PAPER 2002-051

PETROLEUM SOCIETY
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Drilling Variables At Technical

Limit Of Drilling Rate
F. Akgun
United Arab Emirates University
This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2002, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 11 13, 2002. 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 Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Recorded drilling times may show significant

variations from well to well even for the same total depth
in the same field. Apart from the formation
characteristics, engineers technical ability plays an
important role in determining drilling time.

The rate of drilling can be improved for a given field

until it reaches its technical limit. Several variables affect
drilling rate (1-4). Some of these variables originate from
formations, and nothing can be done to change them
practically. Formation properties such as; pore pressure,
compaction, in-situ stresses and mineral content are
among the uncontrollable variables. On the other hand,
several drilling variables can be selected carefully and
drilling rate can be improved significantly. Mud weight
(MW), weight on bit (WOB), rotary speed or rotation per
minute (RPM), bit type and hydraulics are among the
controllable drilling variables.

A drilling performance is usually compared with

respect to the performances of previously drilled wells.
This approach has two major drawbacks. One, in newly
developed fields, there may not be sufficient number of
drilled wells to make a healthy comparison. Two, past
drilling practices may not represent good engineering
practices.

It has long been observed that the drilling rate

generally increases with increasing circulation rate (5),
weight on bit (6), rotary speed (6) and bit tooth height. On
the other hand, it decreases with increasing drilling fluid
viscosity and density (7-11). Some of these variables may

In this paper, a different approach is introduced in

assessing drilling performance. The new approach
suggests a comparison of drilling performance with
respect to what is called technical limit of drilling rate,
a maximum achievable drilling rate without risking
drilling safety.

have a significant effect on drilling rate whereas others

may have a marginal effect.

a
WOB WOB 5

d b db t
f5 =
........................................(3)
WOB

d b t

Several authors have proposed mathematical

relationships of drilling rate with major controllable and
uncontrollable drilling variables for rolling cutter bits. (1215)
Among them, perhaps the most complete mathematical
drilling model being used is Bourgoyne and Youngs
model (21,22).

RPM
f6 =

60

a6

................................................................ (4)

As in the previous case, by substituting equation 3 in

equation 1 and using the same data in table 1 figure 2 can
be produced. In this particular case, while changing
WOB, the following variables were kept constant: rotary
speed, impact force, fractional tooth height and mud
weight values. Similarly, RPM vs. DR diagram (figure 3)
is produced by changing rotary table speeds and keeping
the other variables (MW, WOB, h, Fj) constant.

DR = f1 f 2 f 3 f 4 f 5 f 6 f 7 f 8 ..............................................(1)
The functions f1 through f3 represent the effect of
uncontrollable drilling variables on drilling rate. For
example, f1 represents formation strength on penetration
rate. The functions f2 and f 3 model the effect of
compaction on penetration rate. For example, the
function f2 accounts for the rock strength increase due to
normal compaction with depth, and the function f3
models the effect of undercompaction experienced in
abnormally pressured formations (14). The functions f4
through f8 represent the effect of controllable drilling
variables on the drilling rate.

As expected, figure 2 and figure3 indicate that DR

increases with increasing WOB and RPM. Therefore it is
also important to determine the upper limits of WOB and
RPM so that drilling safety cannot be jeopardized while
trying to improve the DR.

The function f4 models the effect of overbalance on the

drilling rate.

In general, the drilling rate increases with increased bit

hydraulics and flow rate. However, once the bottom of
the hole beneath the drill bit is efficiently cleaned of
cuttings, a further increase in the circulation rate and/or
impact force is just a waste.

f 4 = e 2.303 a 4 D (f ) ......................................................(2)
To graphically demonstrate the effect of mud weight
on drilling rate, equation 2 was substituted in equation 1,
and DR in equation 1 was solved for the data given in
table 1. Note that all the other controllable variables are
kept at constant values while MW was changed.

The function f8 models the effect of bit hydraulics on

drilling rate.
a
IF 8
f8 =
..................................................................(5)
1,000

Figure 1 shows that the drilling rate is 20ft/hr at 12 ppg

MW, whereas at 13 ppg MW it can be reduced by more
than 50% to 9 ft/hr. It is important to use an appropriate
mud weight and avoid unnecessary weight. Therefore, it
is crucial to determine the minimum safe drilling fluid
density.

