1

ANALYSS AND OPTMZATON OF DRLLNG OPERATNG

PARAMETERS N CORNG AND DRLLNG OPERATONS

V.C. Kelessidis
1
, H. Ergin
2
1
Associate Professor, Mineral Resources Engineering Department, Technical University of Crete,
Greece, kelesidi@mred.tuc.gr
2
Mining Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, hergin@itu.edu.tr
Paper to be presented at the 22
nd
World Mining Congress and Expo 2011, Istanbul,
Turkey, Sept. 11-16

ABSTRACT
Drilling and coring operations are very expensive endeavors and efforts are continuous by
researchers and engineers to achieve the optimum penetration rate under given
conditions, which is defined as the maximum possible rate which will produce safely the
most economical borehole or core. To enhance penetration rate and bit life, optimization
of bit design and of drilling and coring operations must be realized. In this article, we
examine the factors that affect drilling operations related to the bit, the drilling operating
parameters and the formation parameters. In rotary drilling, pull-down force, rotational
speed, applied torque, bit diameter, circulation method and its efficiency are the important
drilling operating parameters. Bit wear rate is a very important issue and it must be
investigated deeply and it cannot be determined from rock properties only. We use
dimensional analysis to demonstrate the significance of these important parameters,
grouped together in dimensionless numbers which will then allow for optimum use of
limited field and laboratory data to produce best results. The analysis allows for reduction
of total effort in designing laboratory and field experiments, reducing total load and thus
cost, permitting variation of the important dimensional groups rather than individual drilling
operating parameters, hence a more efficient design of experiments can be realized. We
further discuss field results taken with impregnated diamond bits with respect to wear
patterns in order to establish the relationship between the wear type and the drilling
operational parameters.
1 INTRODUCTION
Drilling may be the most expensive process during
the exploration campaign and the ability to predict
penetration rates under given subsurface conditions
with the various drilling rigs is very essential for the
safe design and the accurate cost prediction before
the start of the drilling campaign.
Prior experimental and field evidence has
already demonstrated that penetration rate, both in
drilling and coring operations, depends on two
groups of parameters, formation properties and
drilling parameters. In the first group, these involve
local stresses, rock compaction, mineralogical
content, and fluid pore pressure. The most
significant drilling parameters are applied weight on
bit and torque, rotary speed and hydraulic
parameters (flow rate, density and rheology of
drilling fluid). Bit condition is equally important
because there is blunting while drilling progresses
which depends on the formation being drilled.
Drilling tools have evolved significantly over the
years but modelling of the drilling process and the
interaction of bit formation rock has yet to be
modelled adequately, which would allow for better
penetration rate prediction.
Rock drillability prediction is a key issue in design
and execution of any drilling jobs, e.g. for
hydrocarbon, mining or geothermal drilling activities.
Many parameters affect rock drillability and industry
and research is in constant search for better models
as well as experimental data.
Improvements in bit design and on operating
procedures could offer, especially in deep wells,
improvements of up to 25% in rate of penetration
(R) which could translate to significant savings.
While drill bit design is at the hands of capable drill
bit companies, operating procedures can only be
applied by the operator. Availability of models or
simulators could allow for better operating
procedures, especially in a long drilling campaign in
the same field. For e.g. when using PDC bits, one is
never sure whether to increase weight on bit (W) or
revolutions per minute (RPM). In a field study
[Lagnville at al., 2008] it was shown through testing
that doubling the bit RPM in 6,000-psi rock while
keeping weight on bit (W) constant resulted in 70%
increase in the rate of penetration, however,
doubling W, with RPM constant, resulted in 300%
increase in R.
Various models have been proposed to relate R
to drilling and formation parameters. For example,
Teale (1965) introduced a rock-bit interaction model
with adjustable parameters. In the model Teale
introduced the concept of specific energy, the
energy required by the rig to drill a unit volume of
rock. The model has been used by many
researchers and practitioners in the years that
followed (for e.g. Bilgin, 1982) and is given as,

