SPE 116667

Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Drilling-Specific Energy

Miguel Armenta, SPE, Shell EPT-WT

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers is 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
A novel correlation identifying inefficient drilling conditions is presented using experimental and field data. Historically,
Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) has been used to improve the drilling performance with mixed results. Drilling Specific
Energy (DSE) is the amount of energy required to destroy and remove underneath the bit a unit volume of rock. DSE
includes axial, torsional and hydraulic energy. DSE is different than MSE because it includes a hydraulic term. The initial
MSE correlation (Teale, 1964) has been modified to accommodate the new hydraulic term.
Experimental and field data presented on the paper show that DSE can be used to identify inefficient drilling conditions.
Experimental results illuminate the importance of including bit hydraulics into the specific energy analysis for drilling
optimization. Field results reveal specific patterns for inefficient drilling conditions such as; bit balling and friction limited
wells. These field results also enligthen a good correlation between the calculated DSE and the rock compressive strength.
The novel correlation presented in this paper will help to improve the drilling efficiency worldwide. The new hydraulic
term included on the specific energy correlation is the key to correctly matching the amount of energy used to drill and the
rock compressive strength. Also, this new term illuminates how much hydraulic energy is needed to drill faster and
efficiently when the mechanical energy (axial and torsional) is increased.

Introduction
Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) has been used to improve drilling performance with mixed results. MSE has been defined
as the mechanical work done to excavate a unit volume of rock.1, 2 Teale proposed calculating MSE based on its two
components (trust and rotary) as follows: 1
WOB 120 * * RPM * T
MSE = + (1)
AB AB * ROP
Teale also noticed that the minimum value for the specific energy correlates with the crushing strength of the medium
drilled. 1

Pessier and Fear introduced a bit specific coefficient of sliding friction to express torque as a function of WOB on the MSE
correlation, as follows: 3
T
= 36 (2)
DB * WOB
Or
1
T= * DB *WOB (3)
36
Substituting T in Eq. 1 by Eq. 3 yields:

WOB 13.33 * * RPM * WOB

MSE = + (4)
AB DB * ROP
For field applications, is usually assumed to be equal to 0.25 for tricone bits, and 0.5 for PDC bits.
2 SPE 116667

The correlation between MSE and the rock strength has been used to evaluate the drilling efficieny.1, 3,4,5, 6

MSEmin UCS
EFFD = *100 = * 100 (5)
MSEactual MSE

Based on field observations, Dupriest and Koederitz assumed a uniform drilling efficiency equal to 35% regardless of bit
type or WOB.5 Including this assumption on Teales original equation yields:

WOB 120 * * RPM * T

MSE = 0.35 * + (6)
AB AB * ROP

Rabia presented a simplified version of the specific energy correlation for bit selection, as follows: 7

20 * WOB * RPM
SE = (7)
DB * ROP

Correlating MSE with rock strength is not an easy task because MSE is usually higher than rock unconfined compressive
strength (UCS), even when Eq. 6 is used. It has also been observed, from lab data under confined bottomhole pressure, that
MSE is often substantially higher than the rock confined compressive strength (CCS), even when the bit is apparently drilling
efficiently.8, 9

It is common knowledge in the industry that bit hydraulic improves the drilling operations by increasing the ROP. Even
though MSE does not directly contain any bit hydraulic-related term, it has been observed that bit hydraulic increases the
drilling efficiency by reducing MSE. 3, 10 Including a bit hydraulic-related term on the specific energy correlation is
paramount to the improvement of drilling operations. This is the main task of this publication.

Drilling Specific Energy (DSE)

Drilling specific Energy (DSE) can be defined as the work done to excavate and remove, underneath the bit, a unit volume of
rock. Teales original equation was modified to include a bit hydraulic-related term on the MSE correlation. DSE can be
calculated as follows:

WOB 120 * * RPM * T 1,980,000 * * HPB

DSE = + (8)
AB AB * ROP ROP * AB

The first two terms on the right side of the equation are the same terms included on Teales original equation. The third
term on the right side is the bit hydraulic-related term. The number 1,980,000 is a unit conversion factor. Lambda () is a
dimensionless bit-hydraulic factor depending on the bit diameter (Fig. 1). The ratio of bit hydraulic power and bit area (HPB /
AB) is the bit HSI (hp/in2). ROP is the rate of penetration (ft/hr).

