IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Innovative Ability to Change Drilling Responses of a PDC Bit at the Rigsite

Using Interchangeable Depth-of-Cut Control Features
Evans Kenneth, and S. Craig Russell, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2016, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 13 March 2016.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineersis prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Bit designers use the well-established practice of placing depth-of-cut (DOC) control features at strategic
heights from the cutter profile to selectively manage drill bit aggressiveness and to maximize drilling
performance. But, until now, the elements used for depth-of-cut-control were a fixed part of the bit. An
innovative new feature enables compact element replacement and/or adjustments at the rig site using a
mechanical locking design. The driller can quickly adjust the bit responsiveness before each run, if
wanted, to optimize performance factors such as rate of penetration and tool face control. This paper
describes the benefits, ease of use, positive results and reliability of this new technology with examples
from multiple applications for a variety of bit designs.
The final design was selected and validated based on a number of evaluation methods including
concept screening tests, simulated laboratory drilling tests and field tests. The initial screening tests
evaluated the ease of compact installation and removal for various concepts using a test block. Full bit
testing using a full-scale, high-pressure, downhole drilling laboratory evaluated installation, integrity and
aggressiveness response changes using compact height adjustments. Finally, multiple field tests on wells
in North American applications of the Eagle Ford, Marcellus, and DJ basin formations provided data to
refine the mechanical design and improve manufacturing processes to achieve a robust technology.
Field tests proved the new design to be highly reliable, with drilling performance that matched or
exceeded the performance of bits with standard brazed compacts in the same fields. This new design
provided the unique ability to rapidly optimize bit responses. This paper describes the technical lessons
learned, guidelines for use and tools developed to maximize the benefit from this innovative new feature.
This new method enables compact element installation and removal within fifteen minutes on the rig
site for the purpose of repair or aggressiveness modification. In contrast, traditional methods of DOC
control include long lead times to alter bit design, manufacturing and delivery. Drillers can reap the
immediate benefits of improved bit performance by changing bit design on the rig site using direct
feedback of bit aggressiveness and steerability between runs without needing multiple bits on site.
Ultimately, this new bit technology provides improved drilling performance and greater efficiency for the
operator.

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Introduction
The oil and gas industry drills increasingly complex wells that demand precise control and drilling
efficiency over longer distances through varied formations. Depth-of-cut control (DOCC) features on
polycrystaline diamond cutter (PDC) bits are proven to reduce torque fluctuations and improve drilling
performance.
Two methods of PDC drill bit DOCC include body-based (Sinor, 2001), and feature-based (Schwefe,
2010). In the case of body-based DOCC, the tungsten carbide matrix or hardened steel bit body material
contacts the rock formation and acts as a weight-bearing surface at a determined depth-of-cut to limit rock
removal. Jaggi (2007) demonstrates effective use of body-based DOCC to increase rate of penetration
(ROP) through increased drilling efficiency and enhanced dynamic stability. For feature-based DOCC,
tungsten carbide or diamond posts are configured to contact the rock formation at a given depth of cut and
can be repaired. Davis (2012) demonstrates effective implementation of feature-based DOCC to increase
ROP by reducing torque fluctuations.
The design for DOCC engagement is critical for proper implementation. Barton (2007) describes the
significance of DOCC feature geometry, tip height offset and placement of the bit torque response, and
recognizes the advantage of feature-based components in enabling for design flexibility to continually
optimize the bit for specific applications. Schwefe (2014) shows that an optimum amount of DOCC
mitigates bit-induced stick-slip and improves drilling efficiency, whereas over-application or underapplication is less effective.
This paper describes a new technology to properly apply and optimize feature-based DOCC using
interchangeable carbide or diamond compact inserts. The innovative technology enables compact element
replacement and/or adjustments at the rig site using a mechanical locking design. The driller can quickly
modify the bit responsiveness before each run to optimize performance factors such as ROP, build-up rate
(BUR) and tool face control.
Critical design parameters for adjusting feature-based DOCC include the quantity, position and
exposure (i.e. relative distance between the heights of the compact insert compared to the tip of the PDC
cutter) (Fig. 1). This paper describes methods to adjust compact exposures using various heights (for
example: High, Medium, Low and Flush). The options can be readily installed at the rig site before
or after a run using simple tools.

