Specific Energy as a Criterion

for Bit Selection

Hussain Rabia, SPE, U. of Newcastle
Summary
A simplified approach to bit selection that uses the prin-
ciple of specific energy is presented. Comparison of bit
selection, based on both cost per foot and specific energy,
is made. The potential application of specific energy in
development and exploration wells is discussed.
Introduction
The criterion for bit selection is normally based on cost
per foot, C, which is determined by the following
equation:
C
B
+( T
t
+tr)C
R
C= F ' ....................... (1)
where C is in $/ft.
Eq. 1 shows that cost per foot is controlled by five
variables. For a given bit cost, C B, and hole section, F,
cost per foot will be highly sensitive to changes in rig cost
per hour, C R, trip time, T
t
, and rotating time, t r' The
trip time T
t
may not always be easy to determine unless
a straight running in and pulling out of hole is made. If
the bit is pulled out for some reason-say, to casing shoe
for a wiper trip-such duration, if added, will influence
the total trip time T
t
and, in turn, cost per foot. Bit per-
formance, therefore, has been changed by some arbitrary
factor. Rotation time is straightforward and is directly pro-
portional to cost per foot, assuming that other variables
remain constant.
The rig cost C R will greatly influence the value of cost
per foot. For a given hole section in a field that is drilled
by different rigs having different values of C R, the same
bit will produce different values of cost per foot, assum-
ing that the same rotating hours are used in all rigs. It
should be pointed out that, if the value of C R is taken
as arbitrary (say $900/hr), then Eq. 1 will yield equivalent
values of cost per foot for all rigs. The value of cost per
foot in this case is not a real value and does not relate
to actual or planned expenditure.
Performance of a bit in the different parts of a given
hole section can be determined from the cumulative cost
per foot (CCF). In this method, Eq. 1 is used to deter-
mine cost per foot for, e.g., every 10 ft [3.1 m], by assum-
ing a reasonable figure for round-trip time T
t
. When the
CCF value starts increasing, Ref. 1 suggests that it is time
to pull the current bit out of hole. In other words, the CCF
is being used as a criterion for determining the depth at
which the current bit becomes uneconomical. The
drawbacks with the use of the CCF method are that
Copyright 1985 Society of Petroleum Engineers
JULY 1985
(1) accurate measurement and prediction of F, t n and T
t
are necessary; and (2) the CCF may have suddenly in-
creased as a result of drilling a hard streak of formation
and may decrease once the bit has passed this streak.
Because of these uncertainties, pulling a bit out on the
evidence of one CCF value may prove to be premature.
Varg02 suggests the determination of several increasing
values of CCF and of the corresponding incremental cost
per foot (ICF) for each, say, lO-ft [3.1-m] interval. A
probabilistic test for trend then is performed on the dif-
ference between ICF and CCF to confirm that there is
an upward trend for CCF.
A simpler and more practical method, therefore, is re-
quired, whereby the performance of a bit can be quan-
tified in each portion (or formation type) of the section
it drills. This performance must be capable of being cor-
related with cost per foot to simplify the analysis of well
cost. The aim of this paper is to provide drilling person-
nel with an on-site method for analyzing bit performance.
The method uses a term referred to as "specific energy."
Definition of Specific Energy
Specific energy (E s) may be defined as the energy re-
quired to remove a unit volume of rock; it may use any
consistent set of units.
It has been shown 1 that E s for rotary drilling may be
calculated from the following equation:
20WN
Es =---:iR .............................. (2)
p
in in.-Ibf/cu in., and in metric units, MJ/m
3
,
2.35WN
Es=---
dR
p
where
W = weight on bit, lbf [N],
N = rotary speed, rev/min,
d = diameter of bit, in. [mm], and
Rp = penetration rate, ft/hr [m/h].
