and rotary speed was measured by a tachometer geared to the
drillstring. The flow-rate signal was measured with a turbine flow-
167
 Fig. 2—Pressure tap positions and measurement points.
Fig. 1—Schematic of experimental apparatus and low-pressure
cell. This interface card allows recording of 16 different signals or chan-
nels at a sampling rate up to 380 samples per second per channel.
meter and a flow totalizer, which received the signal from the tur- 2. A microcomputer with 128 kbytes of random access memory
bine flowmeter and displayed the total fluid volume pumped and the was used to control the data-acquisition process.
volumetric flow rate. 3. Two disk drives, a 9-in. video monitor, and a dot matrix printer
were used to store, monitor, and print out the data taken during each
Data-Acquisition System. All the variables listed in Fig. 1 were re- test. In addition, eight digital panel meters were added to the system
corded, stored, and processed by use of a microcomputer-controlled to display the drilling variables during the test.
system. The data-acquisition hardware consists of several compo-
Test Bits. Commercial bit manufacturers supplied nine PDC bits for
nents.
this experiment. Four 6¾- and five 8½-in.-diameter PDC bits were
1. A 12-bit analog input converter system designed to make volt-
supplied. These bits displayed essentially most of the commercially
ages readings and return a number proportional to the result can se-
lect 1 of 16 input channels, scale the input according to any of eight
full-scale ranges, and return the result in less than 20 microseconds.
vo
TABLE 1—DESCRIPTION OF TEST BITS L
vo
Bit Number Available
Test Diameter of Sizes
Bit ą(in.)ą Hydraulic Design Nozzles (in.)
1* 63/4 Fixed nozzles 10 Two 12/32
Eight 10/32
2* 63/4 Fixed nozzles 4 Four 9/32
L
3* 63/4 Central channels — —
4* 63/4 Two fixed and three 5 Two 12/32
interchangeable Three 7/32
nozzles
5** 81/2 Interchangeable 6 Six 10/32
nozzles Six 12/32
6** 81/2 Interchangeable 3 Three 10/32
nozzles Three 14/32
7** 81/2 Interchangeable 4 Four 10/32
nozzles
8** 81/2 Central channels — —
9* 81/2 Interchangeable 5 Five 9/32
nozzles Five 10/32
Five 14/32
**Used bit.
**New bit. Fig. 3—Turbulent jet impinging on a flat plate.

168 SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994

Fig. 4—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 6 (three 10/32-in. Fig. 5—Pressure along hole bottom for a Test Bit 6 (three 14/32-in.
nozzles); TFA=total flowing area. nozzles).

available bit designs and features. Table 1 gives a brief description Seven 0.314-in.-OD (0.12-in.-ID) capillary glass tubes were used
of these bits. to communicate pressure data from the bottomhole to the pressure
transducers. Before cementing, the capillary glass tubes were held
Rock Sample. A cement/rock sample was formulated with 1.5 parts taut between the bottom plate and the upper template. Cement was
cement fondue, one part gravel (with an average 1/8-in.-diameter then poured into the pressure cell and allowed to cure for 24 hours.
particle size), and one part sand. The concrete average unconfined
compressive strength was [3,500 psi after 24 hours of setting time. Test Procedure. Nondrilling Test.
