A METHOD FOR BIT SELECTION BY MODELLING ROP AND

BIT-LIFE

H.XU T.TOCHIKAWA T.HATAKEYAMA

this article begins on the next page F

THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 97-78 A Method for Bit Selection by Modelling ROP and Bit-life H. Xu, T Tochikawa, T. Hatakeyama Japan National Oil Corporation
This paper is to be presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 - 11, 1997. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in CIM journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and is subject to correction.
 THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 97-78

,
.~

A Method for Bit Selection by

Modelling ROP and Bit-life

H. Xu, T. Tochikawa, T. Hatakeyama

Japan National Oil Corporation

This paper is to be presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 - 11,
1997. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior
to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in CIM journals. Publication rights
are reserved. This is a pre-print and is subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
This paperpresents a practical methodfor bit selection
through modeling ROP and Bit-lift from the conventional
and routinely available bit record and logging data. This
method employs simple statistical analysis to quantify the
effects of individual parameters on bit performance and
then identify the most significant parameters from the
uncountable variables associated with drilling processes.
The parameters incorporated in the model can be
demonstrated to be statistically significant, physically
interpretable and dynamically controllable. Based on the
model ofROP and Bit-life, the value of cost-per-footage
can be normalized and therefore bit selection can be
conducted on a scientific basis. In addition, the method
for developing model to optimize drilling parameters for
~ndividual bit runs and for dynamic drilling conditions is
zllustrated. Also the application of the model in ROP
prediction, in diagnosing drilling problem is discussed
briefly. This method unlocks a whole plethora ofmethods
to model bit performance and has the potential to be
automatedfor routine application.
1. INTRODUCTION
When drilling a well, bit related costs account for a
colossal value. It follows that even a small percentage of
savings in it can yield significant cost-reduction.
Quantitatively the formula below has long been recognized
as a tool to measure bit performance:
CPUD= Cb+CreCtb+tz)
liD Eq.!
where CPUD stands for Cost-Per-Unit-Depth, C for the
cost of bit, C r for the operating cost of the rig per ~it time;
4, for th: sum of the actual drilling time; 1t for tripping and
connection time; AD for the given interval of depth.
Because.6.D is the product ofROP (Rate Of Penetration)
and tl>, Eq.! can be re-written as:
CPUD=..E.r-+ Cb + Cret z
ROP ROPetb ROPetb Eq.!.1
According to Eq. 1.1 the following observations can be
made:
• To any bit run, CPUD is effectively determined by
ROP and 4" because bit cost (Cb) and rig rate (Cr) are
constant and trip time (t l ) vary little; to any well, the sum
of trip times depend on the number of bit runs and the
number of bit runs are determined by both 4, and ROP. In
short, improving bit performance is the direct and efficient
approach to drilling cost-reduction.
• To individual bit run, changes in ROP have greater
impacts on CPUD. It can be seen from Eq.l.l, ROP
appears in all the 3 terms while 4, appears in 2 terms, C, in
2 terms and Cb in 1 term. Furthermore' partial derivative of
Eq.l.l can explain the impacts of individual components
on CPUD analytically. However, it should be noted that
both ROP and ~ may be themselves correlated and, to a
well, the sum of trip time (tl) depend on the number of bit
runs and the number of bit runs are determined by tb and
ROP as well.
Apparently Eq.l.l has been straightforward, but to
apply it practically is difficult For instance, there are two
bits, bit No.16 and bit No.74, with the same name and
same size while the value ofCPUD for No.16 is 61unit and
for No.74 is 189unti (Table la). It will be debatable to say
that the performance of bit No.16 is better than that of bit
No.74, since both ROP and ~ may themselves correlated
and affected by a number of other variables, particularly
WOB, RPM, Mud-density, Flowrate and formation
propertyl,2,3 (Table Ib). It follows that, to evaluate bit
performance and then select the most suitable bit for
subsequent drilling practice, it is essential to normalize the
value of CPUD. And to normalize the value of CPUD, it is
essential to model ROP and bit-life, because modeling
ROP and bit-life can quantify the impacts of individual
parameters and then identify the most significant variables
in particular drilling conditions 4,5.6,7. As a result Eq.l.l is
re-written as Eq.1.2, where subscript "m" means
- '-,
 "modified".
CPUD =-.s:....-+ Cb + Crett
m ROPm ROPm etb
m
ROPm etb
m
Eq.l.2
Overall, coefficienty is introduced to temper the value
of the .mo~ified Cost-per-footage (CPUDm), where the
determmation ofy depends on engineering judgment.
C UP'Dm _( Cr
- --+
cb + Crett )·rE 13
T ROPm ROPm etbm ROPm etbm q..
Conventionally, there exist two typical methods for
e~aluating bit performance. One method is to compare the
bIt performance by reviewing the conventional bit record
which condenses all the variation of the operating
conditions of individual bit run into a single line.
However, the brevity of the data may result in the loss of
valuable information and in the ignorance to the cause and
