SPE/IADC

SPE/IADC 21916

Pore Pressure Ahead of the Bit

J.M. Hanson, Hanson & Assocs., and G.A. Tibbitts, * Eastman Christensen
·SPE Member

Copyright 1991, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1991 SPElIADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, 11-14 March 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following review of informati.on contained in an a~stract submitted ~y the author!s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International:~ssociationof Drilling Co~tract?rs or the Society of Petroleum Engmeers and are subJec! to correctlo~ by the author!s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any POSition of the SPE or IADC, Its officers, or members. Papers presented at S~ElIADC meetmgs a:re subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. 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. WrRe Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

period between cutter passage (RPM), depth

ABSTRACT of cut, formation permeability and porosity,
filtrate compressibility and viscosity, and
This paper discusses the results of a the time and space dependent "damage zone"
numerical study of the effects of wellbore representing the infiltration of mud and
overpressure on the effective stress rock particulates into the formation. The
encountered by a PDC cutter. Results latter is particularly uncertain in terms of
suggest that the length of time for the the length of time it takes for the damage
creation of the work face damage zone may zone to reform after the passage of a
strongly influence the effective rock cutter, the depth to which the particulates
strength felt by the bit in low strength migrate within the damage zone ( ie. the
formations. Field observations of large damage zone thickness), the degree to which
( > 0.5 in.) cutter bit performance in weak the pore throat bridging due to particulates
formations can be explained by these model reduces the permeability and porosity of the
results. damage zone, and the spatial distribution of
permeability and porosity within the damage
INTRODUCTION zone.
During drilling, the bottom hole mud Some previous work1 has been done to try to
pressure is usually chosen to be greater characterize pore pressure ahead of the bit
than the in situ formation pore pressure to and to understand its influence on stress
avoid migration of the formation fluid into modification. This work, however, is
the wellbore. Because of this pressure somewhat limited in that it has not
difference between wellbore and formation, addressed the time and space dependence of
the formation fluid pressure immediately in the damage zone permeability. This previous
front of the bit is modified, which in turn work has assumed that: (1) the damage zone
modifies the effective stress within the is laid down instantaneously and (2) can be
formation from its original in situ value. represented by an infinitesimally thin
The change in effective stress will alter "skin". This work has also assumed that the
the shear strength of the rock and will bit velocity through the formation is a
therefore change the cutter forces required constant in time. Effectively, these
to fail the rock. The higher the effective assumptions are equivalent to the situation
stress at the depth of cut, the harder the in which the work face is machined off at a
rock will look to the bit. These effective constant rate with the damage zone always
stress changes have dramatic effects on the present at a constant thickness beneath the
strength of weakly consonsolidated or work front.
unconsolidated formations.
It is really not known just how fast the
This is a complex problem which depends on damage zone is created after the passage of
the bit rate of penetration (ROP), time a cutter. It will undoubtedly depend upon
the fluid pressure difference between the
References and figures at end of paper.
179
 PORE PRESSURE AHEAD OF THE BIT
2 SPE/IADC 21916
wellbore and the formation. The fluid
velocity due to this pressure drop will
serve to drive the particulates into the
formation. Furthermore, the force driving
the particulates into the formation will
depend on the depth of cut relative to the
damage zone thickness. If the depth of cut
is deeper than the damage zone, then virgin
formation permeability will be exposed to
wellbore pressure immediately after the
cutter passes which will serve to create a
large seepage velocity into the formation
(spurt loss). However, if the depth of cut
is less than the damage zone thickness, this
spurt velocity will be less. The spurt
velocity will also depend strongly on the
particulate size distribution as well as the
(virgin) permeability of the formation.
Finally, the assumption used in previous
investigations 1 that the bit penetration
rate is constant is not totally correct.
The rate of penetration of a single cutter
really occurs in "steps" relative to the
