Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Summary no general agreement regarding which of these criteria has the great-
An experimental study comparing the effects of polycrystalline-dia- est effect on the drilling rate. Therefore, the objectives of this exper-
mond-compact (PDC) -bit design features on the dynamic pressure imental work were (1) to study the fluid-flow behavior underneath
distribution at the bit/rock interface was conducted on a full-scale PDC bits by measuring the dynamic pressure distribution at the
drilling rig. Results showed that nozzle location, bit profile, and cut- rock/bit interface under simulated drilling conditions, and (2) to
ter arrangement are significant factors in PDC-bit performance. 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.
Introduction
During the past 20 years, the drilling industry has looked to new Problem Background
technology to halt the exponentially increasing costs of drilling oil,
gas, and geothermal wells.1 This technology includes bit design in- Published field experience with PDC bits has shown that these bits
have been used successfully to drill many soft to medium-hard
novations to improve overall drilling performance and reduce dril-
formations.3-7 Proper hydraulic control for effective cleaning and
ling costs.1-4 These innovations include development of drag bits
cooling of PDC bits is recognized to be a major factor in their suc-
that use PDC cutters, also called PDC bits, to drill long, continuous
cessful application.8,9 The ability to clean and cool the bit depends
intervals of soft to medium-hard formations more economically
on bit mechanical and hydraulic designs as well as on the operating
than conventional three-cone roller-cone bits.5,6 The cost advantage
conditions. Several laboratory and field studies related to this area
is the result of higher rates of penetration (ROP’s) and longer bit life
have been performed and published.
obtained with the PDC bits. The mechanisms by which hydraulics contribute to enhanced
Drilling rate and bit life are two factors that significantly affect the drill-bit performance have been well-established.10-27 These mech-
drilling cost per foot, which is a tangible measurement of drilling-bit anisms include bottomhole and bit cleaning, reduction in chip-hold-
performance. For instance, an increase of 100% in drilling rate or bit down pressure, and bit cooling. The contributions of these mecha-
life may reduce drilling cost by 50% or 11%, respectively.7 There- nisms to efficient drilling is strongly related to the bottomhole fluid
fore, any parameter that can be modified to increase drilling rate or velocity profile, which in turn is dependent on the initial hydraulic
bit life will improve drilling performance further and thus reduce conditions and the geometry of the crossflow field. Flow rate and
drilling costs. total flow area will set the initial hydraulic conditions; bit and cutter
Drilling rate and bit life are in turn governed by the applied oper- profile and nozzle configuration will establish the crossflow field
ating conditions on the bit (weight, rotary speed, and bit hydraulics), profile shape.
fluid and formation properties, and drill-bit design. Among these, Studies dealing with drilling-fluid behavior underneath rock bits
proper control of bit hydraulics has been recognized as a major fac- have been reported.17-27 Their objectives have been to understand
tor in the successful application of PDC bits.4,8,9 “Proper control of bottomhole fluid behavior as a function of the hydraulic indepen-
bit hydraulics” is meant to describe the conditions of drilling-fluid dent variables by measuring some property of the fluid crossflow
flow rate and bit pressure drop that are available at the bit to influ- under the bits. Among these are pressure distributions, velocity pro-
ence efficient removal of bottomhole rock cuttings, reduction of files, and chip removal forces.
chip (cuttings) hold-down pressure, bit and bottomhole cleaning,
and bit cooling. Bit balling, bottomhole balling, and pre- Facility and Test Description
mature bit wear are some of the problems that may arise when poor
bit hydraulics occurs. This will reduce bit performance and increase Drilling Rig Simulator. A full-scale drilling rig located at the U. of
drilling costs. Tulsa’s Drilling Research Laboratory was used for this experimen-
Although the beneficial effect of proper control of bit hydraulics tal work. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the rig.
on drilling efficiency has been demonstrated, the mechanisms by
which this factor affects the drilling process and its interaction with Pressure Cell. A 5-ft long, 20-in.-diameter low-pressure cell was
the controllable variables have not been defined properly. The opti- used to provide required simulated drilling conditions. Seven small
mum selection of independent variables to control bit hydraulics ef- holes were drilled along the cell bottom to provide passages from
embedded capillary glass tubes in a cement core. Fig. 2 shows the
fectively requires a complete knowledge of fluid behavior at the
radial locations of the pressure taps along the bottom cell. A 4-in.
hole bottom. This behavior can be characterized by the fluid veloc-
return line with a variable choke was installed to the cell to provide
ity profile or the resulting pressure distributions beneath the bit.
annular backpressure (differential backpressure). The maximum
The ability to determine the effect of pressure changes at the hole
working pressure for this cell is x300 psig. Fig. 1 shows a schemat-
bottom as a function of independent variables on ROP is an impor-
ic of the drilling rig/low-pressure cell assembly.
tant step in understanding how the hydraulic energy is expended at
the hole bottom and how its beneficial action can be improved. Fur- Instrumentation. Fig. 1 also lists the drilling variables and the loca-
thermore, several hydraulic parameters have been used as criteria to tion of the instrumentation on the drilling rig. All the pressure vari-
design bit hydraulics (i.e., nozzle sizes and flow-rate selection for ables, which include pressure beneath the bit, chamber pressure, and
minimum cost per foot). These include nozzle fluid velocity, hy- circulating or standpipe pressure were measured with strain gauge
draulic horsepower, impact force, and pressure. However, there is pressure transducers.