e~fect of poor or good performance, consequently, it is
~fficult to mak~ practical recommendations for improving
s bits did not last in the hole half the time of what the
bIt performance m subsequent bit runs . At a more detailed
level than bit records, integrated plots of mud and electric
logging data are now becoming more common for
performance diagnosis in well sections of interests. These
plots facilitate a visual impression ofthe interaction of bit
performance and different variables on a foot-by-foot or
meter-by-meter b~is. For example, overlaying ROP,
WOB and formatIon logging data on a single plot may
reveal how WOB affects ROP for a range of lithologies.
Although such plots are of undoubted value in drilling
practice, they are not intended to quantify the relationship
be~een ROP aD:d its influential variables from the large
amount of loggmg data. Interpretation of such plots
!he~e~ore tends ~ be subjective and depends largely on
mdIvIdual expertIse. The use ofthe conventional method
should be complemented by using the method described in
this paper as well as other works by Xu et ar,s·6.7.
2. METHOD FOR MODELING ROP
Literally modeling ROP is not new 1•2,3. Although the
previous methods in literature described drilling
mechanism and indicated the variables which should be
considered when developing a model, it is difficult to apply
the model in literature in drilling practice. For instance, the
field applicability of models developed from laboratory
controlled experiments may be limited, because a model is
~imp~~ a mathematical representation of a physical process,
Its utihty must largely depend on the similarity between the
conditions in which it was derived and those in which it is
to be applied. However, real drilling conditions almost
always differ radically from those experienced in the
laboratory. Also, models in literatilre usually prescribe the
general form of the relationship between ROP and the
independent variables, which is unrealistic given the wide
potential for variation in the bit/rock interaction with
different lithologies. Also it is difficult to obtain the
accurate coefficients and constants incorporated in the
models in literatilre2,3, for example, bit constants, rock
strength, pressure differential of formation etc.. In fact, it
may damage the accuracy and reliability of a model to
incorporate the coefficients/constants which can not be
2
I
I--------
measured accurately; also it is a disadvantage to
incorporate the variables which are not significant in the
conditions in which the model was derived and to be
applied.
In view of the inadequacy of the conventional method
in ROP modeling, a new method has been develope<f,s·6.7.
For.illustration, an exercise with the following steps is
earned out:
(1) Prepare the data. 46 records of bit with same bit
type (Insert-Rock-Bit), same size (12-114"), used to drill
the same formation namely Hiuchiyama which is a typical
formation in Japan, drilled in same mud-type (Water-
based). Because each records is averaged from a number
of meter-by-meter measured data points, the effects of a
few outliers is minor4,s. In this formation, two PDC bits
and one diamond bit were used. However, the records of
those three bits were excluded because, according to the
logging reports, "diamond bits and turbine however did not
improve the rate of penetration. Also in both the runs the
medium and hard insert bits lasted, and, when pulled out of
hole bit wear was found to be around 60%."
(2) Review the background of individual data. Read
relevant documents, such as daily reports and logging
reports, to ascertain the background to the bit run. This
may be useful for both explanation and application of the
results or may highlight the data which may be
inappropriate for detailed analysis. It was noted that all the
46 data were from normal drilling conditions and no lose-
bit cone(s) or other failure were reported; also the
personnel involved in drilling that section were inquired,
however non drilling problems could necessarily be
attributed to the suitability of individual bits. In addition,
the relation between torque and ROP or 4. was investigated
but no significant phenomenon was found.
(3) Perform Regression Analysis. Multiple linear
regression analysis benefits from being simple to apply and
straightforward to interpret. A visual inspection of the
residuals (the difference between actilal and predicted ROP
values) after a linear regression analysis indicates the
suitability of the model and may suggest how the model
may b~ improved by including non-linear variables such as
WOB for example. According the general assumption
about drilling practice 1•2 ,3, ROP is on the side of the
dependent variable, while WOB, RPM, Mud-density,
Flowrate ,which are all dynamically controllable are on the
side of the independent variables. Also Ro~k-density,
measured every 10-meters based on the cutting samples, is
on the side of the independent variables standing for the
formation prope~. As a result, a model incorporating
RPM, Mud-densIty and Rock-density is derived (Eq.2.1,
Fig.l).
ROP=32.27+O.024.RPM-6.0S.MD-9.12.RD Eq.2.1
From Fig.l with statistical analysis, the followin a
observations can be made: .,
• 70% of the ROP variations can be explained by the
three independent parameters namely RPM, Mud-density
and Rock-density (Eq.2.1), which indicates that little could
be improved by borrowing models including numerous
variables or by retaining insignificant variables. Also it is
evident that little can be improved by including variables in