formation. Cutter penetration at a fixed
point at the bottom of the hole occurs only
at the instant the cutter passes by that
point. At times between consecutive cutter
passes, the vertical position of the work
front is stationary in time with respect to
a specific cutter on the bit.
FINITE DIFFERENCE FLOW MODEL
We have developed one- and two-dimensional
finite difference models which approximate
the solution to the time-dependent
diffusion equation with an advection term
representing the bit velocity through the
formation. Only the results of the
two-dimensional model will be presented here
since it is felt that this is a much more
realistic approximation of a bit penetrating
a formation. Fig. 1 shows the geometry used
for the two-dimensional flow model.
We have made certain implicit assumptions in
developing this model which are listed as
follows:
1. permeability can depend on t and z but
not on r or explicitly on p.
2. bit velocity is in the z direction and
can depend on t.
3. porosity can depend on t, z, and r but
not explicitly on p.
4. geometrical effects of the wellbore on
the state of stress at the work face are
ignored.
No attempt was made to model the effect of
individual cutters on the pressure field.
This would require a full three-dimensional
model and the computation time associated
with a sensitivity analysis would be
180
unacceptable. Instead, the axisYmmettric
model presented here assumes that a thin
planar layer with thickness of the depth of
cut is sheared off the bottom of the hole at
periodic intervals in a discrete fashion.
Numerically, this discrete shearing is
approximated by instantaneously translating
the fluid pressure field upward (see Fig. 1)
by a distance equal to the depth of cut.·
Subject to the appropriate initial and
boundary conditions, this is the basis for
the two-dimensional flow model used in the
analysis.
It is expected that the pressure gradients
will be large in the damage zone and will
decrease below the damage zone and outward
radially from the wellbore axis. In order
to achieve a reasonable degree of numerical
precision, an unevenly spaced node
distribution is used in this model. A dense
node spacing within the damage zone is taken
to be uniform in z and r and increases
geometrically below the damage zone and
radially away from the wellbore. A total of
1,500 nodes were used in the model. The
iterated alternating direction implicit
(IADI) method of solution is used to solve
the transient two-dimensional diffusion
equation, with 5,000 time steps per cutter
pass.
THE DAMAGE ZONE
The nature of the damage zone beneath the
work face is a critical element of the model
since it controls the fluid flux into the
formation. We assume that the permeability
of the damage zone is a smoothly varying
function of the vertical distance below the
work face. The permeability within the
damage zone will also vary with time since:
(1) it takes a finite time for the
particulates to migrate into this zone and
bridge the pores and (2) the cutter
periodically scrapes off all or part of this
zone.
We have assumed a simple cosine taper
function to approximate the spatial
distribution of permeability within the
damage zone. There will undoubtedly be some
sensitivity of the model to the the choice
of spatial distribution. This should not
effect the overall trends seen in the
sensitivity analysis discussed below. Fig.
2 shows graphically the assumed space and
time dependence of this distribution. The
permeability distribution within the damage
zone is totally defined by its endpoint
values at the work face and the bottom of
the damage zone. The value at the bottom of
the damage zone is fixed and equal to the
virgin formation permeability. The value of
the permeability at the work face depends
upon the time since the last cutter passage
and the depth of cut. It is assumed that
the damage zone permeability
SPE/IADC 21916 JONATHAN M. HANSON, GORDON A. TIBBITTS
reaches its final configuration at some
prescribed time after a cutter passage given
by the fraction of one cutter period. The
value of the damage zone permeability at the
work face is assumed to vary linearly in
time from a maximum value (defined by the
damage zone permeability at the depth of cut
at the most recent cutter passage) to a
prescribed minimum value.
The damage zone thickness is a constant and
does not change with time or depth of cut.
This eliminates the need to regrid the node
distribution after each time step. Only the
permeability distribution within this damage
zone changes with time and space.
MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: DESCRIPTION
A limited model sensitivity analysis was
carried out to observe the dependence of
effective stress at depth of. cut to: (1)
formation permeability, (2) damage zone
permeability (minimum value at work face),
(3) damage zone thickness, (4) bit RPM, (5)
depth of cut, and (6) rate of damage (pore
bridging) within the damage zone. The pore