( ) ( )( )
b
b
A
W
e
C
A W fD N
R

=
/ ) ( 8
(1)
where R is the penetration rate, N is the rpm of
the string, W is weight on bit,
b
A is the bit
diameter, f is the coefficient of friction between
drill string and formation, converting applied weight
W to torque, D is bit diameter, C is unconfined
compressive strength, and e is the efficiency of
transmitting the rock destruction power of the
drilling rig to the rock.
The equation for specific energy, SE , the energy
required by the dirlling rig to cut a unit volume of
rock, is finally given by (Teale, 1965)

DR
fWN
SE = (2)

in consistent units. Equation (2) has been
derived after keeping only the work done by the
torque and ignoring the axial work as being very
small (Kelessidis, 2010).
Warren (1981) proposed the following equation
for the penetration rate, initially for perfect cleaning
in front of the bit,

1
2
3 2

)
`

+ =
ND
c
W N
D aU
R
b
(3)

where c b a , , are dimensionless constants and
U is defined as a dimensionless relative drilling
strength of rock, which can be determined via
drilling tests and was assigned arbitrary values,
ranging around 1.0. All constants were later
correlated to rock properties such as unconfined
compressive strength, porosity, rock shear strength.
One could relate drilling strength to the rock C but
the type of relationship is really unknown and
should be dependent on the rock characteristics.
Much later, Warren (1987), extended the above
model to incorporate cleaning efficiency of the
drilling fluid by modifying the above equation to give

1
2
3 2

+ + =
jm
f
b
F
sD
ND
c
W N
D aU
R

(4)

where s is a dimensionless constant,
f
is
dimensionless liquid specific gravity, is the
plastic viscosity of the drilling fluid and
jm
F is the
modified impact force.
Drilling industry and in particular oil-well industry
has implemented approaches which tended to
normalize data rather than using full blown models
or dimensional analysis. The d-exponent, defined as
3


|

\
|
|

\
|
=
D
W
N
R
d
epx
6
10
12
log
60
log
(5)

is based on the definition of rock drillability by
Bingham (1965). The variables in equation (4) are
in the following units, h ft R / ] [= , rpm N ] [= ,
f
klb W ] [= , in D ] [= . One can see that in Equation
(5), the nominator is dimensionless, but not the
denominator, and thus
exp
d is dependent on the
specific expressions used for the determining
variables. The industry also uses the modified d-
exponent, which takes into account mud density
changes

m
epx m
d d

9
exp
=

(6)

where
m
is the density of the drilling fluid in
gal lb
m
/ (1 g/cm
3
=8.33 gal lb
m
/ ). One can thus
consider that both of these parameters could be an
approach to normalization rather than the use of
dimensionless groups.
Other attempts have opted to create simple
models and implement them in simulators which
would allow fine tuning of the many constants
involved utilizing historical drilling data, such as
Payzone simulator (Cooper et al., 1995) and the
simulator proposed by Hareland et al. (1994).
The Payzone drilling simulator was developed for
teaching and research purposes and it is fairly
flexible and simple to use. The main feature is the
prediction of drilling rate, using Eqn. (7),

) )( )( )( )( )( ( G tl N agg K ff R = (7)

where

( )
(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
=
tl D C
W
G
curv
* 4 . 0
12
exp 1
5 . 2
(8)