1. Before each test, the top of concrete was drilled out until a full
bottomhole profile was established and the top of the glass tubes were
TABLE 2—PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR TEST BIT 6
(THREE 10/32-in. NOZZLES)
TABLE 3—PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR TEST BIT 6
Differential Pressure (THREE 14/32-in. NOZZLES)
Relative Distance (psig)
Differential Pressure
0.0290 2.5 6.5 7.5 12.5 18.0 Relative Distance (psig)
0.0880 3.0 7.5 11.0 12.0 22.60 0.0290 1.3 0.5 8.0 5.0 15.0
0.1470 5.0 8.5 11.5 15.0 30.0 0.0880 2.1 6.3 9.0 10.5 20.0
0.2050 1.5 8.0 7.5 13.0 28.0 0.1470 4.5 7.3 17.0 19.5 21.0
0.2880 0.5 2.0 6.5 12.0 15.0 0.2050 2.5 5.5 18.0 19.0 23.0
0.3820 2.0 2.0 4.5 13.5 18.0 0.2880 0.5 0.5 15.0 13.0 17.5
0.5000 3.0 9.5 5.0 13.0 20.0 0.3820 4.5 8.0 10.2 12.0 22.5
0.6170 240.0 270.0 546.0 566.0 572.0 0.5000 2.5 6.0 4.0 5.0 23.2
0.7110 3.0 6.5 5.0 13.0 16.0 0.6170 69.0 71.3 180.0 185.0 182.0
0.7940 0.5 8.0 8.0 11.0 27.0 0.7110 1.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 23.0
0.8530 3.0 10.0 8.5 12.0 28.5 0.7940 1.5 4.0 16.0 15.0 24.8
0.9110 4.5 9.0 8.0 10.0 22.5 0.8530 4.5 7.5 17.5 16.0 32.0
0.9700 4.0 9.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 0.9110 2.5 6.0 9.0 12.5 20.0
Average differential 2.7 7.2 7.7 12.5 22.4 0.9700 2.5 3.0 6.0 10.0 25.0
pressure, psig Average differential 2.5 4.5 11.8 12.4 22.2
Pressure gradient, 27.9 30.9 63.3 65.1 64.6 pressure, psig
psi/in. Pressure gradient, 7.8 7.8 19.7 20.3 18.8
psi/in.
Test Conditions
Test Conditions
Flow rate, gal/min 143.0 149.0 211.0 215.0 211.0 Flow rate, gal/min 145.0 149.0 236.0 238.0 233.0
Rotary speed, 10 110 10 110 110 Rotary speed, 10 110 10 110 110
rev/min rev/min
WOB, lbf 0 0 0 0 10,000 WOB, lbf 0 0 0 0 10,000

SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994 169


Fig. 6—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 5 (nozzle config-
urations).
sheared flush with the hole surface. Water was circulated through
the bit, and backpressure was applied to the wellbore. Then, air was
evacuated from the tubes by bleeding off through the pressure trans-
ducers.
2. With the bit at the bottom, flow rate, chamber pressure, and
rotary speed were gradually increased until the desired values were
attained.
Fig. 7—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 5 (all nozzles open).
170
3. Once the system reached steady-state condition, data collec-
tion began. Data were recorded during three to five consecutive bit
revolutions, depending on sampling rate, rotary speed, and comput-
er memory available. At a given bit position, local pressure was
monitored at seven different radial locations, including the central
point (Fig. 2). At each radial location, the pressure is monitored each
time the bit rotates 5°. Thus, the total number of pressure values re-
corded per radial position is [72 per bit revolution. Sampling rates
were 11.5 and 126.4 samples/sec at 10 and 110 rev/min, respective-
ly. All test variables were sampled at these rates.
Drilling Test.
1. Steps 1 and 2 of the nondrilling test are repeated.
2. The applied force on bit is increased to the desired value.
3. When the system reaches steady-state condition, Step 3 of the
nondrilling test is repeated.
Results and Discussion
In general, the flow of a submerged circular turbulent jet impinging
perpendicular to the surface of a flat plate can be characterized by
four distinct regions22 (Fig. 3). The first region is usually called the
potential core or flow establishment zone. The second region is the
zone of established flow in the direction of the jet. The third region
is the fluid impingement or impact zone and begins when the flow
responds to the presence of the plate and changes its direction. In
this work, the fluid-impact zone will be called the fluid-impact area.
This zone is characterized by a maximum fluid-impact pressure val-
ue at the stagnation point, and strong radial pressure gradients are
associated with it. The fourth region is the zone of established flow
in the radial direction. The point where this region begins can be de-
termined arbitrarily by inspection of the pressure values on the
plate. This region begins where the pressure on the plate essentially
becomes the fluid ambient pressure.