DSE with Lab Data

Tibbitts et al. presented several experiments investigating the effect of bit hydraulics on ROP using a full-scale simulator. 11
The experiments were run with a Smith F-3, 7-7/8 in.-diameter bit using samples from Mancos shale.

Test Procedure
Four shale samples were drilled with the same bit and with nozzles of different sizes for each sample. Downhole conditions
simulated were: (1) 4,400 psi overburden stress, (2) 2,970 psi confining strength, (3) 2,000 psi borehole pressure, and (4) no
formation pressure. After a jacketed shale sample was placed in the wellbore simulator, the confining pressure, overburden
pressure, and borehole pressure were applied. The borehole pressure was maintained constant over the range of flow rates
used. Rotary speed was maintained at 60 rpm throughout the tests except where stated. The highest flow rates and
corresponding hydraulic horsepower levels were established first and were decreased progressively to the lowest level during
each test. The conditions at each level were then held constant as weight on bit was varied in 10,000 lbm increments from
20,000 to 40,000 lbm for all tests and at 50,000 lbm for a few data points. 11

Results
The DSE concept was evaluated by applying Eq. 8 to the tabulated results presented in Tibbitts et al.s publication. The
relationship of DSE and ROP was investigated for the different drilling parameters (WOB, and HSI), as follows:
SPE 116667 3

DSE vs. ROP, for different WOB: Fig. 2 shows DSE vs. ROP for all the experiments grouped according to the WOB. The
four WOB curves follow a power function. A good agreement between the experimental data and the DSE model is
observed. The R2 value is 0.71, 0.94, 0.96 and 0.96 for the 20,000 lb, 30,000 lb, 40,000 lb and 50,000 lb, respectively. All the
curves have a similar pattern showing three main regions: (1) High DSE and low ROP: inefficient drilling, on the left side of
the plot; (2) Low DSE and high ROP: efficient drilling, on the right side of the plot; (3) A transition zone from region 1 to
region 2 in between these two regions.

DSE vs. ROP, for different HSI: Fig. 3 shows DSE vs. ROP again, but this time the data is grouped according to the
HSI. The WOB curves are kept on the plot to make a connection with Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows that all the data with HSI between
0.5 hp/in2 and 1.7 hp/in2 are located on the inefficient drilling region (Region 1: high DSE and low ROP) for their particular
WOB. All the data with HSI between 5.8 hp/in2 and 7.9 hp/in2 are on the efficient drilling region (Region 2: low DSE and
high ROP). The data with HSI between 1.8 hp/in2 and 5.7 hp/in2 are in the transition region. It is revealed from Fig. 3 that the
bit hydraulic is the driver to move from inefficient to efficient drilling when the WOB is constant. By increasing HSI not only
are the cuttings removed faster underneath the bit, but also the bit cutting-structure is kept clean to break new rock more
effectively.

Fig.4 shows four data sets where the WOB is increased from 20,000 lb to 40,000 lb while the HSI is kept constant at 0.5,
2.9, 3.3 and 7.6 hp/in2, respectively. The experiments mimic what happens at the field when the WOB is increased in order to
increase the ROP. One experiment is on the inefficient drilling region (0.5 hp/in2), another one is on the efficient drilling
region (7.6 hp/in2), and the other two are on the transition region (2.9 hp/in2 and 3.3 hp/in2). ROP always increases when
WOB is increased, on all the experiments. For HSI equal to 0.5 hp/in2 (inefficient region), DSE initially decreases when
WOB is increased from 20,000 lbs to 30,000 lbs, but then DSE increases when WOB is further increased from 30,000 lbs to
40,000 lbs and 50,000 lbs. The data on the inefficient region develops a U shape-curve as more mechanical energy is added
by increasing the WOB, while keeping the hydraulic energy constant. For HSI equal to 7.6 hp/in2 (efficient region), DSE
always increases when WOB is increased. The incremental DSE, nonetheless, decreases as WOB is increased from 20,000
lbs to 40,000 lbs. It seems that DSE on the experiment at the efficient region tends to plateau as the mechanical energy is
increased, while keeping the hydraulic energy constant. The experiment with HSI equal to 2.9 hp/in2 behaves as it was on the
inefficient drilling region with DSE initially decreasing and then increasing when WOB is increased. The U shape-pattern
develops again. The experiment with HSI equal to 3.3 hp/in2 behaves as it was on the efficient drilling region with DSE
always increasing when WOB is increased. The plateau tendency is illuminated again. This analysis suggests that a
minimum HSI around 3.0 hp/in2 is needed to have efficient drilling conditions. This value is 50% higher than the one
normally used by the industry (HSI = 2.0 hp/in2) to optimize the drilling operations.