Since penetration rate Rp is equal to footage F divid-
ed by rotating time t r, Eq. 2 becomes
(20WN)
Es = t
r
. ........................... (3)
(dE)
1225
TABLE 1-DRILLING PERFORMANCE DATA OF FOUR WELLS
Es
Bit
Depth In Depth Out Footage
Rotating Time Cost (in.-Ibl/cu in.
Well Type

Formation (It) (m) Formation

(hours) ($/11) x 1,000) (MJ/m3)
F2 2,540 774.2 Rus 5,468 1667.0 Simsima 2,928 892.5 79.5 29.2 195 1345
F2 5,468 165.7 Simsima 8,138 8480.5 Nahr Umr 2,670 813.8 144.0 54.4 396 2730
J3 8,138 2480.5 Nahr Umr 8,614 2622.5 Bab Mbr 476 145.1 19.0 53.9 234 1613
2 J22 2,500 762.0 Rus 4,785 1458.5 UER 2,285 694.5 64.0 30 183 1262
J22 4,785 1458.5 UER 6,804 2079 Halul/Laffan 2,019 615.4 79.0 41 230 1586
J22 6,804 2074 Halul/Lallan 7,528 2294.5 Shilaif
J22 7,528 2294.5 Shilail 8,740 266.4 Bab Mbr
3 J22 2,630 802 Rus 4,973 1516 Simsima
J22 4,973 1516 Simsima 7,175 2187 Shilaif
J22 7,175 2187 Shilail 7,795 2376 Mauddud
J3 7,795 2376 Mauddud 8,596 2620.1 Bab Mbr
4 J22 2,550 772.2 Rus 5,995 1815 Fiqa
F2 5,955 1815.1 Fiqa 7,845 2391.2 Shilaif
J22 7,845 2391.2 Shilail 8,787 2678.3 Bab Mbr
In Ref. 3, it was concluded that Es is not a fundamen-
tal, intrinsic property of rock. It is highly dependent on
bit type and design. This means that for a formation of
a given strength, a soft-formation bit will produce an en-
tirely different value of Es than will a hard-formation bit.
This property of E s' therefore, affords an accurate means
of selection of appropriate bit type.
Eq. 2 also shows that, for a given bit type in a forma-
tion of constant strength, Es can be considered constant
under any combination of WN values. This is because
changes in WN usually lead to increased values of Rp
(under optimum hydraulics) and this maintains the bal-
ance of Eq. 2. Penetration rate, however, is highly in-
fluenced by changes in WN and for a particular bit type
an infinite number of R p values exist for all possible com-
binations of WN values. It follows that Es is a direct
measure of bit performance in a particular formation and
provides an indication of the interaction between bit and
rock. The fact that E s' when compared with penetration
rate, is less sensitive to changes in WN makes it a prac-
tical tool for bit selection.
CASING SEATS
185 s"...,j J
133S"
(at top Rus)
95.'S"
(50 It mto Bab
Member)
7" Liner
FORMATION
Clastics to Surface
Oammam
I
Rus
Ummer
Radhuma
IUERI
1 1;4 F==s;=ms=;m=a==!
hole
Fiqa
Halul/Lalfan
Ruwaydha/Tuwayil
___ __ _
Nahr Umr
Bah Member
8%" _____ _
I 1- -J -
LITHOLOGY
Anhydrite/limestone
limestone
8a",1 Shale
Limestone
Shale/Marl
limestone/Shale
limestone/Marl/Shale
Dense limestone
Shale
Dense Limestone
Fig. 1-Geology of 1214-in [311-mm] hole section and cas-
ing seats.
