Comparison of Field and
Laboratory-Simulated Drill-Off Tests
...·c. Bourdon, *
Sedco-Forex Technical Centre; G.A. Cooper, * * SPE, D.A. Curry, t SPE, and
D. McCann,* SPE, Schlumberger Cambridge Research; and B. Peltier,! Sedco-Forex Technical Centre
Summary. Field drill-off test results are compared with data from laboratory simulations. A simple theory for analyzing drill-off tests
is developed. The weight-on-bit (WOB) decay with time is close to exponential, but large threshold WOB's, resulting from poor weight
transmission downhole, are sometimes observed in field tests.
Introduction
The drill-off test was devised nearly 30 years ago as a practical
means of estimating and optimizing drilling performance, but its
use in the field has been limited. Two factors seem to limit its value:
the quality of data recorded with conventional rig equipment and
uncertainty in data interpretation. A joint program was undertaken
by Sedco-Forex and Schlumberger Cambridge Research to address
these limitations and hence to increase the information actually ob-
tained from a drill-offtest. The work involved two aspects: the de-
velopment and implementation of a rig-site drill-off test data
acquisition system and the laboratory simulation of drill-off tests.
This paper describes the progress to date, concentrating on the com-
parison of field and laboratory drill-off test data and on the resul-
tant improvements in our interpretation of drill-off tests.
Procedure
The drill-off test is a simple, practical procedure, proposed by Lu-
binski,1 for determining the relationship between rate of penetra-
tion (ROP) and surface WOB. The driller builds WOB to a
predetermined maximum and then sets the brake. As the bit drills,
the WOB decays at a rate determined by the ROP and the drill-
string compliance. The surface WOB is recorded as a function of
time. The drillstring compliance is determined from a knowledge
of the drillstring composition and is used with the recorded WOB
to compute the distance drilled as a function of time. Differentia-
tion yields the ROP as a function of time, and crossplotting gives
the dependence of ROP on WOB. Ref. 2 describes an alternative
procedure for the analysis of drill-off test data based on Vidder' s3
procedure. The times taken to drill off successive increments of
4,000 lbf [18 kN] WOB are recorded, and the mean ROP over each
increment is computed from the drillpipe compliance. (Note that
length changes in tool joints and drill collars can be neglected.)
A log-log plot of ROP against WOB reveals the exponent relating
ROP to WOB. If there is a significant threshold WOB-i.e., a WOB
below which the bit will not drill-then the exponent can be deter-
mined by subtracting different threshold WOB's from the record-
ed values until a straight-line fit is obtained. Regardless of which
analysis is adopted, variations in rock drillability and oscillations
in the hook load can combine to restrict the meaning of the derived
relationship between ROP and WOB unless some method of smooth-
ing the raw data is used. The next section presents one way of over-
coming the problem.
When a drill-off test is designed, both the distance drilled and
the rate of change of hook load must be considered if the test is
to generate results that are representative of the formation being
drilled. Assuming that no change occurs in hydraulics during the
drill-off, the change in length of the drillstring is related to the
change in WOB by
oL b =!:.. OFh =(LdC + L hw + LdP ) OFh . ............. (1)
A E Adc Ahw A dp E equivalent to the trial-and-error procedure previously mentioned 3
With an 8\h-in. [21.6-cm] roller-cone bit, the maximum change
in WOB is restricted to about 45,000 lbf [200 kN], and the bit would
• Now at Foramer/Forasol.
"Now at the U. of California.
tNowat IntI. Drilling and Downhole Technology Centre.
*Now at Sedco·Forex Technical Centre.
§Now at Schlumberger Cambridge Research.
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989
normally be run with 5-in. [12.7-cm] drillpipe. The compliance of
the bottomhole assembly (BHA) is negligible compared with that
of the drillpipe. Therefore, the following equation gives the length
of formation drilled:
OLb "'" 6.2 X 1O-9Ldp oFh . ............................ (2)
The rate of change of WOB with depth is
oFhloL b =1.6X 1081Ldp ' . ., . ., .. .,.,.,.,., . ., . .,.,., (3)
Initially regarding 5,700 lbf/in. [1 kN/mm] as a reasonable up-
per limit for the rate of change of WOB and assuming 600 ft [200
m] of drill collars, we calculated a minimum drillstring length of
3,000 ft [1000 m]. Thus, the maximum length of formation drilled
during the drill-off will be 8 in. [20 cm]. As a result of these calcu-
lations, we decided that it was unlikely that valuable information
would be derived from drill-off tests performed at depths of less
than 3,000 ft [1000 m], and we restricted our investigations ac-
cordingly.