Figure 1Compact insert DOCC implementation on a drill bit (left) and relative position between compact insert and PDC cutter (right).

Theory and Definitions

Proper application of DOCC is critical to optimizing drilling performance. Schwefe (2014) demonstrates
the relationship between the amount of DOCC and the effectiveness of reducing stick-slip without
reducing drilling efficiency and Barton (2007) demonstrates the effect of DOCC to improve toolface
control in directional drilling. The amount of feature-based DOCC is governed in part by the relative

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

exposure of the compact insert from the PDC cutter profile. Inserts that are placed closer (higher) to the
cutter profile come into contact with the formation sooner than inserts that are placed further (lower) from
the cutter profile. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the height of the compact and amount of DOCC
versus bit depth of cut, where the bit depth of cut is the axial distance a bit travels in one revolution.

Figure 2Amount of DOC control for varying height compacts versus DOC.

The amount of DOCC in turn affects the responses of the bit. Russell and Vempati (2014) translate bit
attributes (such as the amount of DOCC) into eight bit responses including aggressiveness and torsional
stability. Aggressiveness is defined as the torque generated for a given weight on bit (WOB) applied and
torsional stability is defined as the ability of the bit to mitigate torque fluctuations. The amount of DOCC
is one of the factors that influence these two responses. Increasing DOCC reduces bit aggressiveness
according to the following relationship:

Jain (2011) validates that bits with higher aggressiveness are more prone to torque fluctuations than bits
with lower aggressiveness. Correspondingly, increasing DOCC increases bit torsional stability according
to the following relationship:

Fig. 3 provides an example of the effect of High, Medium, Low, and Flush compact heights on
aggressiveness and torsional stability bit responses versus depth of cut.

Figure 3Amount of DOCC translated into aggressiveness and torsional stability response scores versus depth of cut.

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Proper understating of the drilling application is required to appropriately apply DOCC to maximize
drilling performance. If the bit is experiencing bit-induced stick-slip, erratic torque, poor tool face,
vibration or other dysfunctions that limit drilling performance, then the amount of DOCC can be adjusted
to affect the drill bit responses. The following key steps are used to select the proper compact height level.
First, identify the application depth-of-cut range based on ROP and RPM, where

If available, evaluate foot-based data of the drilling application. Fig. 4 shows the depth-of-cut data at
0.3-ft. intervals for a directional AKO drilling application. Fig. 5 displays a method of using the
foot-based data in a histogram format with the predicted aggressiveness and torsional stability bit
responses for various compact heights to select the correct compact height. In the example application, it
is important to maximize torsional stability during the slide mode to maintain drilling control, and while
maintaining aggressiveness in the rotate mode to maximize ROP.

Figure 4 Depth of cut versus measured depth for an example application.

Figure 5Histogram of depth-of-cut frequency for an example application.

Fig. 5 shows that the Flush (F) compact heights do not influence drill bit responses. The High (H),
Medium (M), and Low (L) compact heights exhibit a generally increasing torsional stability versus
depth of cut, but also exhibit decreasing aggressiveness versus depth of cut. For the particular foot-based
data graphed, the Medium (M) compact heights are well suited to the application because they provide

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

good torsional stability during the slide mode with minimal reduction in aggressiveness during rotate
mode.
A proprietary bit response analysis software tool (Russell, 2014) was created to streamline compact
height selection by accessing bit response values for a variety of bit designs.