where the following modifiable by the user
constants are used: K is a constant; agg is a
formation and bit characteristic constant ranging
between 20% and 100% and normally it is given the
value of 35%; curv is a formation bit interaction
constant and it is usually given the value of 1.5; ff
is a constant, ranging between 50% and 100% and
defines the capability of the system to adequately
clean the bit front by the cuttings and tl is a factor
characterizing the length of the teeth (short,
medium, long). Prior work (Kelessidis and
Dalamarinis, 2009; Kelessidis, 2011) have shown
that Payzone simulator could provide fair
predictions for new drilling campaigns provided that
adequate historical drilling data were made
available in order to fine tune the simulator and to
determine the values of the several constants used.
The quest though for finding a good model for
rock-bit interaction continues, with Kelessidis (2010)
assessing that we are still far away from a good
prediction model despite several advances from the
earlier crude models described above, like for
example the newer models proposed by Detournay
and Defourny (1992), by Stavropoulou (2006) and
by Exadaktylos et al. (2008).
In this paper we try to assess the many
parameters that affect drilling performance and use
dimensional analysis to create dimensionless
groups which govern the phenomenon and we
propose techniques for maximizing the impact of
such an approach.
2 USE OF DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Dimensional analysis is a technique used by
many engineering and scientific disciplines which
enables researchers to take into account several
parameters affecting a particular process or
phenomenon and when detailed modeling is not
available. Dimensional analysis is used most often
when the process is very complex. Drilling is one
such complex process and in this paper we will try
to use dimensional analysis to enable us to point
out the most significant parameters, using the
dimensionless groups derived from the analysis.
This approach has been suggested in the past
for drilling applications where some dimensionless
groups have been proposed with limited success,
mainly because the full spectrum of parameters has
not been taken into account. For example, Warren
(1981) mentions that he derived the model (eqn. 3)
using dimensionless analysis, which though it gives
some of the dimensionless groups. In fact there are
three groups in equation (3), however, there must
be something wrong with the derivation, as in the
first term in the right hand side, the parameters do
not form a dimensionless number because the
parameter N is raised to an exponent.
As mentioned above, there are many formation
and drilling parameters that affect the main
parameter of interest, the penetration rate. Based
on published theoretical and experimental work, the
rate of penetration R (in dimensions of length over
time, L/T) is dependent in a strong or a weak
manner on the 17 parameters indicated in Table 1,
where the dimensions are also shown, thus making
a total of 18 parameters describing the process.
All 18 parameters that affect the drilling process
have 3 major units, mass, length and time (MLT),
thus, according to Buckingham -theorem
(Buckingham, 1915), there should be (18-3)=15
dimensionless groups which describe the process.
According to the process for developing the -
groups, we choose 3-repeating variables, which
among themselves do not form a dimensionless
group, and these chosen are, W D N. Following
standard procedures of dimensional analysis, the
15 groups can be constructed which are given in
Table 2.
Thus, based on the above analysis the following
very general equation can be proposed

|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
W
N aD
d
d
D
d
f
WD
T
E
E
W
ED
C
S
W
CD
W
N D
DN
V
W
N D
f
DN
R
c
g
c s
f
s s
2 2 2
2 2 2 4
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,

(9)

Depending on the situation at hand, several
simplifications can be made. For example, if one
ignores fluid effects, for e.g. when drilling with air
and having sufficient air flow rate so that the bottom
hole is cleaned continuously from the generated
cuttings, then this can be reduced by three groups,
as we remove fluid velocity, density and viscosity,
thus the reduced equation can be

|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
W
N aD
d
d
D
d
f
WD
T
E
E
W
ED
C
S
W
CD
W
N D
f
DN
R
c
g
c
s s
2 2
2 2 2 4
, , , , ,
, , , , ,

(10).

It should be noted that if the coring process is
modeled, one has to incorporate the two diameters,
2 1
, D D , the inside and the outside bit diameters
respectively, instead of D, thus introducing another
dimensionless group, which will be

2
1
16
D
D
= (11)
while also in all above equations and
dimensionless groups, the diameter D should be
replaced by
2
D . Similar simplifications can be
derived making appropriate assumptions. It should
be stressed however, that eqn. (9) is the full
equation when taking all parameters into account
3 RESULTS
The main idea is then, using the data collected,
plot them with respect to the dimensionless
parameters (e.g.
1
vs
11
, trying to keep other s
constant, etc.). Thus, instead of the typical data
representation of R-W at many different values of
all other parameters, like different rocks, etc., one
can use the dimensionless groups space. For
example, the main parameter space would be to
plot
1

versus
6
, the group of penetration rate but
normalized for the bit diameter and the rotational
speed versus weight on bit normalized by the
unconfined compressive strength, keeping the other
groups constant. This approach then reduces
considerable the number of experiments that could
be done to verify specific trends and also to verify
the importance of some parameters on the drilling
process for particular situations. The difficult issue
of course is gathering of data, which would require
extra work compared to standard practice because
of the inclusion of the many parameters. It is
expected, however, that the value of the information
gathered will pay itself considerably and thus it is an
approach that is suggested, especially when
embarking into new and expensive drilling and
coring campaigns.
This approach has been tested for the data of
Tsoutrelis (1969), which can be represented in the