DSE and Rock Compressive Strength: The rock confined compressive strength (CCS) is added to the information on Fig.
3 and presented on Fig. 5 to compare the DSE model with the CCS. As per Teales observation, the system would be at
efficient conditions when the DSE is close to the CCS.1 It is shown on Fig. 5 that all the WOB curves tend to the rock
compressive strength value when the bit hydraulic (HSI) energy is progressively increased. The hydraulic contribution for the
20,000 lbs WOB is too high when the HSI is higher than 4.7 hp/in2 generating DSE values lower than the CCS. The 30,000
lbs and 40,000 lbs WOB data seems to be operating at efficient conditions with HSI equal to 7.5 hp/in2. Nonetheless; ROP is
higher when WOB is 40,000 lbs, even though, the DSE value is similar for both WOB values (30,000 lb and 40,000 lb).

DSE vs. MSE: Figs. 6, 7, and 8 show MSE vs. ROP for the same experimental set of data as shown for DSE. MSE was
calculated using Eq. 1, Eq. 4 and Eq. 6 and presented on Figs. 6, 7 and 8, respectively. The rock confined strength (CCS) is
also included on Figs 5 to 8 in order to compare DSE and MSE performance. The calculated specific energy should be close
to the CCS when the system is operating efficiently.1 DSE has a better correlation with the CCS than MSE. The MSE values
calculated with Eqs. 1 and 4 are higher than CCS (Figs. 6 and 7) suggesting that the system is always operating at inefficient
conditions. The CCS value fits in the middle of the MSE calculated with Eq. 4 (Fig. 8) suggesting that the system could
operate with MSE values up to 43% lower than the CCS value. This seems an unrealistic situation.

Bit Hydraulic Contribution to the Specific Energy Correlation: The ratio of the bit hydraulic-energy contribution as a
function of the mechanical-energy contribution was calculated using the following equation:

MSE DSE
Bit Hydraulic Contribution = * 100 (9)
MSE
MSE was calculated using Eq. 1 (Teales original correlation). Fig. 9 shows the bit hydraulic contribution vs. bit HSI for
WOB equal to 20,000 lb, 30,000 lb and 40,000 lb, respectively. Fig. 9 shows a linear relationship between the bit hydraulic
contribution and HSI, it also shows that the bit hydraulic contribution reduces with WOB. A common practice in the industry
is to use HSI equal to 2.0 hp/in2 to optimize the field operations. For HSI equal to 2.0 hp/in2, the bit hydraulic contribution
4 SPE 116667

reduces from 22% to 9% when the WOB increases from 20,000 lb to 40,000 lb. This reduction on the bit hydraulic
contribution could explain why all the data with HSI lower than 1.7 hp/in2 fits on the inefficient drilling region (High DSE
and low ROP) on Fig. 3.

Fig. 10 shows the bit hydraulic contribution vs. ROP for the same WOB values mentioned on the previous paragraph. Fig.
10 shows that the relationship of bit hydraulic contribution and ROP is not linear; it is a power function. This means that the
incremental ROP reduces when the bit hydraulic contribution increases, for the same WOB. It also shows that the
incremental ROP increases with WOB when the bit hydraulic contribution is kept constant. These finding are explained on
the next paragraph using one example.

By combining Figs. 9 and 10 the effect of increasing both the mechanical and hydraulic energy (instead of increasing only
the mechanical energy) on ROP is revealed (Fig 11). When moving from point 1 to point 2, a 35% increment on ROP is
obtained. In this case, only the mechanical energy is increased. WOB is increased from 30,000 lb to 40,000 lb while keeping
the HSI constant at 2.0 hp/in2. In doing so, the bit hydraulic contribution decreases from 13.5% to 9.2%. One the other hand,
by moving from point 1 to 3, a 57% increment on ROP is achieved (22% more than the previous case). In this case, both
mechanical and hydraulic energy are increased at the same time. WOB is increased again from 30,000 lb to 40,000 lb, but
this time the bit hydraulic contribution is kept constant by increasing the HSI from 2.0 hp/in2 to 2.9 hp/in2. The additional
ROP can be explained by the improved drilling efficiency. Less energy is wasted re-working on the crushed rock material not
properly removed when the bit hydraulic contribution decreases when only the mechanical energy is increased.