Fluid behavior under rock bits is very complex. The drilling fluid
flows through various nozzles located at different positions on the
bit face and impinges on the hole bottom. Then, it flows essentially
parallel to the formation, removing the cuttings produced by the bit
during its way to the annular space. Several factors affect the flow
characteristics (i.e., velocity profile and pressure distributions un-
derneath the bit, and therefore cuttings removal). These factors may
be grouped as (1) those that describe the initial fluid-flow conditions
Fig. 8—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 5 (central nozzles
open).
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994

Fig. 9—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 5 (outer nozzles
open).
(volumetric fluid-flow rate, total nozzle area, and fluid properties)
and (2) those that govern the fluid field geometry (bit profile, PDC
cutter arrangement, and number and locations of the nozzles at the
bit face). Therefore, the simple case of a single turbulent jet does not
Fig. 10—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 8.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994
strictly apply, particularly in the radial-flow region, to the condi-
tions of a multiple jet flow that is the case for most of the drill bits.
In this study, the dynamic pressure distribution of the fluid at the
rock/bit interface was measured at the fluid-impact area and radial-
flow regions under drilling and nondrilling conditions. The data
were analyzed according to the following criteria.
1. Pressures measured inside the fluid-impact area are the sum of
the ambient or chamber pressure and the dynamic pressure owing
to fluid impact. Therefore, the maximum impact pressure is a rela-
tive measurement of the maximum impact velocity at bottomhole.
2. Pressures measured outside the fluid-impact areas are consid-
ered to be the result of stagnation zones caused by the interaction of
flow from different nozzles, pressure disturbances because of the
presence of PDC cutters, rock cuttings in the flow field, or unre-
stricted flow areas.
Changes in the magnitude of these parameters were selected as a
basis to compare the effects of flow rate, nozzle sizes, rotary speed,
weight on bit (WOB), nozzle configuration, bit profile, and cutter
arrangement on the fluid-flow behavior at the rock/bit interface.
With the pressure values measured along the hole bottom diame-
ter, an average differential pressure and a pressure gradient were
calculated for each test. The average differential pressure applied to
the rock was calculated by numerically averaging the differential
pressure values recorded along hole bottom, excluding the pres-
sure(s) measured inside the impact areas. The pressure gradient was
calculated by subtracting the average differential pressure from the
maximum impact pressure recorded and dividing that result by the
bit diameter. The pressure gradient represents the total pressure drop
available along the hole bottom for a given bit diameter.
Effects of Nozzle Size and Flow Rate. Fig. 4 includes a schematic
of the face of Test Bit 6. The bit initial position relative to the pres-
sure taps is indicated in this figure with a zero at the top of the sche-
matic. With the pressure values recorded at a fixed bit position, plots
of the dynamic differential pressure values, p*pch measured along
the hole bottom diameter (relative distance from Point A to B) were
constructed. Figs. 4 and 5 and Tables 2 and 3 show these results for
three 10/32- and three 14/32-in.-diameter nozzles, respectively. The re-
Fig. 11—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 9 (five 9/32-in.
bits).
171

Fig. 12—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 6.
sults show that under similar flow-rate conditions, smaller nozzle
sizes yielded higher pressure gradients. This should lead to higher
crossflow fluid velocities and thus improve hole cleaning. Similar
results were reported by White et al.24 for three-cone roller-cone
bits.
Analysis of the differential pressure and pressure gradient values
(Tables 2 and 3) suggests that increasing the nozzle fluid velocity by
reducing the nozzle sizes should lead to better conditions (higher
Fig. 13—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 8.
172
pressure gradients and lower differential pressures) for bottomhole
cleaning than when the nozzle fluid velocity is increased by increas-
ing the flow rate.