Conceptual Mechanical Design

A thorough product development process was followed to develop the interchangeable DOCC compact
technology. The process comprised a requirement definition, concept generation and downselection,
detailed design and validation. Many types of laboratory and field testing were performed throughout the
process. Furthermore, control measures were implemented from lessons learned to ensure a robust design.
The design requirements included:

Four insert height adjustments

Compact installation and removal at rigsite within 15 minutes
Reliability and safety
Simple design (few parts, standard off-the-shelf tooling)
Manufacturability of the bit with the feature
Rework and repairability of the bit with the feature
Within bit geometry constraints for a wide range of PDC bit designs

Several insert retention concepts were brainstormed to fulfill the requirements (Bilen et al. 2015, Do
et al. 2015, Miller et al. 2015). Three of the concepts were downselected for further evaluation (Table 1).
Table 1Mechanical Retention Concepts for DOCC Inserts
Concept
Threads

Pros

Easy installation and removal

Bit manufacturability
Bit repairability
Simple tooling

Cons

Elastic Pin

Snap Ring

Easy installation and removal

Small footprint
Few parts
Bit manufacturability
Simple tooling
Easy installation
Small footprint

Risk of steel deformation under downhole forces

Larger footprint
Multiple component parts
Risk of threads loosening during operation from under-torque vibrations, heat
Risk of removal in worn state
Tight tolerances to ensure fit and retention
Risk of ovoid chatter to deform hole or wear pin

Special tool for removal

Ring groove on bit difficult to manufacture and repair
Difficult removal in worn state

Each of the three DOCC insert concepts were designed and implemented on a test block to evaluate
ease of installation and removal, and structural integrity (Fig. 6). The test block was evaluated in four
various situations:

Figure 6 Test block design for concept downselection tests (left) and after testing (right).

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

1. As-machined without hard facing

2. After hard facing (to evaluate after a high temperature cycle)
3. After grinding using hand grinder (to evaluate after wear)
4. After exposure to mud and particles in a flow-loop (to evaluate mud exposure while drilling)
The concepts were equally rated in the as-machined clean condition, and after experiencing a high
temperature cycle from hardfacing. After the grinding test, the snap ring concept became very difficult to
remove because of damage to the removal mechanism. The mud flow test did not reveal a significant
difference between the remaining threaded and elastic pin concepts.
Next, the threaded and elastic pin concepts were implemented on a five-bladed 8.5-in PDC bit (Fig. 7).
The bit contained three of each concept on each of the three primary blades to test them side-by-side under
the same drilling conditions. The bit was run in a full-scale, high-pressure, downhole drilling laboratory
(Ledgerwood, 1991) at 6,000 psi in Alabama marble rock.

Figure 7Five-bladed 8.5-in PDC bit design for concept screening tests.

There were several significant findings from the short laboratory test. First, the elastic pin design
performed well from a structural integrity perspective, but the compacts were difficult to remove after the
run. The threaded design was not strong enough to withstand the vibrations and forces experienced on the
compact during the run. The bolt experienced micro-cracks that led to deformation, abrasive wear and
eventually breakage. Therefore, the threaded concept was eliminated, and a flat feature was added to the
compact for the elastic pin design to aid in removal.
Fig. 8 shows a new five-bladed 8.5-in PDC bit was designed using the elastic pin design for further lab
and field testing. The lab testing was designed to evaluate the effect of four compact height levels on bit
aggressiveness at 3,000 psi in Mancos shale rock. The bit operated at six discrete levels of depth-of-cut
by adjusting WOB at a constant 120 rpm.

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Figure 8 Five-bladed 8.5-in PDC bit design for lab and field testing.

Fig. 9 shows the test results in terms of WOB and bit aggressiveness (Pessier, 1992), where

The four compact height levels exhibited different responses. The High compact heights engaged

Figure 9 WOB and bit aggressiveness response of PDC test bit with four ovoid height configurations.

sooner (at a lower depth of cut) than the Medium and Low ovoid heights. Therefore, the data from the
High configuration shows an increased WOB and lower aggressiveness at all depth of cuts compared to
the Flush configuration. The Medium and Low compact height configurations exhibited a similar
response to the Flush configuration at low depths of cut, but diverge at higher depths of cut corresponding to when the compacts begin to engage the formation.
Fig. 10 shows good correlation between the measured change in bit aggressiveness (points) and the
aggressiveness response model (lines) described earlier in the paper given the variation in the data and
uncertainty in the model. The measured data uncertainty bands are /- 1 standard deviation and the model
uncertainty bands are /-5%.

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Figure 10 Aggressiveness measured data (points) overlaid with bit response model (lines).