DSE with Field Data

Field data was used to calculate DSE, using Eq. 8, in order to identify inefficient drilling conditions. Initially, DSE and ROP
were both plotted against depth to identify any particular pattern. Then the drilling parameters WOB, RPM, Torque and HSI
were also plotted vs. depth to explain the observed pattern (Field cases No. 1 and 2). Furthermore, DSE was calculated using
surface and downhole data and plotted vs. depth (Field case No. 3). The results were used to compare DSE with the rock
compressive strength (UCS and CCS).

Field Case No. 1: Bit Balling

On this well, the 17-1/2 in. section is drilled with a 9.0 lb/gal water based mud across a shale formation. One bit was used to
drill from 2,200 ft to 5,300 ft. At this depth, the bit is pulled out of the hole and a new-similar bit is run to continue the
drilling operations. The pulled bit was graded 1-2-NO-S-IN-NO-PR and some balling at the cutting-structure was observed.

Fig. 12 shows ROP and DSE vs. depth from 2,200 ft to 6,000 ft for field case No. 1. There is steady reduction on ROP
from 125 ft/hr at 2,450 ft to 20 ft/hr at 4,900 ft and then the ROP remains almost constant at 20 ft/hr until the end of the bit
run at 5,300 ft. DSE steadily increased from 14,000 psi at 2,200 ft to 81,000 psi at 3,600 ft. The DSE behavior becomes
increasingly erratic from 3,600 ft to 5,300 ft varying from 50,000 psi to 230,000 psi. At the beginning of the new bit (5,300
ft) the ROP increases to a level similar to the initial ROP for the previous bit (above 100 ft/hr). Then, the ROP steadily
reduces as the drilling continues repeating the behavior of the previous bit. Also, at the beginning of the new bit, DSE
reduces and behaves in a similar way than the previous bit. DSE again progressively increases following the same pattern of
the previous bit (DSE increasing and ROP decreasing). Both bits are efficient at the beginning with high ROP and low DSE,
but their performance becomes inefficient as the drilling operations progress. The efficient-drilling trend is revealed on the
DSE vs. depth plot by drawing a straight-line across the efficient drilling sections. This efficient-drilling trend should be
related with the rock strength.

Fig. 13 shows the drilling parameters (ROP, WOB, RPM, torque, and HSI) for the same section included (from 2,200 ft to
6,000 ft) on Fig. 12. For the first bit, WOB is increased from 20,000 lb to 60,000 lbs; RPM varies from 120 rpm to 175 rpm;
torque changes from 4,000 ft-lbs to 8,000 ft-lb; and HSI varies from 1.4 hp/in2 to 2.6 hp/in2. Except by a small increase on
torque, no major changes on the drilling parameters (WOB, and RPM) are observed at the beginning of the second bit. Its
conditions are similar to the drilling parameters used at the starting of the first bit.

The fact that the second bit starts with an ROP four times grater than the final ROP for the first one that has almost no wear
shows that most likely bit balling was affecting the bits performance. Cutting-structure balling was observed on the pulled
bit, reinforcing the previous conclusion. It is also believed that bottom balling was present while drilling this section because
of the progressive reduction of ROP.

Field Case No. 2: Friction Limited

On this well, the 6-1/2 in. section is drilled with a 16.5 lb/gal oil base mud across shale-sand intercalated beds. 3-1/2 in. drill
pipe is used to drill the section. One bit is used to drill from 9,120 ft to 12,800 ft where the maximum temperature for the
downhole tools is reached. The maximum standpipe pressure was also reached at this particular depth (12,800 ft) forcing a
progressive reduction on the flow rate as the drilling progresses. A new-similar bit is run to drill from 12,800 ft to the well
SPE 116667 5

depth total depth (TD) at 14,900 ft. The total flow area (TFA) of the new bit is increased from 0.26 in.2 to 0.31 in.2 to make
sure the minimum flow rate can be reached at TD. The change on TFA combined with the reduction on the flow rate reduces
the bit hydraulic from 2.1 hp/ in.2 to 1.2 hp/in.2.