Effects of Rotary Speed and WOB. The effect of rotary speed on
the pressure distribution underneath the bit was found to be very
small. This result agrees with that reported by Glowka.17
The effect of WOB was found to be significant. An increase in
WOB always increased the average dynamic differential pressures
applied to the rock. This confirms Winters et al.’s25 results from
studies with conventional natural diamond matrix bits. Tables 2 and
3 show this effect for Test Bit 6. When the applied WOB increased
from 0 to 10,000 lbf, the average differential pressures increased
from 12.5 to 22.4 psig with three 10/32-in. nozzles. This increase in
pressure is the result of a reduction in the crossflow area owing to
penetration of the rock by the cutter when the weight is increased.
The implication of this result is that the area between the bit face and
the rock is an important factor in controlling the dynamic differen-
tial pressure applied to the formation. This differential pressure af-
fects the dislodging of cuttings by increasing or reducing the forces
(pressure) applied to them.25 Therefore, the use of fully exposed
PDC cutters should provide more crossflow area than standard ex-
posed cutters.
Effect of Nozzle Configuration. Some investigators17-23 have re-
ported that nozzle placement at the bit face plays an important role
in PDC cutter cooling, in mitigating cutter balling, and in enhancing
bottomhole cleaning. A series of tests was performed to investigate
this effect on the pressure distribution under the bit. With Test Bit
5, three nozzle configurations were selected: (1) all six nozzles were
open, (2) the three outer nozzles were blanked and three central
nozzles were open, and (3) the three outer nozzles were open and the
central nozzles were blanked.
Fig. 6 shows the dynamic differential pressure measured along
the hole bottom for the three nozzle configurations used. In addition,
a pressure distribution contour was constructed for each case (Figs.
7 through 9). In these figures, pressure distribution may be grouped
into three zones: (1) a low-pressure zone, usually found in areas un-
der the bit where the fluid flow is not restricted; (2) a medium-pres-
sure zone, found in areas under the bit where some flow restriction
Fig. 14—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 9.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994

Fig. 15—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 2.
is present (i.e., PDC cutter); and (3) a high-pressure zone, usually
found at the jet-impact areas. The figures show that the low-pressure
zone predominates when the central nozzles are open and the outer
ones are blanked. In addition, there is less fluid interaction among
the flow from the nozzles. Furthermore, when all nozzles are open,
Fig. 16—Drilling rate/hydraulic horsepower correlation for
6¾-in. bits.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994
the measured maximum impact pressures under the outer nozzles
are smaller than those measured under the central nozzles, even
though they are of the same size.
The measured drilling rate was 127 ft/hr when central nozzles
were open compared with 100 ft/hr when outer nozzles were open.
This is attributed to the following: (1) pressure gradients along the
hole bottom are higher and should result in a higher crossflow fluid
velocity at the hole bottom, which removes the cuttings faster; (2)
lower differential pressures are applied to the formation, making
cuttings dislodging easier; and (3) less fluid interaction is taking
place. In contrast, when the three central nozzles were blanked, the
crossflow in the area adjacent to the bit center on the hole bottom
appears to become stagnant. We speculated that the cuttings pro-
duced at the center of the bit are not efficiently removed. However,
it is important to note that in the case of PDC-bit-balling problems,
a different hydraulics design configuration may be required.
Effects of Bit Profile and Cutter Arrangement. As previously
discussed, an increase in WOB increased the differential pressure at
the hole bottom owing to a reduction in the crossflow area; however,
this effect was found to be dependent on the bit profile. Figs. 5, 10,
and 11 show the pressure distribution along the hole bottom for con-
cave-inward- (Test Bit 6), bullet- (Test Bit 8), and flat- (Test Bit 9)
shaped bit profiles. Average test results show that the differential
pressures are considerably smaller for the bullet-shaped bit profile
than for flat or concave-inward profiles.
Figs. 12 through 14 show the pressure distribution under the bit
while drilling for each of the bit profiles previously mentioned.
These figures show that low-pressure areas predominate for the bul-
let-shaped bit. This suggests that using bullet-shaped bits instead of
flat- or concave-inward-shaped bits results in lower pressure ap-
plied at hole bottom, which should improve cuttings dislodging.