1

-
6
space as shown in Figure 1. We do see a
specific trend of the two dimensionless groups and
of course, if all other s were the same, then the
two curves would essentially coincide. This cannot
be really determined from the standard
representation in the R-W space, as it is shown for
the same data of Tsoutrelis in Figure 2.
Of course data of Figure 1 are for single bit
diameter and single rotational speed. Utilizing to the
fuller extent the power of proposed analysis one
should have different values for the influential
parameters. Such a situation can be derived when
utilizing for example some of the data of Ersoy
(2003). If we plot in the
1

-
6
space the data for
sandstone, hard sandstone and limestone, we
derive Figure 3. It is very interesting to note that for
different rocks and different rpm, we see similar
trend in the
1

-
6

space, which is not the case if
one uses the standard representation of R-W, as
shown in Figure 4. The trend in Figure 4 is not
evident because different rpm values were used for
different weights on bit, thus one cannot really
assess the significance of any of the parameters in
the standard R-W space.
4 DISCCUSION
Other authors have also tried dimensional analysis.
For example, Tu (1988) has used dimensional
analysis utilizing though several sets of drilling data
from oil fields which could not have incorporated
rock parameters that are usually determined in the
lab, like petrophysical parameters. Tu has used 11
parameters, which, taking into account the three
dimensions in the parameters produces a total of 11
dimensionless groups.
5

Similarly, Kramadibrata et al. (2001) have used
dimensional analysis to relate specifically the
penetration rate of jack hammer to rock properties
and operational parameters. They used 9
parameters to describe the process thus giving in
total 6 dimensionless groups, but they did not
include W nor abrasivity, while also used energy
output, which though is a dependent variable and
thus their analysis could not be considered as
general.
Yin and Liu (2001) have also used dimensional
analysis for relating drilling data during drilling and
blasting in mining applications. They have
designated only 5 parameters, penetration rate (R),
rotational speed N, pulldown force (the weight, W),
torque T and a parameter which they called rock
quality index, r. Hence, Yin and Liu have lumped all
formation parameters into this r parameter which
could then be determined from specific tests. Thus,
they derived only two dimensional parameters and
proposed a relationship of the form

|

\
|
=
2
W
rNT
f
NT
RW
(12)

Finally they proposed to combine the suggested
dimensionless equation with the equation for
specific energy. Specific energy, given by Eqn. (2)
is not an independent variable, is rather a
dependent variable and one can show that it can be
related to the derived s by

6 1

=
f
C
SE
(13).
It should be noted that torque, T, is related to the
weight on bit through the friction coefficient, f, by
(Kelessidis, 2010)
3
WD
T

= (14)
for drilling applications and

3
eq
WD
T

= (15)
for coring applications with a coring bit of internal
diameter
1
D and external diameter
2
D , and

2 1
2
1 2 1
2
2
2
1
D D
D D D D
D
eq
+
+ +
= (16).

What is then proposed in this paper is to take
into account all relevant parameters, listed in Table
1, and utilize all 15 dimensionless groups listed in
Table 2. Collection of extensive sets of data,
covering a wide range of conditions will then allow
one to determine the various relationships among
different s and will also help identify the
significance of each for different situations.