Fig. 14 shows ROP and DSE vs. depth for the field case No. 2 from 11,000 ft to 14,900 ft. The average ROP at the end of
the first bit (from 12,400 ft to 12,800 ft) is around 75 ft/hr, but the average ROP at the beginning of the second bit was only
around 35 ft/hr (from 12,800 ft to 13,200 ft). The average ROP drops to 15 ft/hr for the last 500 ft of the well. DSE has a
steady behavior for the first bit with an its average value progressively increasing from 30,000 psi at 11,000 ft to 70,000 psi
at 12,800 ft. DSE becomes increasingly erratic since the beginning of the second bit with values above 600,000 psi from
14,000 ft to 14,500 ft. The trend for the average DSE shifts to the right on the second bit.

Fig. 15 shows the drilling parameters (ROP, WOB, RPM, torque, and HSI) for the same section included on Fig. 14. The
average WOB increased from 8,000 lb for the first bit, to 13,000 lb for the second bit. The average RPM also increase from
140 rpm for the first bit, to 155 rpm for the second bit. Average torque remains almost the same for both bits. HSI reduces
from 2.1 hp/ in.2 at the first bit, up to 0.8 hp/in.2 at the second bit.

On the second bit, the mechanical energy component is progressively increased by raising the WOB and RPM. The
hydraulic energy component, on the other hand, is continually reduced as the well goes deeper, by the reduction on HSI. The
second bit is limited by the fact that the maximum standpipe pressure is reached at the end of the first bit run. The friction
losses generated by circulating a 16.5 lb/gal mud trough the 3-1/2 in. pipe dramatically affects the second bit performance.

Field Case No. 3: DSE with Surface and Downhole Data

On this well, the 6 in. section is drilled at balance (no overbalance pressure) with oil base mud across shale-sand intercalated
beds. Downhole gages are run to monitor the drilling parameters and understand the well behavior in order to improve the
drilling performance. DSE is calculated using both surface and downhole data. The results are used to compare DSE with the
rock compressive strength at surface and downhole conditions. The rock compressive strengths (UCS and CCS) are
calculated from the well logs.

Fig. 16 shows the surface and downhole drilling parameters (ROP, WOB, RPM, torque and HSI). ROP varies from 5 ft/hr
to 60 ft/hr depending on the rock type being drilled (sand or shale). Torque and WOB are the parameters with different
surface and downhole values. This can be explained because of the friction generated by rotating the drilling string inside the
hole. The RPM values are almost the same for the surface and downhole conditions, except when a mud motor is run from
12,195 ft to 13,195 ft.

Fig. 17 shows DSE calculated with the surface parameters and the rock strength (UCS) vs. depth. There is no correlation
between the surface DSE and the UCS. The surface DSE is too high.

Fig. 18 shows DSE calculated with downhole data and the rock strength (CCS) vs. depth, again. In this case CCS is used.
There is a good correlation between the downhole data and the CCS. The peaks with high DSE values show a lot of
opportunities for improving the drilling efficiency on this particular well.

Discussion
Including a particular bit hydraulic-related term in the specific energy correlation would allow a better understanding of the
complex-rotary drilling process. Putting together the mechanical (axial and torsional) and hydraulic components of the
specific energy, at the bit level, would give a more holistic approach for the bit-rock interaction while drilling. The rock is
broken by the mechanical energy component (axial plus torsional), and the pieces are removed underneath the bit by the
hydraulic component. The faster the rock pieces are removed, the less energy is wasted re-grinding cuttings already broken.

The experimental data suggests that the DSE can be used to identify inefficient drilling conditions. Fig. 19 shows a sketch
making a connection between the traditional ROP vs. WOB plot and the new DSE vs. ROP correlation. The linear region
representing efficient drilling on the ROP vs. WOB (left-side drawing) is illustrated on the lower-right section of the DSE vs.
ROP plot: low DSE with high ROP (right-side plot). The non-linear region representing inefficient drilling conditions on the
ROP vs. WOB is shown on the upper-left section of the DSE vs. ROP plot: high DSE with low ROP.

The field data implies specific pattern for certain inefficient drilling conditions. On the bit balling case, the ROP decreases
and the DSE increases steadily as the drilling progresses. New clean-bits can deliver similar ROP and DSE values, even
though they are run at different depth on the same formation. On the friction-limited situation, the change on ROP and DSE
values are drastic and dramatic. The average DSE trend shifts to higher values, and the average ROP trend jumps to lower
values. DSE also becomes very erratic.
6 SPE 116667

The two field cases shown here were considered normal performance while drilling on their specific fields because they
always happen. A lot of effort and energy was spent increasing the mechanical energy (axial and torsional) trying to improve
the drilling performance. It was until the DSE tool was used to evaluate the drilling efficiency that the abnormal situation
was illuminated and correction were implemented.