Proper cutter arrangement of PDC cutters seems to provide better
fluid and cuttings escape area, which should lead to faster cuttings
removal and thus improved hole cleaning and drilling rate. Figs. 14
and 15 show that the 100- to 125-psi and the 100- to 140-psi pres-
sure zones, respectively, predominate those areas under the bit
where more PDC cutters are present.
Fig. 17—Drilling rate/hydraulic horsepower correlation for
8½-in. bits.
173
Fig. 18—Effect of bit hydraulic horsepower on drilling rate for
81/2-in. bits.
Drilling Rate vs. Hydraulic Parameters
Plots of drilling rate as a function of nozzle fluid velocity, bit hy-
draulic horsepower, fluid-impact force, and maximum impact pres-
sure were constructed for five 8½- and four 6¾-in. bits. Figs. 16 and
17 show typical plots of drilling rate vs. bit hydraulic horsepower.
We concluded that the degree the drilling rate response of each bit
to change in hydraulic parameters differs for different bits. Howev-
er, we can state that within the ranges used, an increase in hydraulic
parameters resulted in an increase in drilling rate for all the test bits.
An attempt was made to find a correlation between the drilling
rate and any one of the hydraulic parameters considered. Data anal-
ysis using a least-squares fit did not reveal which hydraulic parame-
ter has the best common correlation to drilling rate for all the bits
used. However, six of nine bits showed higher correlation for the bit
hydraulic horsepower than for nozzle velocity, impact force, or im-
pact pressure. The next-best correlation was the impact pressure.
The reason for these results is that virtually all the factors that limit
or improve the bit advancement act at the rock/bit destruction area,
while the hydraulic parameters used to correlate with drilling rate
are indicators of the hydraulic level expended at the bit nozzles. Fur-
thermore, the cuttings generation and removal process, as well as
bit-balling tendencies, differ for different bit designs. Therefore, the
quantitative description of the bit hydraulic effect on drilling rate re-
quires further study.
To analyze the effect of the bit hydraulic horsepower on the dril-
ling rate further, an increase factor for drilling rate was calculated.
This increase factor is the ratio of the expected drilling rates at 100-
and 0-hp values for the bit hydraulic horsepower. The expected dril-
ling rates were calculated by use of the slope and intersection values
of the drilling rate vs. hydraulic parameter plots. A least-squares fit
was used to calculate necessary correlating coefficients.28 Figs. 18
and 19 show these results for 8½Ć and 6¾-in. bits, respectively.
These figures show that improved drilling rate depends on both bit
design and hydraulic level expended at the bit. This observation
agrees with the results from the pressure distribution surveys dis-
174
Fig. 19—Effect of bit hydraulic horsepower on drilling rate for
63/4-in. bits.
cussed in previous sections. For example, the increase factor for
drilling rate is higher for bullet-shaped bit profiles than for flat- or
concave-inward-shaped profiles. In addition, Figs. 18 and 19 also
show that the increase factor for 6¾-in. bits is generally higher than
for 8½-in. bits. This may be because the amount of cuttings pro-
duced by a 6¾-in. bit is less than that produced by an 8½-in. bit;
thus, cuttings removal is more efficient.
Conclusions
1. Increasing the hydraulic level at the bit by reducing the total
flow area instead of by increasing the flow rate should lead to better
conditions for bottomhole cleaning.
2. The reduction in flow area between the hole bottom and bit face
when the WOB increases plays an important role in the control of
the dynamic differential pressure applied to the formation. There-
fore, PDC full exposure may lead to lower differential pressures ap-
plied to the formation and make cutting removal easier.
3. Nozzle location has an important effect on bottomhole clean-
ing and thus on drilling rate.
4. Under the specified operating conditions, analysis of the pres-
sure distribution along the hole bottom has shown that bottomhole
cleaning and drilling rate improve for bullet-shaped bits.
5. Pressure distribution surveys under PDC bits have shown that
probable fluid stagnation areas are more likely to occur at areas un-
der the bit where the number of cutters is high.
6. Results of drilling rate/bit hydraulic parameters showed that
the effect of bit hydraulics on drilling rate depends not only on the
bit hydraulic level used but also on fluid-flow geometry at the hole
bottom, which is governed by bit mechanical and hydraulic designs.