Flow rate relates to impact force with the following

equation:
1

2 57.662 * IF2 m + 2
Q=

............................................(6)
j m MW

The functions f5 and f6 model the effect of bit weight

and rotary speed on the drilling rate.

The drilling rate for a given flow rate can be calculated

as the following. Fj is calculated from equation 6 for a
given flow rate. Then Fj is substituted in equation 5 and

What is the minimum drilling fluid density such that

drilling operation is not in jeopardy? The answer to this
question can be obtained by investigating the possible
problems that can be anticipated due to insufficient mud
weight. The following two drilling problems may arise
because of insufficient drilling fluid density:

f8, then, is substituted in equation 1 to solve for drilling

rate.
Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between the flow
rate and drilling rate. Note that once an efficient cleaning
is achieved at the bottom of the bit, a further increase in
flow rate will not improve drilling rate further.

1 . Formation fluids may flow into the borehole

(kick),

The function f7 models the effect of tooth wear on the

drilling rate.

2.

f7 = e

a 7 h

........................................................................ (7)

The borehole may collapse (formation instability).

These two problems usually appear at two different

drilling fluid densities. Therefore, the lowest acceptable
drilling fluid density is going to be the higher one of the
two values. This ensures that both problems do not show
up during drilling.

By substituting f7 into equation 1 and using data in

Table 1, DR was calculated and plotted in figure 5 for
fractional tooth heights of 0/8th to 8/8th.
Although figure 5 illustrates the significant effect of
fractional tooth height on drilling rate, seldom can bit
termination time be selected solely based on drilling rate.

While drilling a permeable formation, formation fluids

may flow into the borehole if the drilling mud hydrostatic
pressure falls below the formation fluid pressure. In such
a case, the lower limit of drilling fluid density is selected
in a way that the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column
is slightly higher that the formation fluid pressure (about
150 psi). Therefore, the lower limit of formation fluid
density, f, is determined simply by:

DRILLING VARIABLES AT TECHNICAL LIMIT

Practicing engineers can improve their drilling time
significantly by carefully selecting controllable drilling
variables. However, they cannot select these variables
solely based on drilling rate without considering the
safety of drilling as a whole. Therefore, for a given
drilling condition, there exists an upper and a lower
practical limit of each controllable drilling variable.
These limits can be determined by considering the safety
of the whole drilling operation. The following drilling
variables will be mentioned considering their influence
on drilling rate; drilling fluid density, weight on bit
(WOB), rotary table speed (RPM) and circulation rate.

P + 150
f = f
.................................................................. (8)
0.052 D
Formation breakdown or formation compressive
failure is a type of the borehole instability, which
emerges when insufficient mud weight is in use during
the drilling of sensitive formations (17-18). To determine
whether compressive failure will occur at borehole wall
for a given mud weight, the stress state defined by two

Drilling Fluid Density

variables - octahedral shear stress,

It has been stated that the drilling fluid is probably the

most important variable to be considered in drilling
optimization and hydraulics is the second (16). Drilling
fluid density has a considerable effect on the drilling rate.
It is one of the variables inversely proportional to the
drilling rate. It has been observed that the drilling rate
generally increases with decreasing equivalent circulating
density (ECD). One way to decrease ECD is to reduce the
drilling fluid density, and the other is to reduce its
viscosity.

oct

and effective

confining pressure, (Pc-Pf) - is compared with an

experimentally determined rock failure envelope (19), such
as that shown in Figure 6. If the stress state at the
borehole wall falls below the rock strength curve, as at
points A and C in figure 6, it is assumed that compressive
failure will not occur, otherwise, the borehole wall will
crumble and collapse.

For the assumed condition of no flow, vertical well

and normally stressed formation the stresses at the
borehole wall are given in polar coordinates by

Co =

2.68 x 1010 (1 )
b

....................................................(14)
2
t

z =

0.6968 Cos b
4b

[8 VCl + 4.5 (1 VCl )]

2

1 Sin t c 3t s2

dz ........................................................................(9)
b

Poissons ratio, , can be empirically determined from

r = Pm = D .....................................................................(10)

shear and compressional sonic velocities as in the

following equation:

= 2 H Pm = 2 z
D .......................................(11)
1

In terms of r, , z, the effective confining pressure

and the octahedral shear stress are given by:

Pc Pf =

oct =

+ z + r
Pf ..........................................(12)
3

( r )2 + ( z )2 + (z r )2
6

(Pc-Pf) is calculated from equation 12.

2.

oct is determined from figure 6.