1226
724 221 34.5 63 272 1875
1,212 369.4 64.0 59 301 2075
2,343 714.2 62.0 28.4 136 938
2,202 671.2 79.0 37.6 185 1276
620 189 42.0 84 386 2661
801 244.1 39.5 54 322 2220
3,405 1038 111.5 33.5 170 1172
1,890 576.1 122.5 66.5 338 2330
942 287.1 55.0 70.4 368 2537
Relationship Between E s and Cost per Foot
Table I gives the drilling performance for three bit types
used to drillI21A-in. [3II-mm] hole sections in four wells
in a major development field in Abu Dhabi. The table pro-
vides data of E s and cost per foot for each bit type. The
cost per foot and E s are calculated for the complete run
of each bit using Eqs. I and 2 and, consequently, they
give only average values of that particular section of hole.
Fig. I gives a schematic drawing of the geology of the
12 lA-in. [311-mm] hole section and also the casing seats.
The I2IA-in. [311-mm] hole section is drilled from Rus
to approximately 50 ft [15.2 m] into the Bab member.
Figs. 2 and 3 plot cost per foot vs. depth and Es vs.
depth, respectively. The plotted depth is the average of
depth in and depth out to correspond to the average cost
per foot and average E s .
The trends exhibited by Figs. 2 and 3 are seen to be
related; an increase in Es for a given depth corresponds
to an increase in cost per foot for the same depth. The
relationship between E s and cost per foot can be seen
clearly when Fig. 2 is superimposed on Fig. 3. For the
,;:
!!!
,;:
1;;
0
u
100
90
SO
70
60
50
40
30
20
o Weill
o Wel12
Wel13
t. Well 4
J22
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SOOO 9000
Depth, ft
I
1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth, m
Fig. 2-A graph of cost per foot vs. depth of a given section
of hole.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
550 o Weill
500 o Well 2
3600
450
Well 3 3200
..,
c
400
F2
2800
~
350 2400
.EO
..,

300 2000...
-.
250
~
1600
U, ...
200
~
J22
1200 LIJ
/I)
150
LIJ
J22 800
100
50
400
0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Depth, ft
I I I I
1000 1500 2000 2500
Depth, m
Fig. 3-A graph of specific energy vs. depth of a given sec-
tion of hole.
purpose of clarity, the E s and cost per foot data for Wells
1 and 3 are shown superimposed in Fig. 4.
A method 1 normally used for determining the perform-
ance of a bit along its run is to calculate CCF for every
lO-ft [3.1-m] (or any convenient length) interval. The sec-
ond bit run in Well 1 (see Table 1) has been split into
10 intervals representing the daily footage obtained with
Bit F2. This is summarized in Table 2 together with the
relevant data required to calculate CCF and E s' In Fig.
5, CCF and Es for each interval are plotted vs.
cumulative depth.
An interesting feature of Fig. 5 is that CCF continues
to decrease up to the depth at which the bit was pulled
out of hole. Es does not, however, exhibit such a fixed
trend, indicating that the bit performance in each inter-
val is controlled by rock hardness of the interval in
question.
Also, the CCF of each point along the trend is influ-
enced by the bit performance at the previous points.
Hence, if CCF assumes a sudden minimum or maximum
value in a given interval, the actual bit performance is
not evaluated but, instead, an average value of CCF be-
tween this interval and previous intervals is determined.
On the other hand, the E s trend gives a unique picture
of the performance of the bit along each interval. No
Weill o Cost 1ft
F2 2800
100
Specific
400
energy
Well 3 a Cost 1ft
90 350 400
80 300
2000
"'c:
70
250 ~
"
1600
~ 6 0
.lE
1
200 ....:
1200 i.
~
; 50 150 :;
/I)
u J22 LIJ
w
800
40
100 III
30 50
400
200
100
20
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
,Depth, It
I I I I I
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Depth, m
Fig. 4-Relationship between cost per foot and specific
energy of a given section of hole.
cumulative figures enter into the calculations of E s apart
from the use of cumulative depth for plotting E s, as
shown in Fig. 5.
If several bit types are run in this hole section, E s
values of these bits can be plotted on the same graph
paper. Each bit will have a different trend and the bit that
gives the lowest E s is taken as the most economical bit.