bridging time is given in the following as
a fraction of a cutter period (length of
time between successive cutter passages).
The large number of different combinations
of these five parameters preclude a complete
sensitivity analysis. Instead, a "base
case" was assumed and models representing
deviations of this base case, varying one
parameter at a time, were calculated.
Additional runs were made to better
illustrate particular observations. The
"base case" parameter values are given in
the following table.
Formation permeability: 1 md.
Damage zone permeability: 0.001 md.
Damage zone thickness: 0.1 in.
Damage rate: 0.5 of a cutter period
RPM: 100
Depth of cut: 0.1 in.
The wellbore overpressure was assumed to be
100 psi for all runs. This is the same
order of magnitude as typical wellbore
overpressures and can easily be used to
scale to other wellbore conditions. The
resident formation fluid and well bore fluid
are assumed to be water with a viscosity of
1.0 centipoise and a compressibility of 3.45
x 10 -6 psi -1. The wellbore diameter is
assumed to be 6 inches. The effective
stress constant was assumed to be 1.0. With
this assumption, the effective stress at the
depth of cut is approximated by the pressure
drop between the wellbore and the vertical
distance below the work face associated with
the depth of cut. An implicit assumption
made for the results presented in the
following is that a single cutter passes a
given point at the bottom of the hole with
a time periodicity associated with the bit
RPM.
181
·3
At time t=O, the formation and damage zone
pore fluid pressures are equal to the
prescribed initial pore fluid pressure. At
this time, the bit begins penetrating the
formation. Since the model is a fully
transient model, the question arises as to
just how long the model should run until
the pore pressure fluctuations (on average)
approach steady state. In the interests of
computational expediency, we simply ran the
model for 15 revolutions. It was found
that, on the whole, the effective stress at
depth of cut comes fairly close to the
steady state condition after about 15
revolutions or less.
Fig. 3 shows the computed time history of
the effective stress at depth of cut for the
. base case. Care must be taken in
interpreting this figure correctly. What is
plotted is the effective stress at a
position equal to the depth of cut below the
work face. However, the effective stress
felt by a cutter is that value at the
instant prior to a cutter pass. Note that
the effective stress at depth of cut
increases in a smooth fashion to a maximum
after the passage of a cutter. At this
time, the effective stress at depth of cut
drops rapidly reflecting the fact that all
(in this particular case) or part of the
damage zone has been scraped off allowing
enhanced pressure equilibration with the
wellbore. This is followed by a buildup of
effective stress at the depth of cut due to
the increasing damage (decreasing
permeability) within the damage zone. As
the damage zone permeability decreases, the
flow from wellbore through the damage zone
cannot keep up with the vertical and radial
drainage away from the bottom of the hole
into the formation. ThUS, the pressure drop
between wellbore and depth of cut increases
with time. Also note that this pressure
drop is largest at the bit (hole) outer
radius, consistent with the fact that the
full two-dimensional nature of the flow
field is felt more at this position than at
a position on the wellbore axis. This was
observed in all of the numerical examples
discussed below.
MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: RESULTS
A. Sensitivity to Formation Permeability
Figs. 4 and 5 show the sensitivity of
effective stress at depth of cut to
formation permeability for the case of
instantaneous pore bridging within the
damage zone and for a damage time equal to
half of a cutter period, respectively. Both
cases show the similar characteristic of
effective stress at depth of cut going
through a minimum between 0.1 md and 0.01
md. The minimum effective stress is
slightly less for the case in which t'he
damage zone takes a finite length of time to
be created. The general nature of these
 PORE PRESSURE AHEAD OF THE BIT
4 SPE/IADC 21916
curves is consistent with previous work 1 •
The large effective stress (formation
strength seen by the bit) at high formation
permeabilities is because flux across the
damage zone cannot keep up with the drainage
of the formation at high permeabilities.
The large effective stress (formation
strength seen by the bit) at low formation
permeabilities is because no significant
fluid invasion into the damage zone can take
place at the time scale associated with
successive cutter passes.
B. Sensitivity to Damage Zone Permeability
and Thickness
Figs. 6 and 7 shows the sensitivity of
effective stress at depth of cut to damage
zone permeability and thickness. At low
damage zone permeabilities or large damage