7. Drilling rate/bit hydraulic parameter correlations have shown
that bit hydraulic horsepower criterion seems to be a better indicator
in bottomhole cleaning than nozzle velocity, impact force, or impact
pressure.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994
Nomenclature
d + nozzle diameter, L, in.
L + distance from nozzle to wall, L, in.
p + pressure measured under the bit, m/Lt2, psig
pch + chamber pressure, m/Lt2, psig
vo + nozzle fluid velocity, L/t, ft/sec
Acknowledgments
We thank the member companies of the U. of Tulsa Drilling Re-
search Projects who provided funds for this research: Amoco Pro-
duction Co., Abu Dhabi Natl. Oil Co., Applied Drilling Technology
Inc., Aramco Services Co., Arco Oil & Gas, Baroid Corp., BP De-
velopment Ltd., Chevron Production Technology Co., Conoco Inc.,
Elf Aquitaine Petroleum Co., Exxon Production Research Co., Inst.
Mexicano del Petróleo (IMP), Intevep S.A., Japan Natl. Oil Corp.,
Marathon Oil Co., Mobil E&P Corp., Pennzoil E&P Co., Pertamina,
Petrobrás/Cenpes, Petro Canada, Sandia Natl. Laboratories,
Schlumberger Cambridge Research, Shell Development Co., So-
hio, Statoil, Texaco U.S.A. Inc., and Unocal Corp. We also thank
Sandia Natl. Laboratories, Dresser Industries Inc., Smith Intl. Co.,
Strata Bit Co., Reed-Baker Intl. Co., and Norton-Christensen Co.
for supplying drilling bits. IMP and Consejo Natl. de Ciencia y
Tecnologia supported Daniel Garcia-Gravito during these studies.
References
1. Maurer, W.C.: Advanced Drilling Techniques, Petroleum Publishing
Co., Tulsa (1980) Chap. 6.
2. Offenbacher, L.A.: “Recent Developments in Stratapax Blank Bits,” pa-
per presented at the 1979 ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineering
Conference, Tulsa, October.
3. Offenbacher, L.A., McDermain, J.D., and Patterson, C.R.: “PDC Bits
Find Applications in Oklahoma Drilling,” paper SPE 11389 presented
at the 1983 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 20–23.
4. Van Prooyen, J., Juergens, R., and Gilbert, H.E.: “Recent Field Results
With New Bits,” JPT (Sept. 1982) 1938.
5. Arceneaux, M.A. and Fielder, J.L.: “Field Experience With PDC Bits in
Northeast Texas,” paper SPE 11390 presented at the 1983 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 20–23.
6. Balkenbush, R.J. and Onisko, J.E.: “Application of PDC Bits in the Ku-
paruk River Field, Alaska,” JPT (July 1985) 1220.
7. Striegler, J.H.: “Broader Use of Diamond Bits Cuts Cost,” Pet. Eng. Intl.
(July 1979) 40.
8. Keeler, W.S. and Crow, M.L.: “Where and How Not To Run PDC Bits,”
paper SPE 11387 presented at the 1983 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, Feb. 20–23.
9. Fenestra, R., Juergens, R., and Walker, B.H.: “New Generation of Oil-
field Bits—Laboratory and Field Results,” paper SPE presented at the
1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct.
9–12.
10. Feenstra, R. and Zijsling, D.H.: “Effect of Bit Hydraulics on Bit Perfor-
mance in Relation to the Rock Destruction Mechanism at Depth,” paper
SPE 13205 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16–19.
11. Kuhn, K.O. and Forrest, S.: “Flow Enhancement Characterizes Design
of Polycrystalline Diamond Cutter Bits,” paper SPE 11062 presented at
the 1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, Sept. 26–29.
12. Nolley, J.P., Cannon, G.E., and Ragland, D.: “The Relation of Nozzle
Fluid Velocity to ROP With Drag-Type Rotary Bits,” Drill. & Prod.
Prac., API (1948) 22, 30.