The field data also suggest a good correlation between the DSE, calculated with downhole data, and the rock confined
strength while drilling at-balance. Recent published experimental data shows that the mud density affects the MSE by
increasing its values, even when the bit seems to be drilling efficiently.9 It is expected that this phenomenon would also be
true when using DSE to evaluate the drilling efficiency at overbalance conditions.

Conclusions
A novel correlation for Drilling Specific Energy (DSE) is presented. DSE can be defined as the work done to excavate and
remove underneath the bit a unit volume of rock. Teales original MSE equation was modified to include a particular bit
hydraulic-related term on the specific energy concept.

Experimental data shows a good power-function correlation between DSE and ROP when the data is grouped according to
the WOB. Three different regions are identified on the correlation: (1) Inefficient drilling with high DSE and low ROP; (2)
Efficient drilling with low DSE and high ROP; (3) Transition region located in between of region 1 and 2.

Bit HSI is the main driver to move from the inefficient to the efficient drilling region at constant WOB. The limit between
inefficient and efficient drilling seems to be around 3.0 hp/in2.

Experimental data shows that DSE values tend to the rock confined compressive strength (CCS) when the system is
drilling at optimum conditions. DSE has a better correlation than MSE, with the CCS. Field data also shows a good
correlation between DSE calculated with downhole data, and CCS when drilling at-balance. There is no correlation between
DSE calculated with surface data and UCS.

Both, mechanical and hydraulic component should be increased at the same time to efficiently increase ROP. Even though,
adding more mechanical energy alone can increase the ROP, the efficiency of the system reduces when nothing is done on
the hydraulic side.

DSE can be used to identify specific inefficient drilling situations such as, bit balling and friction-limiter. On the bit balling
case, the ROP decreases and the DSE increases steadily as the drilling progresses. New clean-bits can deliver similar ROP
and DSE values, even though they are run at different depth on the same formation. On the friction-limited situation, the
change on ROP and DSE values are drastic. The ROP trend jumps to lower values and the DSE trend shifts to higher values.
DSE also becomes very erratic.

Nomenclature

AB = bit area, in.2

CCS = rock confined compressive strength, psi
DB = bit diameter, in
EFFD = drilling Efficiency
HPB = bit hydraulic power, hp
MSE = mechanical specific energy, psi
MSEactual = actual mechanical specific energy, psi
MSEmin = minimum mechanical specific energy, psi
ROP = rate of penetration, ft/hr
RPM = revolutions per minutes, rpm
SE = specific energy, psi
T = torque, ft-lbs
UCS = rock unconfined compressive strength, psi
WOB = weight on bits, lbf
= bit hydraulic factor, dimensionless.
= bit specific coefficient of sliding friction, dimensionless.
SPE 116667 7

References
1. Teale, R. 1965. The concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. And Mining Sci., Vol.2, 57-73.
2. Simon, R. 1963. Energy Balance in Rock Drilling. Paper SPE 499 presented at the SPE-U. Texas Drilling and Mechanics Symposium,
Austin, Texas, Jan. 23-24.
3. Pessier, R.C. and Fear, M.J. 1992. Quantifying Common Drilling Problems with Mechanical Specific Energy and Bit-Specific
Coefficient of Sliding Friction. Paper SPE 24584 presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC,
October 4-7.
4. Waughman, R.J., Kenner, J.V., and Moore, R.A. 2002. Real-Time Specific Energy Monitoring Reveals Drilling Inefficiency and
Enhances the Understanding of When to Pull Worn PDC Bits. Paper SPE 74520 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Dallas, Texas, 26-28 February.
5. Dupriest, F.E. and Koederitz, W.L. 2005. Maximizing Drilling Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical Specific Energy.
Paper SPE 921940 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.
6. Dupriest, F.E. and Witt, J.W. 2005. Maximizing ROP With Real-Time Analysis of Digital Data and MSE. Paper IPTC 10607
presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November.
7. Rabia, H. 1985. Specific Energy as a Criterion for Bit Selection. JPT: 1225-1229. SPE-12355.
8. Judzis, A. et al. 2007. Optimization of Deep Drilling Performance: Benchmark Testing Drives ROP Improvements of Bits and Drilling
Fluids. Paper SPE 105885 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February.
9. Black, A.D. et al. 2008. Optimization of Deep Drilling Performance With Improvements in Drill Bit and Drilling Fluids. Paper SPE
112731 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, 4-6 March.
10. Koederitz, W.L. and Weis, J. 2005. A Real-Time Implementation of MSE. Paper AADE-05-NTCE-66 presented at the AADE
National Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 5-7.
11. Tibbitts, G.A., Sandstrom, J.L., Black, A.D., and Green, S.J. 1981. Effect of Bit Hydraulics on Full-Scale Laboratory Drilled Shale.
JPT: 1180-1188. SPE 8439.
8 SPE 116667