zone thickness, the effective stress at
depth of cut (formation strength seen by
the bit) is high due to a reduced fluid
invasion into the damage zone on the time
scale associated with successive cutter
passes. At high damage zone permeabilities
or small damage zone thickness, the
effective stress at depth of cut (formation
strength seen by the bit) decreases because
of the increased flux through the damage
zone resulting in a reduction in the
pressure drop between the wellbore and the
depth of cut.
C. Sensitivity to Damage Zone Rate
Formation
Fig. 8 shows the sensitivity of effective
stress at depth of cut to damage rate. The
latter is given in terms of fraction of a
cutter period. This figure shows quite
clearly the expected result that effective
stress at depth of cut decreases
substantially with the increasing length of
time it takes to form the damage zone below
the bit. The formation is exposed to a
higher fluid flux from the wellbore for
longer periods of time for the situation in
which the damage zone takes a finite period
of time to form after the passage of a
cutter. This in turn decreases the formation
strength seen by the bit.
D. Sensitivity to RPM
Fig. 9 shows the sensitivity of effective
stress at depth of cut to RPM with the
assumption that damage zone formation is
instantaneous. A large increase in
effective stress with increasing bit RPM is
observed for small formation permeabilities
(0.001 md.). However, little sensitivity to
bit RPM is observed for higher formation
permeabilities (1 md.). This is consistent
with previous 1 investigations. As bit ROP
increases due to increasing RPM at fixed
depth of cut, the fluid pressure at depth of
cut is progressively smaller because the
characteristic diffusion time of the
formation (for small permeabilities) is less
than the cutter
period. This is a situation in which the
advection term associated with the bit
velocity has the same order of magnitude as
the diffusion term. The resulting effect is
somewhat analogous to a shock front 1.n
aerodynamics. Pressure field isobars are
squeezed together in front of the bit for
increasing ROP because the vertical seepage
velocity from wellbore to formation is less
than the velocity of the bit through the
formation. This results in a steep pressure
gradient in front of the bit. For higher
formation permeabilities (1 md.), formation
drainage is sufficiently high to dominate
the advection (bit velocity) term in the
diffusion equation, resulting in the
observation that the formation strength as
seen by the bit at these higher formation
permeabilities is relatively independent of
RPM.
Fig. 10 shows the sensitivity of effective
stress at depth of cut to RPM for the
situation in which the damage zone
formation is 0.5 of a cutter period. The
sensitivity of effective stress to RPM is
effectively unchanged from the previous case
for low formation permeability (0.001 md).
This is reasonable in that, for low
formation permeability, it is the formation
and not the damage zone which is the
dominant factor governing the pressure field
ahead of the bit. For higher permeability
formations, however (eg., 1 md.), the time
of rate of damage zone formation does effect
the sensitivity of effective stress at depth
of cut to RPM. It is seen from Fig. 10 that
the formation strength seen by the bit can
decrease with increasing RPM for this
situation.
Another conclusion can be drawn from Fig.
10. One can achieve, from the modeling
perspective, the same effect of increasing
RPM by simply increasing the multiplicity of
cutters. Thus, Fig. 10 suggests that, for
a fixed RPM and depth of cut, the formation
strength seen by the bit can decrease if the
cutter density on the bit is increased. This
is true only, however, for: (a) the case in
which it takes a finite (non-zero) length of
time for the damage zone to form and (b) the
formation permeability is on the order of or
greater than 1 md. An example of this
effect seen in the field is given in a later
section.
E. Sensitivity to Depth of Cut
Fig. 11 shows the sensitivity of the
effective stress at depth of cut to depth of
cut for the case that the damage zone is
formed during 0.5 of a cutter period. The
results shown in Fig. 11 naturally lead one
to believe that the effective stress is only
slightly sensitive to depth of cut.
However, when· these results are
superimposed on similar calculations which
182
SPE/IADC 21916 JONATHAN M. HANSON, GORDON A. TIBBITTS
assume: (a) instantaneous damage zone
formation and (b) damage zone formation
taking a full cutter period, one comes to a
quite different conclusion. Fig. 12 shows
this superposition. It is clear from Fig.
12 that for certain situations the effective
stress felt by the cutter is strongly
dependent on the depth of cut. In
particular, it is possible to increase the
depth of cut and get a substantial decrease
in effective stress at depth of cut. If the