From this discussion, it is seen that the performances
of differerit bit types can be compared on the basis of their
specific energies, irrespective of rig cost and trip time.
Therefore, the independence of E s from rig cost and trip
time presents the drilling engineer with a convenient
method for bit selection.
Application of Specific Energy for Bit Selection
Development Wells. Fig. 3 gives average values of Es
for each section of hole, while Fig. 5 presents the E s
trend for only one section of well, with the sections above
and below it unaccounted for. A complete plot is required,
for each well of each formation, of E s vs. its respective
hole depth for all potential bit types. This graph can then
be used for selecting the most economical bit, and deter-
mining the changeover points between subsequent bit runs.
TABLE 2-BREAKDOWN OF RUN 2, USING BIT F2 FOR WELL 1
Daily
Cumulative
Cumulative
WN Trip
Rotating Time
Cost
Es
Footage Footage' Depth Out
(x 1.000) Time
(hours)
per loot (in.lbl/cu in.
(II) (m) (II) (m) (II) (m) Formation (Iblxrpm) (hours) Daily Cumulative ($/11) x 1,000) (MJ/ m3)
325 99.1 325 99.1 5,793 1,765.7 Simsima 45x60 4.35 12 12 76.9 163 1,124
63 19.2 388 118.3 5,856 1,784.9 Fiqa 45x60 4.40 4 16 73.8 280 1,931
374 113.9 762 232.3 6,320 1,898.9 Fiqa 60x60 4,70 23.5 39.5 65.7 369 2,544
249 75.9 1,011 308.2 6,479 1,974.8 Fiqa 60x60 4.90 14.5 54 62.6 342 2,358
171 52.1 1,182 360.3 6,650 2,026.9 Halul 60x60 4.99 7.5 61.5 59.3 258 1,779
331 100.9 1,513 461.2 6,981 2,127.B Halul/Laffanl 40x60 5.20 16.5 78 56.3 212 1,462
Ruwaydha
159 48.5 1,672 509.6 7,140 2,176.3 Tuwayil 40x60 5.40 7 85 54.8 187 1,289
369 112.5 2,041 622.1 7,509 2,288.7 Shilail 45x60 5.60 22 107 54.7 263 1,813
378 115.2 2,419 737.3 7,887 2,403.4 Shilail 45x60 5.90 23 130 54.8 268 1,848
251 76.5 2,670 813.8 8,138 2,480.5 Nahr Umr 45x80 6.10 14 144 54.4 328 2,262
'CCF was calculated using R=900 $Ihr; 8=$10,260.
JULY 1985 1227
Run 2, Weill, Bit Type F2
80 600
..
!
70

500
..
w'
.50
60
en
400

2400 .=
!!
50 2000
300

t: 1600
"
0
40 200 -
(.)
1200 &uti)
30
800
100
400
20
200400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
0
Cumulative depth, ft
I I I
o 100 200 400 600 800
Cumulative depth, m
Fig. 5-A graph of CCF and E. against cumulative depth.
TABLE 3-AVERAGE VALUES OF E. CORRESPONDING TO
DIFFERENT FORMATION AND BIT TYPES
Formation
Rus
Bit Type
J22
F2
J3
821
(in.-Ibf/cu in, x 1,000)
211
245
289
360
(MJ/m
3
)
1455
1689
1993
2482
Umm Er Radhuma J22 153 1055
F2 161 1110
J3 165 1138
821 154 2441
8imsima J22 184 1269
F2 186 1282
J3 212 1462
821 197 1358
Fiqa J22 326 2248
F2 275 1896
J3 330 2275
821 357 2461
Halul/Laffan
RuwaydhaITuwayil
J22
F2
336 2317
269 1955
J3 367 2530
821 491 3385
8hilaif J22 427 2944
F2 415 2861
J3 465 3206
821 829 5716
Nahr Umr J22 398 2744
F2 345 2379
J3 280 1931
821 383 2641
Average Es values of the formations given in Fig. 1
were calculated using data from 43 wells by considering
only the clear sections, A large number of bit types were
used in this development field, For the purpose of com-
parison, data for only four bit types are presented; these
bits are those used most frequently in this field because
of their superior performance. There is some difference
1228
':i
i
.1
I
.