Figures

0.060
Hydraulic Factor (Lambda), dimensionless

0.050

0.040

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Bit Diameter, in

Figure 1. Hydraulic Factor ().

120,000

100,000

80,000
DSE, psi

60,000
WOB= 50,000 lb

40,000

WOB= 40,000 lb

20,000
WOB= 30,000 lb

WOB= 20,000 lb
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr

Figure 2. DSE vs. ROP with experimental data grouped according to the WOB.
SPE 116667 9

120,000

100,000

80,000 0.5 hp/in2< HSI < 1.7 hp/in2

DSE, psi

60,000

1.8 hp/in2 < HSI < 5.7hp/in2

40,000

20,000 5.8 hp/in2< HSI < 7.9

0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr

Figure 3. DSE vs. ROP with experimental data grouped according to the HSI.

120,000

100,000

80,000
hp/in2 = 0.5
DSE, psi

60,000

2
hp/in = 3.3
40,000 2
hp/in = 2.9

20,000

hp/in2 = 7.6
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr

Figure 4. DSE vs. ROP with experimental data grouped according to the WOB and adding the rock confined strength.
10 SPE 116667

120,000 120,000
WOB= 40,000 lb
WOB= 20,000 lb
100,000 100,000
WOB= 50,000 lb

80,000

MSE with Eq. 1, psi

0.5 hp/in2< HSI < 1.7 hp/in2
80,000
DSE, psi

60,000 60,000
WOB= 50,000 lb

1.8 hp/in2 < HSI < 5.7hp/in2

40,000 40,000
WOB= 40,000 lb
WOB= 30,000 lb
WOB= 30,000 lb WOB= 20,000 lb
20,000 20,000
Rock Confined Strength 5.8 hp/in2< HSI < 7.9
Rock Confined Strength

0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr ROP, ft/hr

Figure 5. DSE vs. ROP including rock confined strength. Figure 6. MSE calculated with Eq. 1 vs. ROP including rock
confined strength.

120,000 120,000

100,000 100,000

WOB= 50,000 lb
MSE with Eq. 6, psi
MSE with Eq. 4, psi

80,000 80,000

60,000 60,000
WOB= 40,000 lb

WOB= 30,000 lb
40,000 40,000
WOB= 20,000 lb WOB= 50,000 lb

20,000 20,000 Rock Confined Strength

WOB= 40,000 lb
Rock Confined Strength
WOB= 30,000 lb
WOB= 20,000 lb

0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr ROP, ft/hr

Figure 7. MSE calculated with Eq. 4 vs. ROP . Figure 8. MSE calculated with Eq. 6 vs. ROP.
SPE 116667 11

100.0%
WOB = 20,000 lb
90.0%
Bit Hydraulic Contribution / Mechanical
Contribution = [(MSE - DSE)/MSE]*100

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%
WOB = 30,000 lb

50.0%

40.0% WOB = 40,000 lb

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
2
HSI, hp/in

Figure 9. The ratio of bit hydraulic contribution and the mechanical contribution vs. bit HSI.