formation is partially or totally
unconsolidated so that the effective stress
accounts for a large fraction of rock
strength, this translates to a decrease in
the rock strength seen by the bit with
increasing depth of cut.
The increasing effective stress with
increasing depth of cut for depths of cut
beyond the minimum reflects the fact that
the advection term in the diffusion equation
is beginning to playas significant role in
modifying pressure. The vertical bit
velocity is greater than the pore fluid
velocity ahead of the bit. Thus, the cutter
sees a larger pressure gradient at the work
face and hence a larger effective rock
strength. For small depths of cut, on the
other hand, not much of the damage zone is
scraped off from one cutter pass to the
next. Hence, the flux from the wellbore to
the formation cannot keep pace with the
formation drainage away from the bottom of
the wellbore resulting in a large pressure
drop, and hence large effective rock
strength, seen by the cutter. The minimum
effective stress seen in Fig. 12 is the
tradeoff between these to effects.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Field data on the performance of core bits
in a weak sandstone tend to substantiate the
above-described phenomena. Two coring bits,
were evaluated (among a number of other
bits) under full scale laboratory conditions
and in the field for the purpose of
optimizing coring rates in high permeability
formations and at the same time minimizing
fluid invasion into the core 2 • Two bits
were among the best performers. One bit
contained 21 1/2" cutters and the other
contained 4 large diameter (1 1/2") cutters.
The permeability of the formation is in the
range of 20 to 1000 md. and the formation
strength of this loosely consolidated and
friable sandstone is probably no greater
than 2000 psi. Wellbore overpressure in
these tests was 800 psi, or 25% of the
expected maximum formation strength. A low
spurt loss water base mud was used as the
drilling fluid.
Figs. 13 and 14 showsWOB (weight on bit)
and bit torque as a function of depth of cut
for these two core bits. The behavior of
these bits are significantly different. The
difference in bit geometries probably does
183
5
not account for these observed differences J •
If classical plastic cutting theory is used,
WOB and torque should be monotonic (linear)
increasing function of depth of cut.
Clearly this is not the case here. Both WOB
and bit torque go through a minimum value
with increasing depth of cut for the bit
with 4 large cutters. The bit with 21
cutters, however, shows a torque decreasing
slightly with depth of cut. These
observations may be explained by the
situation in which the damage zone is
created over a finite period of time.
The 4-cutter bit allows a longer time
between successive cutter passes for the
damage zone to form than does the 21-cutter
bit. If the rotary speed of the 4-cutter
bit were increased so that the time interval
between successive passes were the same as
the 21-cutter bit, the effective rock
hardness seen by the 4-cutter bit would
decrease according to Fig. 10. This
explains why the average rock strength seen
by the 4-cutter bit is larger (larger torque
and WOB) than for the 21-cutter bit.
The minimum in the torque and WOB vs. depth
of cut seen for the 4-cutter bit is
explained in the section on sensitivity to
depth of cut. At small depth of cut, the
damage zone remains essentially intact which
allows formation drainage away from the hole
to outpace the flux from the wellbore to the
formation. This creates a large pressure
drop below the work face which results in an
increased effective formation strength seen
by the bit. At larger depths of cut (large
ROP), advection begins to dominate - namely,
drainage can't keep up with the motion of
the bit through the formation. This results
in a steep pressure gradient below the work
face. This in turn results in an increased
effective formation strength seen by the
bit. The observed minima are a tradeoff
between these two effects.
The sensitivity of WOB and bit torque to
depth of cut for the 21-cutter bit may be
explained as follows. The cutter density of
this bit translates to a relatively short
time between successive cutter passes which
may not allow for the damage zone to form
completely. Thus, the flux from the
wellbore to the formation is always fairly
large, and pore bridging may occur more
rapidly due to this increased fluid flux.
Referring to Fig.· 12, we see that the
effective stress at depth of cut, and
therefore the effective rock strength seen
by the bit, becomes less dependent on depth
of cut for decreased damage zone formation
time. This may explain why the observed bit
torque is relatively independent of the
depth of cut for the 21-cutter bit. It is
more difficult to explain the monotonically
increasing WOB with depth of cut for the
21-cutter bit in light of the observed
 PORE PRESSURE AHEAD OF THE BIT
6 SPE/IADC 21916