5 BIT WEAR
Wear of drilling bits is an inevitable phenomenon
and it will occur during the course of the short life of
the drilling or coring bit. The challenge for the
engineer and the driller is to design and maintain
such drilling operating parameters and choose the
right bit for the job at hand so that wear occurs
slowly and uniformly affecting in the same way all
cutting edges of the bits and of the bit matrix. Bit
wear has been studied in the past and continues to
be studied because it is very important
phenomenon and early detection is of importance to
drilling industry.
Several abnormal wear patterns can occur from
incorrect drilling practices and improper bit
selection. For coring bits this may include concave
face wear, gauge loss ID or OD, cracked
waterways, face glazing, excessive diamond
exposure, burnt bits from loss of fluid or excessive
weight. Drillers should be aware of these potential
problems and should look for early warning signals,
which are usually given, so that the problems can
be remedied early. Monitoring of the major drilling
parameters and provision online of a drilling log will
allow the driller to identify early enough possible
problems. Drilling is really a correlative effort and
the more data is available, the better the correlation
can be and the better will be the identification of
abnormal trends, in all aspects of drilling and
certainly on anything regarding bit wear.
Wear rate of bits has been found to be related to
abrasivity of the rocks, which can then be correlated
with the
15
variable shown above and through the
dimensionless analysis one can then relate it to the
rest of the variables. Such a conclusion has been
derived by Ersoy and Miller (1995) who found that
abrasive wear volume loss is directly proportional to
the weight and torque, a result directly evident from
the value of
15
.
.
Attempts to predict bit wear, particularly for oil-
well drilling but not so much for coring applications
have been made in the past as it is always good to
know when one would need to pull the bit for
replacement (Miller and Ball, 1991; Ersoy and
Miller, 1995) while detection patents have been also
filed in the past (for e.g., Jardine, 1988) and also
very recently (Teodorescou and Hunt, 2010).
Recent attempts have used the simulators
described before to predict bit wear (Rashidi et al.,
2008), however this requires the applicability of the
drilling rate model used in such a simulator and of
course good knowledge of the formation
characteristics. One can then drop into a vicious
circle because, provided that a good understanding
of the formation to be drilled exists, then, in order to
have a workable drilling rate model, one should
know about the wear characteristics of the bit,
which though can be determined from the Rashidi
et al. approach, only if a drill rate model is available.
Thus it becomes evident that we are still far
away from the fundamentals, that is, to be able to
predict wear characteristics of given bits from first
principles, and thus we should strive for acquiring
continuously data while drilling or coring, so that
data can become available to research community
in order to enhance our understanding of the rock
bit interaction and be able to suggest better
equations for modelling this interaction.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Prediction of drilling rate is a very important task
for the drilling engineer because it allows him to
choose the right drilling bit and the optimal rig
operating parameters in order to successfully
deliver the borehole or the proper cores, either
drilling for oil and gas, or for mining exploitation and
development or for geothermal resources.
Penetration rate is dependent on a number of
drilling and formation parameters. Several
phenomenological or semi-empirical models have
been suggested in the past, but drilling rate is still
an elusive parameter.
An approach is proposed in this paper, utilizing
dimensional analysis, used very often in other fields
like fluid mechanics but not extensively in drilling
applications. This approach allows one to relate the
main parameters affecting the drilling or coring
process. The total number of parameters affecting
the drilling or coring processes has been identified
as 18 (or 19 if coring process is modeled). Applying
the Buckingham- theorem gives a total of 15 (or
16 if coring is modeled) dimensionless groups. This
analysis then allows utilizing or getting appropriate
data in the proper form and use them so that trends
of the process can be identified, minimizing the
amount of experimental or field work which comes
from the reduction of the number of parameters to
change in order to see any trends. There has not
been much prior work using dimensional analysis in
drilling and prior research has utilized fewer
parameters than the ones presented here.
Some examples have been shown of how one
could use this approach, using literature data. One
can see that the proposed technique allows for
correct trend identification which of course is rather
limited with the data analyzed because the data
lacked the monitoring of all parameters of interest.
Work is underway for constructing a lab-rig at
Technical University of Crete where the full data set
can be monitored for a variety of rocks and full
utilization and verification of the suggested
approach can be examined. Furthermore, work is
also underway with a full scale horizontal rig at
Istanbul Technical University (Ergin et al., 2000)
and it is expected that the data gathered will provide
further verification of this approach.
REFERENCES
Bilgin N., The cuttability of evaporates, Bull. IAEG,
25, 85-90, 1982.
Bingham, MG, 1965. A new approach to interpreting
rock drillability, Technical Manual Reprint, Oil
And Gas Journal
Buckingham, E. The principle of similitude. Nature
96, 396-397 (1915).
Cooper, GA, AG Cooper, G Bihn, 1995. An
interactive drilling simulator for teaching and
research, paper SPE 30213 presented at the
Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, TX,
11-14 June.
Detournay, E. and P. Defourny, 1992. A
phenomenological model for the drilling action of
drag bits, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 29, 13-23
Ergin, H., Kuzu, C., Balci, C., Tundemir, H. and
Bilgin, N., 2000. Optimum bit selection and
operation for the rotary blasthole drilling using a
Horizontal Drilling Rig (HDR) - A case study at
KBI Murgul Copper Mine, International Journal of
Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 14: 4,
295 304
Ersoy, A. and Waller, M. D., 1995. Wear
characteristics of PDC pin and hybrid core bits in
rock drilling Wear, 188, 150-165
Ersoy A., 2003. Automatic drilling control based on
minimum drilling specific energy using PDC and
WC bits, Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min.
Metall. A), 112, A86-A96.
Exadaktylos G., M. Stavropoulou, G. Xiroudakis, M.
de Broissia and H. Schwarz, 2008. A spatial
estimation model for continuous rock mass
characterization from the specific energy of a
TBM, Journal Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 41, 797-834.
Hareland, G. and Rampersad, P.R., 1994. Drag Bit
Model Including Wear, paper SPE 26957
presented at the 1994 SPE LAPEC Conference,
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 27-29 April.
Jardine, S., 1988. Method of determining drill bit
wear, US Patent 4928521
Kelessidis, VC, 2009. Need for better knowledge of
in-situ unconfined compressive strength of rock
(UCS) to improve rock drillability prediction, 3
rd