The bit vertical-displacement signal source was a rotating poten-
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers
tiometer turned by the vertical motion of the drillstem. The bit-
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 2, 1990. Revised manuscript received weight signal was measured with strain gauges located on the drill-
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,
stem, and rotary speed was measured by a tachometer geared to the
Sept. 23–26. drillstring. The flow-rate signal was measured with a turbine flow-
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
Fig. 11—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 9 (five 9/32-in.
Fig. 10—Pressure along hole bottom for Test Bit 8. bits).
Fig. 13—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 8. Fig. 14—Pressure distribution under Test Bit 9.
Fig. 16—Drilling rate/hydraulic horsepower correlation for Fig. 17—Drilling rate/hydraulic horsepower correlation for
6¾-in. bits. 8½-in. bits.
Drilling Rate vs. Hydraulic Parameters cussed in previous sections. For example, the increase factor for
Plots of drilling rate as a function of nozzle fluid velocity, bit hy- drilling rate is higher for bullet-shaped bit profiles than for flat- or
draulic horsepower, fluid-impact force, and maximum impact pres- concave-inward-shaped profiles. In addition, Figs. 18 and 19 also
sure were constructed for five 8½- and four 6¾-in. bits. Figs. 16 and show that the increase factor for 6¾-in. bits is generally higher than
17 show typical plots of drilling rate vs. bit hydraulic horsepower. for 8½-in. bits. This may be because the amount of cuttings pro-
We concluded that the degree the drilling rate response of each bit duced by a 6¾-in. bit is less than that produced by an 8½-in. bit;
to change in hydraulic parameters differs for different bits. Howev- thus, cuttings removal is more efficient.
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. Conclusions
An attempt was made to find a correlation between the drilling
rate and any one of the hydraulic parameters considered. Data anal- 1. Increasing the hydraulic level at the bit by reducing the total
ysis using a least-squares fit did not reveal which hydraulic parame- flow area instead of by increasing the flow rate should lead to better
ter has the best common correlation to drilling rate for all the bits conditions for bottomhole cleaning.
used. However, six of nine bits showed higher correlation for the bit 2. The reduction in flow area between the hole bottom and bit face
hydraulic horsepower than for nozzle velocity, impact force, or im- when the WOB increases plays an important role in the control of
pact pressure. The next-best correlation was the impact pressure. the dynamic differential pressure applied to the formation. There-
The reason for these results is that virtually all the factors that limit fore, PDC full exposure may lead to lower differential pressures ap-
or improve the bit advancement act at the rock/bit destruction area, plied to the formation and make cutting removal easier.
while the hydraulic parameters used to correlate with drilling rate 3. Nozzle location has an important effect on bottomhole clean-
are indicators of the hydraulic level expended at the bit nozzles. Fur- ing and thus on drilling rate.
thermore, the cuttings generation and removal process, as well as 4. Under the specified operating conditions, analysis of the pres-
bit-balling tendencies, differ for different bit designs. Therefore, the sure distribution along the hole bottom has shown that bottomhole
quantitative description of the bit hydraulic effect on drilling rate re- cleaning and drilling rate improve for bullet-shaped bits.
quires further study. 5. Pressure distribution surveys under PDC bits have shown that
To analyze the effect of the bit hydraulic horsepower on the dril-
probable fluid stagnation areas are more likely to occur at areas un-
ling rate further, an increase factor for drilling rate was calculated.
der the bit where the number of cutters is high.
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- 6. Results of drilling rate/bit hydraulic parameters showed that
ling rates were calculated by use of the slope and intersection values the effect of bit hydraulics on drilling rate depends not only on the
of the drilling rate vs. hydraulic parameter plots. A least-squares fit bit hydraulic level used but also on fluid-flow geometry at the hole
was used to calculate necessary correlating coefficients.28 Figs. 18 bottom, which is governed by bit mechanical and hydraulic designs.
and 19 show these results for 8½Ć and 6¾-in. bits, respectively. 7. Drilling rate/bit hydraulic parameter correlations have shown
These figures show that improved drilling rate depends on both bit that bit hydraulic horsepower criterion seems to be a better indicator
design and hydraulic level expended at the bit. This observation in bottomhole cleaning than nozzle velocity, impact force, or impact
agrees with the results from the pressure distribution surveys dis- pressure.