.............(13)

...........................................................(15)

Co = (max Pf ) 2 + 1 + (min Pf ) ............(16)

For a normally stressed, tectonically inactive formation

where maximum and minimum horizontal stresses are
equal, it is reasonable to assume that max=z and
min=. Hence, by combining equations 9 through 16,
the lowest mud weight that satisfies the mechanical
borehole stability criteria can be determined from the
following relationship:

3 . Finally, is solved from equation 13 after

substituting D for

t s

t 1
c

Once the value of Co is determined empirically, then it

can be introduced into Coulombs criterion, to determine
whether the rock fails or not under present borehole
stress, it can be stated as follows:

Therefore, once an experimentally produced rock

failure envelope is obtained, for a given effective
confining pressure, the minimum mud density can be
determined as following:
1.

1 t s

1
2 t c

and 2z
D for
1

1
Pf Co
= 2 H Pf z
2 ............................(17)
D

+ 1 +

In cases where no laboratory data is available for

determining a rock failure envelope, the following
empirical correlations can be used to determine whether
the rock fails or not (20,21).

Weight on Bit

The uniaxial compressive strength is calculated from

bulk density, shear and compressional sonic velocities
and gamma ray data.

One of the major variables, which significantly affects

drilling rate, is the amount of WOB. Given that there is
efficient bottom hole cleaning beneath the bit teeth,
generally, the rate increases with increasing bit weight.
However, as in the case of many controllable drilling
variables, there is an upper limit of bit weight that cannot

be exceeded. The upper limit of WOB is decided after

following two critical loads are determined:
1.

The WOB at which the bit drills at minimum cost

2.

Critical Buckling Load (CBL) of Drill Pipes (DP).

CBL = 1,617

B f (OD 2 ID 2 )(OD 4 ID 4 ) Sin

... (18)
(H OD )

It is worth to mentioning that the CBL of pipes can be

increased substantially if stabilizers are attached to pipes.
In such cases, not only the number of stabilizers, but also
the location of stabilizers within the string determines the
value of CBL (32).

The first one of the above two ensures that operating

cost of drill bit is at its minimum value. This is
considered to be one of the fundamental requirements of
cost effective drilling. Notice that the minimum cost
WOB does not ensure the drilling rate is going at its
maximum for a range of WOBs. Therefore, if the speed
of drilling is to be maximized then minimizing cost per
foot criteria can be sacrificed.

Rotary Speed
Rotary Speed or RPM is among the controllable
variables that significantly affect the rate of penetration.
Assuming that bottom hole cleaning is adequate drilling
rate generally increases with increased RPM. However,
in most practical applications, the optimum RPM is
selected so that per footage cost of drilling is at a
minimum. This is called minimum cost RPM (NMC). This
number and minimum cost WOB can be determined
simultaneously (12-15). However, before applying
minimum cost RPM, the torsional strength of pipes must
be investigated. If minimum cost RPM will put drill pipes
in helical buckling mode before it reaches to drill bit,
than the maximum safe RPM must be determined
considering the torsional strength of drill pipe.

If sufficient data is available to produce a table of bit

operating cost as a function of WOB and rotary speed,
then graphical technique can be used to determine the
minimum cost WOB and RPM (22). However, in the
absence of such a table, several analytical methods can be
used.
There are two popular analytical models that can be
used to produce a table of cost per foot for a range of
practical WOB and rotary speeds (12-15). They are both
used to model penetration rate for tri-cone roller cone
bits. Once the cost per footage table is constructed, the
minimum cost per footage and corresponding values of
WOB and rotary speed can easily be identified.

Drill pipes will torsionally buckle if torsional loads

exceed the minimum torque required to buckle them. The
buckling strength of a drill pipe against torsional load
depends on how much tension or compression is placed
on it. The following formula can be used to determine
r(22).

Minimum cost WOB does not guarantee that under

such a load the existing drill string is going to be
mechanically stable. Therefore, once the minimum cost
bit weight is determined, the stability of those pipes,
which will be incompression, should be investigated. If
the minimum cost WOB will exert more compression
than the critical buckling load (CBL) of pipes, than the
maximum value of WOB has to be reduced to CBL.
Especially during the drilling of horizontal and extended
reach wells where drill pipes have to be put in
compression to achieve reasonable WOB, the CBL of
drill pipes should be determined.

r = 833,333 Ic 2,056,168 c + F .......................... (19)

2
L

The drill bit hang-up and Bottom Hole Assembly

(BHA) rotational drag are considered to be the two
factors, which cause drill pipe helical buckling. The
following BHA torsional model predicts the transmission
of torsional loads created by the bit through the drill
collars and then into the drill pipe (28).