100.0%
WOB = 20,000 lb

90.0%
Bit Hydraulic Contribution / Mechanical
Contribution = [(MSE - DSE)/MSE]*100

80.0%

70.0%
WOB = 30,000 lb

60.0%
WOB = 40,000 lb
50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
ROP, ft/hr

Figure 10. The ratio of bit hydraulic contribution and the mechanical contribution vs. ROP.
12 SPE 116667

50.0% 50.0%
WOB = 20,000 lb
WOB = 20,000 lb
45.0%
Bit Hydraulic Contribution / Mechanical

45.0%
Contribution = [(MSE - DSE)/MSE]*100

Bit Hydraulic Contribution / Mechanical

WOB = 30,000 lb

Contribution = [(MSE - DSE)/MSE]*100

40.0% 40.0%
35.0% 35.0%
WOB = 30,000 lb
30.0%
30.0%
25.0% WOB = 40,000 lb 25.0%
WOB = 40,000 lb
20.0%
20.0%
15.0% 1
3
15.0% 1
3
10.0%
10.0%
2
2
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
2
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
HSI, hp/in
ROP, ft/hr

Figure 11. Effect on ROP of improving the mechanical energy alone, and the effect of improving both the bit hydraulic-energy and
the mechanical-energy on ROP.

ROP, ft/hr DSE, psi

0 50 100 150 0 100,000 200,000 300,000
2,000 2,000

2,500 2,500

3,000 3,000

3,500 3,500
Depth, ft

Depth, ft

4,000 4,000

4,500 4,500

5,000 5,000

5,500 5,500

6,000 6,000

Figure 12. ROP and DSE vs. Depth for field case No. 1: Bit balling.
SPE 116667 13

2
ROP, ft/hr WOB, Kips RPM, rpm Torque, ft-lbs HSI, hp/in
0 50 100 150 0 20 40 60 80 50 100 150 200 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Depth, ft

Depth, ft

Depth, ft
Depth, ft
Depth, ft

4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000

4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500

5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500

6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Figure 13. Drilling parameters (ROP, WOB, RPM, Torque, and HSI) vs. Depth for field case No. 1: Bit balling.

ROP, ft/hr DSE, psi

0 50 100 150 200 0 200,000 400,000 600,000
11,000 11,000

11,500 11,500

12,000 12,000

12,500 12,500
Depth, ft

Depth, ft

13,000 13,000

13,500 13,500

14,000 14,000

14,500 14,500

15,000 15,000

Figure 14. ROP and DSE vs. Depth for field case No. 2: Friction Limited.
14 SPE 116667

ROP, ft/hr WOB, kips RPM, rpm Torque, ft-lbs 2

HSI, hp/in
0 50 100 150 200 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 100 150 200 0 2,000 4,000 6,000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
11,000 11,000 11,000 9,500
11,000

10,000
11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500
10,500

12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000

11,000

11,500
12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500
Depth, ft

12,000

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
12,500

13,500 13,500 13,500 13,000 13,500

13,500
14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000

14,000

14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500

14,500

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Figure 15. Drilling parameters (ROP, WOB, RPM, Torque, and HSI) vs. Depth for field case No. 2: Friction Limited.

2
ROP, ft/hr HSI, hp/in WOB, Kips RPM, rpm Torque, ft-Kips
0 20 40 60 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 100 200 0 2 4 6 8
12000 12000 12000 12000 12000

12200 12200 12200 12200 12200

12400 12400 12400 12400 12400

12600 12600 12600 12600 12600

12800 12800 12800 12800 12800

Depth (ft)
Depth, ft

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

13000 13000 13000 13000 13000

13200 13200 13200 13200 13200

13400 13400 13400 13400 13400

13600 13600 13600 13600

13600

13800 13800 13800

13800 13800

14000 14000 14000

14000 14000
Surface Downhole Surface Downhole Surface Downhole

Figure 16. Drilling parameters (ROP, HSI, WOB, RPM, and Torque) vs. Depth for field case No. 3: Surface vs. Downhole data.
SPE 116667 15

DSE and UCS, psi

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
12,000

12,200

12,400

12,600

12,800
Depth, ft

13,000

13,200

13,400

13,600

13,800

14,000

Surface DSE Rock Unconfined Stress

Figure 17. Surface DSE vs. Unconfined Rock Strength (UCS) for field case No. 3.

DSE and CCS, psi

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
12,000

12,200

12,400

12,600

12,800
Depth, ft

13,000

13,200

13,400

13,600

13,800

14,000
Downhole DSE Rock Confined Stress

Figure 18. Downhole DSE vs. Confined Rock Strength (CCS) for field case No. 3.
16 SPE 116667

Flounder Point: 1,000,000

Inefficient drilling
800,000

DSE (psi)
600,000
ROP (ft/hr)

400,000

200,000

Efficient drilling 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ROP (ft/hr)

WOB (lbs)

Figure 19. Relationship between the traditional ROP vs. WOB plot and the new DSE vs. ROP plot.