sensitivity of torque vs. depth of cut for

this bit. Had data been taken for depths of
cut less than 0.09 inch or greater than 0.14
inch, these curves may also have reflected
a minimum in effective rock strength felt by
the bit. However, the limited available
data allows at present only speculation.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown in this numerical study that

the time rate-of-change of the damage zone
at the work face can have significant
influence on the effective stress felt by a
cutter. In particular, these effective
stress changes may have especially dramatic
effects on the strength of weakly
consolidated or unconsolidated formations.
Field data acquired using core bits on a
weak sandstone may be explained by these
time-dependent effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge Eastman

Christensen, Inc. for supporting this
research and for allowing its publication.
The critical review of this paper by Mr.
Craig Cooley, Eastman Christensen, Inc. is
also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Peltier, B. and C. Atkinson, "Dynamic
Pore Pressure Ahead of the Bit", SPE
Drilling Engineering (December, 1987),
351-358
2. Rathmell, J.J., Tibbitts, G.A.,
Gremley, R.B., Wagner, H.R. Jr., and
White, E.K.: "Development of a Method for
Partially Uninvaded Coring in High-
permeability Sandstone", SPE 20413.
Presented at the 65th annual fall meeting
SPE of A.I.M.E., New Orleans, LA.,
September 23-26, 1990

3. T.M. Warren and W.K. Armagost,

"Laboratory Drilling Performance of PDC
Bits, SPE Paper 15617, Oct. 1986, New
Orleans.

NOMENCLATURE

kr - formation permeability
k(z) - permeability as a function of depth
Pp - pore pressure
Pwb - wellbore pressure
t - time
r radial distance from wellbore axis
z distance parallel to wellbore axis
WOB - weight on bit
RPM - rotations per minute
ROP - rate of penetration

184
 SPE 21916
I R ..
constant preSSlJ"e boW1dary
.
~' III
wel:lore

~
! no-flow bomdary
z
i
Pwb
i zl i ~ I

~''/,V//\(///I\(/. - damage zone I t i

! ~
'i I
I
Ii ~- -_ J.
formation motion wtth
- -- -." "0 stationary bit
------
formation

constant presslJ"e oounaary

t Pp ''<

undamaged
formation
_._ _.-l..

~
~
(0

Figure 1. Geometry used for two-dimensional ~

(axisymmetric) flow model. t4 > t3 > t2 > t 1
Figure 2. Diagram showing the time
and space dependence of permeability
within the damage zone between
successive cutter passes. Note that
t4 > t3 > t2 > tl •

...g:

100 T j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
100 base case· dashed ine: bit outer radus
90 o at bit axis
90 cutter passalie solid line: bit axis
o .at bit outer radus
J 60 ,j ,. III 60
(3 I