The following equation can be used to estimate the

CBL of pipes in inclined and straight holes (23-27).

2J
c
= 0.795 N HU J p
....................................... (20)
J
+
c J p

By substituting r from equation 19 into in equation

with the constraint of a selected impact force per square

inch of bottom hole area (30).

20, one can solve for the maximum value of RPM that
can be applied by avoiding helical buckling of drill pipes
in case the bit hangs-up (NHU).

6,649.35 IF2 m + 2
...........................................(23)
Q=

j m f

Torsional buckling of the drill pipes may also be

anticipated if the input torque by the rotary table is
excessive. The following equation uses watts consumed
by an electric rotary drive to estimate the DP torque by
the rotary system.

= 7.04

If the flow rate needed to optimize bit hydraulics is

inadequate for efficient borehole cleaning then full
transport circulation rate has to be selected as the
minimum flow rate. The following formula was proposed
to determine the full transport circulation rate in
directional wells (31).

V I eff mff
BHA ...........................................(21)
N RD

Similarly, by substituting r from equation 19 into in

Q =

equation 21, one can solve for the maximum value of

RPM to avoid drill pipe helical buckling (NRD).

2
H OD 2
4

)[(V Cos )+ (V
1

Sin )] ..............(24)

Finally, among the three rotary speeds, NMC, NHU and

NRD, the smallest one is selected as the optimum
applicable rotary speed.

SW
f
V2 = 60

Circulation Rate

Equations 24 and 25 are used to construct full transport

annular flow rate diagram (figure 8). The required flow
rate is selected by entering the chart with hole inclination
and intersecting the curve.

Laboratory and field drilling tests show that the

drilling rate rises with increased bit hydraulics to a
maximum value and thereafter fails to cause a further rise
(29)
. This phenomenon is interpreted to mean that once the
bottom of the hole is cleaned that further efforts at
cleaning are a waste of bit hydraulics (Figure 7).
Therefore from the standpoint of bit hydraulics, the
circulation rate can be increased until drilling fluid fully
cleans the cuttings beneath the bit. However, this rate
may not be adequate to circulate cuttings out of the hole.
Higher circulation rates are often needed to prevent
cuttings bed formation in inclined and horizontal wells.

3 H OD 3 6
g
..........................(25)

12

CONCLUSIONS
Drilling rate strongly depends on several controllable
drilling variables. Hence, appropriate selection of these
variables can significantly improve the drilling rate.
However, there is an upper limit of drilling rate, which
cannot be exceeded without risking the safety of drilling
operation. This rate is called the technical limit of drilling
rate and can be approached if:

The following formula can be used to find the

circulation rate which maximizes bit hydraulic
horsepower (BHHP) with the constraint of a selected Bit
hydraulic horsepower per square inch of bottom hole area
(30)
.

MW is selected as the minimum weight needed to

prevent formation fluid kick and borehole
collapses,

WOB and RPM are both selected at their

maximum possible values by considering the
minimum bit operational cost and drill string
stability,

Flow rate is selected at optimum value by

considering bit hydraulics and hole cleaning.

1714 BHHP m +1
Q=

.............................................(22)
j m

Similarly, the following formula can be used to find

the circulation rate which maximizes jet impact force (IF)

If all the drilling variables are selected and operated at

their most favorable values, it is possible to reach the
technical limit of drilling rate without jeopardizing
safety.

V1

Particle slip velocity in a vertical hole

V2

Critical transport velocity for large solids in a

horizontal annulus

WOB

Weight on bit

NOMENCLATURE

Hole inclination

a1-a8

Coefficients

ts,

Shear sonic velocity

Bf

Buoyancy factor

tc

Compressional sonic velocity

Friction angle (30o for most rocks)

BHHP Bit hydraulic horse power

Co

Uniaxial compressive strength

BHA

Rotational drag due to BHA

CBL

Critical buckling load

Poissons ratio

Formation depth

Drilling fluid density

eff

Electrical efficiency of motor

Formation bulk density

f1-f8

Functions

Formation fluid gradient

Tension (+) or Compression (-)