Next, the 8.5-in bit was sent to south Texas for field testing. The bit was run three times in the same
application, exhibiting ROP on par or better than the standard bit with brazed ovoids. After the successful
initial three runs, the only major design change was to increase the pin size to aid in ovoid assembly and
removal.

Figure 11Dull photos on five-bladed, 8.5-in PDC design of initial three field tests in south Texas.

Detailed Mechanical Design

Several analysis and tests were conducted in the detailed mechanical design phase to ensure a robust
design to manufacturing and assembly process variations. First, manufacturing tolerances were determined using a tolerance stack-up analysis to ensure proper fit and retention. The tolerances were settled
upon after a process capability study of machines and manual manufacturing operations. Next, finite
element analysis was performed to analyze ovoid strengths given expected axial and radial loads during
operation. A compression testing device was used to determine the maximum load capability of varying
ovoid designs to validate FEA results. Fig. 12 shows the test setup and brittle fracture of the carbide
compact. Further, a test block comprising various pin hole and ovoid pocket geometry combinations was
tested on a vertical boring mill (Rafatian, 2010) under expected operating loads to evaluate integrity and
wear. Fig. 13 shows the compact in the text fixture under high thermal loads as it is being pushed into the
rotating rock underneath. Additionally, several more field tests were selectively performed in the Eagle
Ford, Marcellus and DJ basins.

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Figure 12Ovoid structural test using compression testing device.

Figure 13Test block of various pin-hole and compact pocket geometry combinations tested on a vertical boring mill with granite rock
at expected field loads.

Several additional learnings were obtained from the lab and field testing in the detailed design phase
that were incorporated into the product to reliably achieve product requirements and mitigate common
risks. Some design updates include:

Revised compact and bit pocket geometry for improved fit

Updated manufacturing specifications for improved product consistency
Instituted manufacturing and repair control procedures
Standardized field installation and removal procedures and tools.

Fig. 14 shows the final design components in an exploded view. The first step for installation is to
verify the pin holes and compact pockets with No-Go gages to verify the critical diameters are within
tolerance. Next, the compacts are identified by a stamp on the bottom to verify the ovoid height. Then,
the selected compacts are placed in the pocket and the pins are inserted into place using a hammer and
punch. For removal, the pins are punched out of the hole, and pliers are used to grab the flats on top of
the ovoids.

10

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Figure 14 PDC drill bit with interchangeable compact technology.

Data and Results

More than 40 field runs were completed in the validation testing phase in the Eagle Ford, Marcellus and
DJ basins. In all areas, the bits with interchangeable compacts performed as well as or better in terms of
average ROP and depth drilled than the equivalently designed bits with brazed compacts. The interchangeable compacts provide an opportunity for the drillers to optimize performance and adapt to
changing applications.
Fig. 15 provides example comparisons for directional drilling applications in Eagle Ford. Each vertical
line on the graph displays the average ROP performance, on the x axis, and the depth interval drilled, on
the y axis, for multiple bit runs using the same bit frame on various rigs within the same area. The compact
exposures for the bits with interchangeable compacts were set to the same exposure as the bits with brazed
compacts, and were not varied for any of the runs. The performance of the new bits were on par with the
reference bits within the variation in ROP attributed to parameters such as the drilling rig, hydraulics and
run parameters. Fig. 16 provides drilling data from the Marcellus basin comparing a newly optimized
frame with interchangeable compacts against the reference frame with brazed compacts. The performance
of the new frame exceeded past performance with the added advantage of interchangeable compacts.

Figure 15Eagle Ford Basin directional applications: 8.5-in bits with six blades and 3/8-in cutters (left) and 8.75-in bits with five blades
and 1/2-in cutters (right).

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

11

Figure 16 Marcellus basin 8.5-in directional application using bits with five blades and 5/8-in cutters.

Conclusions
With wells becoming more complex and well plans constantly changing, there is a need for quick bit
changes that can be done at the rig site. This is possible with a new depth-of-cut control feature which
enables the driller to select between four predetermined heights to optimize the drilling responses for the
application. The responses for making the modification are proven in lab testing and the modeling aids
in correctly selecting the optimized variant. The mechanical reliability of the new feature was proven
through field testing.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Baker Hughes Incorporated for permission to publish this paper
and members of the drill bits product development team for their contributions including Chris Beuershausen, Jason Hoines, Miguel Bilen, and Richard Borge.