.;
l!tO
SE 829
,,521\
I \
; ,
, \
, ,
:
i
, I
1 1
I ,
, 1
, \
, ' , I
I ,
, I
: 1
I I
, ,
: '
!
,
I
I
i

:moo 3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 8000 9000
_.h
I I
I!XXI 1500 2000
_.m
28()()
1400
2000
1
1600 ;,
..
1100
ROO
'00
Fig. 6-Comparlson of the performance of four bit types In
terms of specific energy.
in elevation over this field but because of the use of
average values of E s, variations caused by depth should
be minimal.
Table 3 summarizes all data relating to E s for the dif-
ferent formation types, as given in Fig. 1. The percen-
tage coefficient of variation, COY (standard
deviation/average value), for these data varied between
5 and 31, The high values of the COY reflect the degree
of E s variations over this field, resulting mostly from
strength variations.
Data from Table 3 are plotted in Fig, 6 as Es vs. mid-
depth of each formation type. Fig, 6 shows that for the
section from Rus to the top of Fiqa (2,500 to 5,750 ft [763
to 1752,6 m]), Bit Types 122 and F2 are superior to Bits
13 and 121. It also can be seen that Bit 122 gives the lowest
E s and, consequently, lower cost per foot over this in-
terval.
Beyond 5,750 ft [1725,6 m], there is a sharp increase
in Es for Bits 122,13, and S21, which continues to about
7,500 ft [2286 m]. This section of hole is the hardest to
drill, and Bit F2 appears to be superior to the other bit
types over this interval.
The exact changeover point between Bits Fl and 122
is at the top of Fiqa, where E s for Bit 122 begins to in-
crease, while that for Bit F2 starts decreasing.
The last section of hole, from Nahr Umr to total depth
(TO) (approximately 7,800 to 8,600 ft [2377.4 to 2621.3
m]), is quite interesting and shows the power of the Es
method in picking up the changeover point. Imagine that
Bits 122, F2, and 13 were used to drill from Nahr Umr
to TO. Then, F=7,800 to 8,600 ft [2377.4 to 2621.3
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
m]=8oo ft [243.8 m] and WN=50x60 (assumed)
Ibfxrpm. Then, rearranging Eq. 3 as
dF
t = E
r (20WN) so
we obtain
12.25 x 800 (413+398)
t
r
(J22) = =66.2 hours,
20x50x60 2
12.25 X 800 (380 + 345)
t
r
(F2)= =59.2 hours,
20x50x60 2
and
12.25 x 800 (377+280)
tAJ3) = =53.7 hours.
20x50x60 2
Hence, using Bit J3, over the interval 7,800 to 8,600 ft
[2377.4 to 2621.3 m] saves 5.5 hours over Bit F2 and
12.5 hours over Bit J22. For a rig cost of $900/hour, this
amounts to a savings of $4,950 over Bit F2 and $11,250
over Bit J22. The cost of Bit J3 is approximately one-third
the cost of Bits F2 and J22.
Over long sections of hole, the savings can be large
since tr in Eq. 3 is sensitive to the value of footage (F)
drilled. If Fwas 1,600 ft [487.7 m] instead of 800 ft [243.8
m], then the savings in rig time with Bit J3 over Bits F2
and J22 would be 11 and 25 hours, respectively. In off-
shore drilling, these savings can be considerable.
Fig. 6 also shows that Bit S21 must never be run over
the last section of this 12IA-in. [311-mm] hole. Hence,
the use of the previous calcuiations and a graph similar
to Fig. 6 will enable the engineer to select the most effi-
cient bit type over any hole section.