Horizontal in-situ stress

Acceleration of Gravity

Radial borehole stress

Hole size

Vertical in-situ stress

Fractional tooth height

Tangential (Hoop) borehole stress

Amperes consumed

Torque transmitted

Ic

Cross-sectional moment of inertia

Torsional buckling strength

IF

Impact force

ID

Inside diameter

REFERENCES

J&m

Power law constants

Jc

Polar moment of inertia of drill collars

Jp

Polar moment of inertia of drill pipes

1 . MAURER, W.C., Bit Tooth-Penetration Under

Simulated Borehole conditions, Journal of Petroleum
Technology. pp.1433-1442; Trans., AIME, 234,
December 1965

Length of pipes

Pf

Formation fluid pressure

Pm

Hydrostatic pressure

mff

Mechanical efficiency of rotary system

NMC

Minimum cost rotary speed

3. WARREN, T.M., Penetration Rate Performance of

Roller Cone Bits, paper SPE 13259, 59th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1984.

NHU

Change in rotational speed

4.

NRD

Rotary table speed

OD

Outside diameter

Flow rate

WALKER, B.H., BLACK, A.D., KLAUBER, W.P.,

LITTLE, T., KHODAVERDIAN, M., Roller-Bit
Penetration Rate Response as a Function of Rock
Properties and Well Depth, paper SPE 15620, 61th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1986.

RPM

Rotary table speed

SW

Specific weight of solids

5.

VCl

Percent clay volume

ECKEL, J.R., Microbit Studies of the Effect of Fluid

Properties and Hydraulics on Drilling Rate, paper
SPE 2244, SPE Annual Conference, 1968.

2.

BINGHAM, M.G., A New Approach to Interpreting

Rock Drillability, Oil and Gas Journal, April 1965

6 . MAURER, W.C., The Perfect-Cleaning Theory of

Rotary Drilling, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp.1270-1274; Trans., AIME, 225, November 1962.

18. MOGI, K., Strength and Flow of Rocks into the

Upper Mantle, Tectonal Physics, Edited By; A.P.
Ritsema, pp. 541-58; Vol. 13(1-4).

7 . CUNNINGHAM, R.A. AND EENINK, J.G.,

Laboratory Study of Effect of Overburden,
Formation, and Mud Column Pressure on Drilling
Rate of Permeable Formations, pp.9-17; Trans.,
AIME 216, 1959.

19. NORDGREN, R.P., Strength of Well Completions,

Proc., 18 th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Keystone, CO, 1977.
20. DEERE, D.U. AND MILLER, R.P., Engineering
Classification and Index Properties of Intact Rock,
Tech. Report, AFWL-TR-67-144, U.S. Air Force
Systems Command Weapon Lab., Kirtland, N.M
1969.

8 . GARNIER, A.J. AND VAN LINGEN, N.H.,

Phenomena Affecting Drilling Rates at Depth,
pp.232-239; Trans. AIME 216, 1959.
9 . BLACK, A.D. AND GREEN, S.J., Laboratory
Simulation of Deep Well Drilling, Petroleum
Engineer, March 1978

21. COATES, G.R., AND DENOO, S.A., Mechanical

Properties Program Using Borehole Analysis
and Mohrs Circle, SPWLA 22nd Annual Logging
Symposium Transactions, pp.23-26, 1981.

10. MURRAY, A.S. AND CUNNINGHAM, R.A.,

Effect of Mud Column Pressure on Drilling Rates,
pp. 196-204;Trans. AIME 204, 1955.

22. MITCHELL, B.J., Advanced Oilwell Drilling

Engineering Handbook and Computer Programs, 9t h
Edition, SPE Textbook Series, Dallas, TX, 1992,

11. RAMSEY, M.S., SHIPP, J.A., LANG, B.J.,

BLACK, A., CURRY, D., Cesium Formate - The
Beneficial Effects of Low Viscosity and High Initial
Fluid Loss on Drilling Rate - A Comparative
Experiment, paper SPE 36398, IADC/SPE Asia
Pacific Drilling Technology Conference, 1996.

23. MITCHELL, R.F, Helical Buckling of Pipe With

Connectors, paper SPE52847, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference 9-11 March 1999.
24. MITCHELL, R.F, Buckling Analysis in Deviated
Wells: A Practical Method, paper SPE36761, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1996.

12. WOODS, H.B. AND GALLE, E.M., Constant Bit

Weight and Rotary Speed, Oil and Gas Journal,
October 6, 1958.