AMIREG Conference, Athens, 7-9 Sept.
Kelessidis, V.C., P. Dalamarinis, 2009. Monitoring
drilling bit parameters allows optimization of
drilling rates, 9th International Multidisciplinary
Scientific Geo-Conference & EXPO SGEM 2009,
Albena, Bulgaria, 14-19 June.
Kelessidis VC, 2010. Prediction of rock drillability for
exploration drilling for minerals and hydrocarbons
7

how close are we ? Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG,
I, No 1, 201-218.
Kelessidis, V. C., 2011. Rock drillability prediction
with in-situ determined unconfined compressive
strength of rock, The Journal of The Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
accepted for publication
Kramadibrata, S., Rai, MA, Juanda, J.,
Simangunsong, GM, Priagung, N., 2001. The
Use of Dimensional Analysis to Analyse The
Relationship Between Penetration Rate of Jack
Hammer and Rock properties and Operational
Characteristics, Indonesian Mining Conference
and Exhibition, November 7-8, Jakarta.
Langille, P., J Hildebrand and K Massie, 2008.
Aggressive Drilling Parameters, PDC-Bit
Innovations Cut Run Times in Abrasive
Oklahoma Granite Wash, J Petrol. Tech. March,
36-41.
Miller, D. and Ball, A., 1991. The wear of diamonds
in impregnated diamond bit drilling, Wear, 141,
311-320
Rashidi, B., G.Hareland, R. Nygaard, 2008. Real-
Time Drill Bit Wear Prediction by Combining
Rock Energy and Drilling Strength Concepts,
Paper SPE 117109 presented at the 2008 Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and 36
November.
Stavropoulou ., 2006. Modeling of small diameter
rotary drilling tests on marbles, Int. J. Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sci. 43, 1034-1051
Teale R. 1965. The concept of specific energy in
rock drilling, Int. J. Rock Mechanics and Mining,
2, 57-73.
Teodorescu, S.G. and Hunt, T., 2010. Method of
monitoring wear of rock bit cutters. US Patent
Application 20100139975
Tsoutrelis C.E., 1969. Determination of the
compressive strength of rock in situ or in test
blocks using a diamond drill, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 6, 311-321.
Tu, SKW. 1988. Application of dimensional and
regressional analysis in oil drill bit data,
Computers and Geotechnics, 6, 49-64.
Yin, K. and Liu, H. 2001. Using Information
Extracted From Drill Data to Improve Blasting
Design and Fragmentation, Fragblast, 5, 157
179.
Warren, T.M., 1981. Drilling model for soft-
formation bits, J Petrol. Technology, June, 963-
970
Warren, T.M., 1987. Penetration-Rate Performance
of Roller-Cone Bit, SPEDE (March 1987) 9.