13. Eckel, J.R. and Nolley, J.P.: “An Analysis of Hydraulic Factors Affect-
ing the ROP of Drag-Type Rotary Bits,” Drill. & Prod. Prac., API
(1949) 23, 13.
14. Knowlton, R.H. and Huang, H.: “Polycrystalline Diamond Compact Bit
Hydraulics,” paper SPE 11063 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26–29.
SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1994
15. Radtke, R.P. and Pain, D.D.: “Optimization of Hydraulics for PDC Bits
in Gulf Coast Shales With Water-Based Muds,” JPT (Oct. 1984) 1697.
16. Holster, J.L. and Kipp, R.J.: “Effect of Bit Hydraulic Horsepower on the
Drilling Rate of a Polycrystalline Diamond Bit,” JPT (Dec. 1984) 2110.
17. Glowka, D.: “Optimization of Bit Hydraulic Configurations,” SPEJ
(Feb. 1983) 21.
18. Sutko, A.A.: “Drilling Hydraulics—A Study of Chip Removal Force
Under a Full-Size Jet Bit,” SPEJ (Aug. 1973) 233; Trans., AIME, 255.
19. Townsend, S.C.: “Comparison of Two-Nozzle and Three-Nozzle Dril-
ling Under Simulated Field Conditions,” MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK (1976).
20. Warren, T.M. and Winters, W.J.: “The Effect of Nozzle Diameter on Jet
Impact for a three-cone Bit,” SPEJ (Feb. 1984) 9.
21. Tribbitts, G.A. et al.: “Instrumented Diamond Bit Testing Defines Pres-
sure Drops and Hydraulic Distribution While Drilling at Simulated
Depth in Shale,” paper SPE 10151 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4–7.
22. Davanipour, T. and Sami, S.: “Short Jet Impingement” J. Hydraulic
Div., ASCE (May 1977) 557.
23. Bizanti, M.S. and Blick, E.F.: “Proper Nozzle Configuration Helps
Clean Around the Bit,” World Oil (Dec. 1984) 100.
24. White, D.B., Curry, D.A., and Gavignet, A.A.: “Effects of Nozzle Con-
figuration on Roller-Cone Bit Performance,” paper SPE 17188 pres-
ented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb.
28–March 3.
25. Winters, W.J. and Warren, T.M.: “Field Application of Diamond-Bit
Hydraulic-Lift Principles,” SPEDE (Aug. 1986) 277; Trans., AIME,
281.
26. Gavignet, A.A., Bradbury, L.J., and Quetier, F.P.: “Flow Distribution in
a Roller Jet Bit Determined From Hot-Wire Anemometry Measure-
ments,” SPEDE (March 1987) 19.
27. White, D.B., Escudier, M.P., and Gavignet, A.A.: “Flow Patterns Under
a Three-Cone Bit Determined From Pulsed-Wire and Flow Visualiza-
tion,” paper SPE 16693 presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27–30.
28. Garcia-Gavito, D.: “Experimental Study of PDC Bit Hydraulics,” MS
thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (1986).
SI Metric Conversion Factors
gal 3.785 412 E*03 +m3
in. 2.54* E)00 +cm
in.2 6.451 6* E)00 +cm2
lbf 4.448 222 E)00 +N
psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEDC
Daniel GarciaĆGavito is head of drilling mechanics, Inst. MexiĆ
cano del Petróleo, Mexico. He holds an MS degree in petroleum
engineering from the U. of Tulsa and is currently completing his
PhD dissertation. J.J. Azar is professor of petroleum engineering
and director of the U. of Tulsa Drilling Research Projects. He has
been affiliated with the U. of Tulsa since 1965. He lectures and
consults in drilling engineering worldwide. Azar holds a PhD deĆ
gree in mechanical engineering from the U. of Oklahoma. He
was a 1990-93 member of the Career Guidance Committee,
1990-92 U. of Tulsa Student Chapter Faculty Sponsor, and a
1985-86 member of the Educational/Professional Technical
Committee.
175