25. MITCHELL, R.F, A Buckling Criterion for

Constant-Curvature Wellbores, paper SPE52901,
1999.

13. WOODS, H.B. AND GALLE, E.M., Bit Weight and

Rotary Speed, Oil and Gas Journal, Nov 14 & 21,
1963.

26. MITCHELL, R.F, Helical Buckling of Pipe With

Connectors in Vertical Wells, paper SPE 65098,
2000.

14. ADAM, T.B., MILLHEIM, K.K., CHENEVERT,

M.E., YOUNG, F.S., Applied Drilling Engineering,
SPE Textbook Series, Dallas, TX, Vol. 2, 1991.

27. MITCHELL, R.F., New Buckling Solutions for

Extended Reach Wells, paper SPE 74566,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, 26-28 February 2002.

15. YOUNG, F.S., Computerized Drilling Control, SPE

Journal, Trans. pp.483, AIME 253, April 1969
16. LUMMUS, J.L., Analysis of Mud Hydraulics
Interactions, Petroleum Engineer, pp. 60-69,
February 1974.

28. SCHUH, F.J., The Critical Buckling Force and

Stresses for Pipe in Inclined Curved Boreholes,
paper SPE 21942, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
held in Amsterdam, 11-14 March, 1991.

17. JAEGER, J.C., AND COOK, N.G.W., Fundamentals

of Rock Mechanics, pp. 97, Chapman and Hall,
London, 1976.

29. BINGHAM, M.G., A New Approach to Interpreting

Rock Drillability, 1st Printing, The Petroleum
Publishing Company, USA, April 1965.

Directional Wells, SPE Drilling Engineering,

February 1986.
32. AKGUN, F., Optimum Spacing of Multiple
Stabilizers to Increase Critical Buckling Load of
BHA in Slim Hole Drilling, paper SPE 54322, SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
held in Jakarta, Indonesia, April 1999.

30. KENDALL, H.A. AND GOIS, W.C. Design and

Operation of Jet-Bit Programs for Maximum
Horsepower, Maximum Impact Force and Maximum
Jet Velocity, Trans. AIME, 1960.
31. TOMREN, P.H., IYOHO, A.W., AND AZAR, J.J.,
Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in

a2
a3
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
f1
f2
f3
D
Pore Pressure Gradient

0.00007
0.000005
0.00003
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
27.8 ft/hr
0.724
1.023
12,000 ft
12 ppg

Table 1. Drilling data used in producing drilling

rate vs. drilling parameter diagrams

22

WOB=40,000 lb/in2
RPM=80
h=4/8
Fj=1,200 lbf

20

DR (ft/hr)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
12

12.5

13

13.5

14

MW (ppg)
Figure 1 Effect of mud weight on drilling rate

25
MW=12 lb/gal
RPM=80
h=4/8
Fj=1,200 lbf

DR (ft/hr)

20
15
10
5
0
0

10
WOB (1,000 lb/in2)

Figure 2 Effect of WOB on drilling rate

10

15

20

30
MW=12 lb/gal
WOB =40,000 lb/in2
h=4/8
Fj=1,200 lbf

25

DR (ft/hr)

20
15
10
5
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

RPM

Figure 3 Effect of rotary table speed (RPM) on drilling rate

Recommended Impact force per

in2 of bottom hole area =12 lbf

20
MW=12 lb/gal
RPM=80
WOB =40,000 lb/in2
h=4/8

18
16

DR (ft/hr)

14

Recommended Impact force per

in2 of bottom hole area =9 lbf

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

50

100
Q (gal/min)

Figure 4 Effect of flow rate on drilling rate

11

150

200

30
25

DR (ft/hr)

20
15
10
5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Fractional tooth height

Figure 5 Effect of fractional tooth wear on drilling rate

12

0.8

Rock Strength Curve

A
Octahedral
Shear
Stress, oct

Unstable

C
Stable

B
Stable

Effective Confining Pressure, (Pc-P)

Figure 6 Experimentally determined rock failure envelop

(15)

Drilling
Rate

BHHP per in2 of Bottom Hole Area, HP

Figure 7 Laboratory and field drilling tests show that drilling rate rises with increased bit
hydraulics to a maximum value and thereafter fails to cause a further rise.

13

Region of Full Transport

Region of Bed Formation

Flow
Rate

Region of
Unstable Beds

10

20

30

40

Region of
Stable Beds

50

60

70

Hole Inclination
Figure 8 Full transport annular flow rate diagram.

14

80

90