In this field, it is usual to drill the 12IA-in. [311-mm]
section using three bits, which are selected from Bits F2,
J22, J3, and S21. For optimum performance, the selected
bit types should be Bit J22 for top section, Bit F2 for mid-
dle section, and Bit J3 for bottom section.
For a development field, an operating company can
keep a record of E s for the different bit types used on
all formation types; this record can be updated if a new
bit is found to outperform previous bits. Upper limits of
E s for each formation also can be determined and used
as a criterion for pulling a current bit out of a hole.
Exploration Wells. In the majority of exploration wells,
especially in the Middle East, a mud logging company
is employed during the drilling phase for the purpose of
gathering maximum information. Here, the logging com-
pany can easily determine the specific energy of each for-
mation or section as it is being drilled, and a chart of E s
vs. depth is monitored continuously.
If, for a given section of hole, the chart shows a smooth
increase of Es vs. depth, it is an indication that the bit
is drilling through a formation of gradually increasing
hardness, assuming that the bit was new when it was run.
However, if the chart shows a sudden large increase in
E s> it is an indication that a much harder formation is
being penetrated. In this case, Es and Rp should be
monitored over a period of time to determine whether the
JULY 1985
penetrated section is short or long, and decisions then can
be made on the basis of the final value of E s' For con-
trol purposes, a maximum value of E s can be decided on
for each section and when this is exceeded, a new bit
should be run. Dulling ofthe bit is assumed to take place
slowly, especially with tungsten-carbide-insert-type bits.
It is also assumed that an experienced driller can distin-
guish between the decreased performance of a bit caused
by locked bearings and that caused by passing through
hard formation. Excessive increase in torque is usually
taken as being caused by locked bearings, especially in
vertical wells.
At the end of each exploration, a logging company also
may provide well charts giving average values of E s for
each formation and hole section being drilled. A graph
similar to Fig. 6 then can be constructed. If more wells
are planned in the same area, the graph of Es vs. depth
is used to select sections that have given high values of
E s' Other bit types then can be run in such sections to
optimize drilling efficiency, and the graph of E s vs. depth
can be updated.
Casing seats also may be selected from the plots of E s
vs. depth and cross-checked with that of the Rp vs. depth
chart. Another potential use of E s includes its ability to
distinguish sudden fast drilling (low E
s
), which may in-
dicate the position of high-pressure zones in a given well.
More work is required in this direction to confirm these
suggestions.
Conclusions
1. E s is a measure of bit performance and is directly
compatible with cost per foot (see Fig. 5).
2. Es can be used to select the proper bit type for any
section of hole, and the changeover points for different
bit types may be determined from the plots of Es vs.
depth. E s also can be used as a criterion for ending the
use of a current bit. For this application, E s is a more
meaningful tool than any other available means, such as
the cumulative cost per foot (see Fig. 5).
3. Es .can be used for planning the average values of
the drilling cost of a well by using Eq. 3.
4. In an exploration well, Es is a convenient tool for
determining the depth at which to pull a current bit out
of hole. Casing seats and the position of high-pressure
zones may be determined from the plot of Es vs. depth.
References
1. Moore, P.L.: Drilling Practices Manual, Penn Well Books, Tulsa
(1974).
2. Vargo, L.: "On the Optimal Time to Pull a Bit Under Conditions
of Uncertainty," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1982) 2903-04.
3. Rabia, H.: "Specific Energy as a Criterion for Drill Performance
Prediction," IntI. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. (Feb. 1982) 19, No.1.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cu in. x 1.638706 E+Ol cm
3
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
in. X 2.54* E+oo cm
Ibf X 4.448222 E+oo N
Ibm X 4.535924 E-Ol kg
Conversion factor is exact.
JPT
Original manuscript (SPE 12355) received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
fice July 19.1983. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 8, 1985. Revised manuscript
received March 6, 1985.
1229