'5 70 :' : ": /: /1 /i ,'1 /1 /1 /j /1 'i! 70

~"~"~":'~":J
.B

~~~
I. 60
50
I
!
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
J I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
,
I
J
I
,
/
1
I
1
~
60

50
.~
J
, 1 I 1 J I J

:j
40
~
1 1 I I I I f
I I I I I I

30 15
I 20 -1,1 II
I
,,
I
II
I I
II II
I /' I I, 20
~ damage zone thickness: O. 1 In.
damage z~ permeabiltty: 0.001 md ..

l: r \
LU / I
" 10 J
depth of cut. O. 1 In.
damage rate: Instantaneous
RPM: 100
.
I
o
o 2 4 6 8 -4 -2 0 2
Time (sees) Log [10] Formation Permeablity (md)
Figure 3. Time history of the effective stress at
a depth below the work face equal to the depth of Figure 4. Effective stress at depth of cut as a
cut for the "base case". function of formation permeability assuming
instantaneous damage zone formation.
 SPE 2191 6

100 100
90 o at bll axis o at bit axis
90
o at bit outer radus o at bit outer radus
80 80
70 70
~ ~
80
i 50 i
60

50

j
III
40
30
i
III
40

30 damage zone tIlckness: O. 1 in.

damage zone tIlckness: O. 1 In.
20 damage zone permeablty: 0 . 00 1 md. formation permesbilty: 1 .0 md.
20
depth of cut: O. 1 In. depth of cui: O. 1 In.
10 damage rate: 0.5 of cutter period 10 damagerate: 0.5 of cutter period
RPM: 100 RPM: 100
0 0
-4 -2 . 0 2 -6 -4 -2 o
Log [101 Formation Permeabily (md) Log [101 Damage Zone Permeablty (md)

Figure 5. Effective stress at depth of cut as a Figure 6. Effective stress at depth of cut as a
function of formation permeability assuming damage function of the damage zone permeability.
zone is formed in a half of a cutter period •

......
eo

100 100

90 90 o at bit axla
o at bit outer radua
80 80

70 o at bit axis 70
~ o at bit outer rau ~ 80
80
i. 50 i 50

i
III
40

30
damage zone permeablty: 0.001 md.
i
III
40

30 damage zone permeablly: 0.001 md.

formation permeablty: 1 . 0 md . damage zone tIlckness: O. 1 in.
20 20
depth of cui: O. 1 in.
formation permeablty: 1 . 0 md.
10 depth of cut: O. 1 in.
10 damage rate: 0 . 5 of cutter period
RPM: 100
RPM: 100
0 0
0 0.2 . 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
Damage Zone ThIckness (in .) Damage Rate (fraction of cutter period)

Figure 7. Effective stress at depth of cut as a Figure 8. Effective stress at depth of cut as a
function of damage zone thickness. function of the rate of damage at the work face.
 SPE 2191 6

100

90
80

70
~
80 • kf. 1 mel, bit outer raclus
j 50
•
o
kf. 1 mel, bit axis
kf. 0.001 md, bit outer raclus

I
III
40

30
o kf. 0.001 md, bit axis

damage zone thickness: O. 1 In.

20
damage zone permeabilly: O. 001 mel.
10 depth of cut: O. 1 in.
damage rate: ilstantaneous
0
0 200 400 600
RPM
Figure 9. Effective stress at depth of cut as a
function of rotary speed (RPM) assuming that the
damage rate is instantaneous.

100
damage rate: O. 5 of cutter period
90 damage zone thickness: O. 1 iI.
damage zone permeabiily: 0.001 md.
80 depth of cut 0 . 1 in.

70
~
.,
.
.,
~
60
50
g!
j 40
::::
III
30 • kf. 1 mel, bit outer raclus
• kf. 1 mel, bit axis
20 o kf. 0.001 mel, bit outer raclus
o kf • 0.001 mel, bit axis
10

0 +------,-----,----~-_ . ----,-----,------I
0 200 400 600
RPM

Figure 10. Effective stress at depth of cut as a

function of rotary speed (RPM) assuming that the
damage rate is half of a cutter period.

100
0 at bit axis
90 0 at bit outer radus
80
--€)
70 GO 0 0 e
-e
60 lSso 0 0

50
40

30 damage zone thickness: O. 1 iI.

formation penneabilly: 1 .0 md.
20
damage zone permeability: 0 .001 md.
10 damage rate: O. 5 of cutter period
RPM: 100
0+---,-------,-------,,---------,-----,--
o 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth of Cut \11 .)
Figure 11. Effective stress at depth of cut as a
function of depth of cut assuming that the damage
rate is half of a cutter period.

187
 SPE 21916

100
o ilstantaneous damage zone fonnatlon
90 o damage zone formation time • O. 5 cutter period
/:::, damage zone formation tine • 1 . 0 cutter period
80
8
70 rO O
-8-_---18---------
1-

~
. o o
60 %0
~
0
50
>

~
40
w 30

20
i~...c:.& .-----.il8...--------
__
-"
10 damage zone thickness
o + - - - - + - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - , -aU- -vakJes
--,
at bit axis
o 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth of Cut [111.)

Figure 12. Effective stress at depth of cut as a

function of depth of cut assuming that: (a) the
damage rate is instantaneous, (b) the damage rate
is' half of a cutter period, and (3) the damage rate
is one cutter period.

20 - , - - - - - - - .
19
18
17
16
15 Q. ...........
1=1
/ ~kJ
14
- - -G). _ _ .L~ - - - - -
13 /
/
12 /

11 .............. 0
10 B- - - - -~
9
8
o 4 cutters. cutter redndancy • 2
7
o 21 cutters, cutter redndancy • 3
6
5 +-----,----,
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Depth of Cut (in . )

Figure 13. Field measurements of weight on bit

(WOB) vs. depth of cut for: (a) a bit with 4 large
(1 1/2") cutters and (b) a bit with 21 standard
(1/2") cutters.

5-,-----

4.5 o 4 cutters, cutter red.roa

. ·- ncy • 2 I
o 21 cutters, cutter redndancy • 3
tV
4 \
\ ~

~~3.5
, I
,
,, I

=c~
-; 3
....
.... ..... -90 -- ~
.- /
/

&2
~!::. 2.5'

2
&-----------O----B
1.5

1 +-----,----,
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Depth of Cut (in.)

Figure 14. Field measurements of bit torque vs.

depth of cut for: (a) a bit with 4 large (1 1/2")
cutters and (b) a bit with 21 standard (1/2") cutters.

188