Figure 1. Presentation of Tsoutrelis (1969) data in the
1
-
6
space. Data of drilling in granite and marble
with 36.4 mm bit at 260 rpm.

Fgure 2. Data of Tsoutrelis (1969) represented in the R-W space, for drilling granite and marble with 36.4
mm bit at 260 rpm

Fgure 3. Presentation of Ersoy (2003) data in the
1
-
6
space. Data of drilling in various rocks with 50 mm
PDC bit, at different N values, with the following C values: for Sandstone C=85.2 MPa, for Hard Sandstone
C=175.1 MPa and for Limestone C=59.7 MPa.


0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

1
*1000
sandstone
hard sandstone
limestone


0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2000 4000 6000
R

(
m
/
h
)
W (N)
granite
marble

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

6
*
1
0
0
0

1
*1000
granite
marble

9






Fgure 4. Data of Ersoy (2003) presented in the standard R-W space, for PDC drilling in various rock types
with 50 mm bit, at different N values: for sandstone N values of 150, 240, 320, 550 rpm; for Hard Sandstone
N values of 240, 550, 750 and 1150 rpm, and for Limestone N values of 150, 240, 320, 750 and 1150 rpm.

Table 1. Parameters affecting drilling process.
Name Symbol Dimensions
1 Rate of
penetration
R

LT
-1
2 fluid density
f

ML
-3

3 solid density
s

ML
-3

4 fluid velocity V MT
-1

5 fluid viscosity

ML
-1
T
-1

6 rock
compressive
strength
C ML
-1
T
-2

7 rock tensile
strength
S ML
-1
T
-2

8 rock porosity --
9 bulk modulus
elasticity
E ML
-1
T
-2

10 shear modulus E
s
ML
-1
T
-2

11 bit diameter D L
12 bit rotational
speed
N T
-1
13 weight on bit W MLT
-2
14 torque on bit T ML
2
T
-2
15 friction
coefficient
f --
16 cuttings size d
c
L
17 grain size d
g
L
18 rock abrasivity a ML
-1


0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5000 10000 15000
R

(
m
/
h
)
W (N)
sandstone
hard sandstone
limestone


Table 2. Dimensionless groups.
NAME Estimation Coefficients Dim. Group

1
R*W
a
D
b
N
c
a=0, b= -1,
c= -1
DN
R
=
1

2

f

*
W
a
D
b
N
c

a=-1, b= 4,
c=2
W
N D
f
2 4
2

3

s

*
W
a
D
b
N
c

a=-1, b= 4,
c=2
W
N D
s
2 4
3

4
V*W
a
D
b
N
c

a= 0, b= -1,
c= -1
DN
V
=
4

5
*W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= 2,
c= 1
W
N D
2
5

6
C*W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b=
2, c= 0
W
CD
2
6
=

7
S*W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= 2,
c= 0
W
SD
2
7
=

8

=
8

9
* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= 2,
c= 0
W
ED
2
9
=

10

s
* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= 2,
c= 0
W
D E
s
2
10
=

11
T* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= -1,
c= 0
WD
T
=
11

12
f
f =
12

13
d
c
* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= 0, b= -1,
c= 0
D
d
c
=
13

14
d
g
* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= 0, b= -
1, c= 0
D
d
g
=
14

15
a* W
a
D
b
N
c
a= -1, b= 2,
c= 2
W
N aD
2 2
15
=