Nomenclature
BUR
CCS
DB
DOC
DOCC
ROP
RPM
T
WOB

Build up rate
Confined compressive rock strength (psi)
Bit diameter (in)
Depth of cut (in/rev)
Depth-of-cut control
Rate of penetration (ft/hr)
Bit revolutions per minute
Torque (ft.*lb.)
Weight on bit (lbm)

References
Barton, Steven, Henry, May, and Simon Johnson. (2007, April 10). Geometry and placement of torque control
components - How does this affect torque response with FC bits? American Association of Drilling Engineers,
AADE-07-NTCE-07.
Bilen, J. M., Russell, S. C, 2015. Formation-engaging assemblies, earth-boring tools including such assemblies, and related
methods, US Patent Application No 20150322726.
Davis, J., Smyth, G. F., Bolivar, N., & Pastusek, P. E. (2012, January 1). Eliminating Stick-Slip by Managing Bit Depth
of Cut and Minimizing Variable Torque in the Drillstring. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/151133-MS.
Do, D. V, Bilen, J. M, Russell, S. C., Evans, K. R., Hoines, J. E., Matthews, O., Glasgow, K. R., Vempati, C. K., 2015.
Formation-engaging structures having retention features, earth-boring tools including such structures, and related
methods, US Patent Application No. 20150,322,727.

12

IADC/SPE-178808-MS

Jaggi, A., Upadhaya, S., & Chowdhury, A. R. (2007, January 1). Successful PDC/RSS Vibration Management Using
Innovative Depth-of-Cut Control Technology: Panna Field, Offshore India. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/
104388-MS.
Jain, J. R., Ledgerwood, L. W., Hoffmann, O. J.-M., Schwefe, T., & Fuselier, D. M. (2011, January 1). Mitigation of
Torsional Stick-Slip Vibrations in Oil Well Drilling through PDC Bit Design: Putting Theories to the Test. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/146561-MS.
Ledgerwood, L. W. and Kelly, J. L. Jr, High pressure facility re-creates downhole conditions in testing of full size drill
bits, ASME paper 91-PET-1 presented at the Energy-Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Jan.
1991.
Miller, B. E., Doster, M. L., Do, D. V., Evans, K. R., Bilen, J. M., Russell, S. C., Hoines, J. E., Matthews, O., Glasgow,
K. R., Vempati, C. K., 2015. Earth-boring tools including bearing element assemblies, and related methods, US Patent
Application No 20150330153.
Pessier, R. C., & Fear, M. J. (1992, January 1). Quantifying Common Drilling Problems With Mechanical Specific Energy
and a Bit-Specific Coefficient of Sliding Friction. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/24584-MS.
Rafatian, N., and Miska, S., Ledgerwood III, L. W., Ahmed, R., Yu, M., and Takach, N. 2010. Experimental Study of MSE
of a Single PDC Cutter Interacting With Rock under Simulated Pressurized Conditions. Paper SPE 119302-MS
presented at 2000 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17-19 March 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119302-MS.
Russell, S. C., & Vempati, C. (2014, March 4). Characterizing Drilling Applications and Bit Designs Using Common
Responses Improves Bit Selection Outcomes. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/167917-MS.
Schwefe, T., Ledgerwood III, L. W., Jain, J. R., Fuselier, D. M., Oueslati, H., & Endres, L. (2014, March 4). Development
and Testing of Stick/Slip-Resistant PDC Bits. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 10.2118/168026-MS.
Schwefe, T., Beuershausen, C. J., and Damschen, M. S., 2010. Bearing blocks for drill bits, drill bit assemblies including
bearing blocks and related methods, US2010/0276200 Al, 4 November.
Sinor, A., Hansen, W. R., Dykstra, M. W., Cooley, C. H., and Tibbitts, G. A. 2001. Drill bits with controlled cutter loading
and depth of cut, US 6,298,930 Bl, 9 October.