Interpretation Theory
Laboratory and field studies 4 have shown that it is reasonable, in
many circumstances, to consider the ROP, R, proportional to the
WOB, W. Thus,
R=KWf(v). . ..................................... (4)
During a drill-off test the WOB is linked to the bit ROP by the
elasticity of the drill string .
-oR=oFh =EAdp(oLhILdp)' ......................... (5)
aw EA dp aL h EA dp
Hence, - = - - - - - = - - - K W f ( v ) . .,.,.,.,., .,(6)
at L dp at L dp
Integration gives the following expression for WOB as a func-
tion of time during a drill-off test.
W = Wie( - EAdpILdplKf(vlt. . .......................... (7)
We found in some cases that the WOB decays not to zero, but to
a finite offset or threshold WOB, WOo If this threshold WOB is in-
troduced into the expression relating ROP to WOB, the depend-
ence of WOB on time becomes
Ws = ~o + Wier - EAdplLdplKf(vlt
=W + Wie- kt . ................................. (8)
o
Three valuable pieces of information can be obtained by fitting this
expression to WOB data recorded during a drill-off test: the quali-
ty of fit, which indicates whether the assumption of linearity be-
tween ROP and WOB is valid; the value of Wo , whose significance
is discussed below; and the value of K, which characterizes the ROP.
Note that the curve-fitting scheme adopted to determine Wo is
because both rely on finding the value of Wo that gives the. best
fit between the data and the assumed relationship between ROP and
WOB. Here, however, we work with data recorded at a much higher
frequency and consequently gain enhanced resolution .
Experimental Details
More than 50 drill-off tests were performed in vertical wells and
in wells deviated up to 40°. All were on land in regions with well-
329
 TABLE 1-DRILLING PARAMETERS RECORDED
DURING FIELD DRILL-OFF TESTS
Parameter Sensor
Hook load Gauge on dead-line anchor
Traveling block altitude Encoder on fast sheave of crown
block
Rotary speed Proximity detector in
transmission
Mud flow rate Proximity detector in
transmission
Standpipe pressure
Rotary torque
Pressure gauge on standpipe
Ampmeter on DC motors
characterized lithologies. Tests were carried out with 8 1h- and 6-in.
[21.6- and 15.2-cm] -diameter roller-cone bits at depths ranging
~rom 3,650 to 6,700 ft [1100 to 2050 m]. Mechanical and hydraul-
IC parameters were monitored during field drill-off tests wjth ex-
isting and specially installed surface rig sensors, and their values
were recorded with a microcomputer-based data acquisition sys-
tem. Table 1 lists the drilling parameters that were recorded and
the corresponding sensors. Special attention was given to the de-
sign of the data acquisition system to ensure good resolution and
to avoid aliasing effects. Once recorded, the field drill-off test data
were transferred onto our engineering computer for reformatting
calibration, and analysis.
The design, specification, and function of the drilling test machine
(DTM) are described in Ref. 5. The test control computer attached
to the DTM is used to simulate drill string elasticity and hence to
perform a drill-off test in the laboratory. An initial WOB and the
required drillstring compliance are specified. The change in pene-
tation depth from that at the start of the drill-off test is monitored,
and the corresponding reduction in WOB is computed. This is sub-
tracted from the initial WOB to update the demanded weight, and
the process is repeated at a frequency of 50 cycles/sec [50 Hz]
throughout the test.
All laboratory drilling tests were performed with 8Vz-in.
[21.6-cm] -diameter roller-cone bits. Several rock types were
drilled, including Bolton Wood sandstone, Carrara marble, Port-
land limestone, and a limestone aggregate concrete. A low-solids
bentonite/lignosulfonate mud was used throughout the tests. The
sample stresses were an overburden of 3,625 psi [25 MPa], a con-
fining pressure of2, 175 psi [15 MPa], and a pore pressure of 14.5
psi [0.1 MPa], with an annular mud pressure of 1,450 psi [10 MPa].
The rotary speed was 60 rev/min, and the mud flow rate was 330
gal/min [1250 Llmin]. Three 1O/32-in. [7.9-mm] -diameter noz-
zles were used. A drillstring compliance equivalent to that of 4,570
ft [1400 m] of 5-in. [12.7-cm] drillpipe was simulated. Unless other-
wise stated, these standard conditions applied for all tests described
in this paper. Several rock samples were drilled with bits that had
been used for field drill-off tests. In these cases, the drillstring com-
p~iance .computed for the field tests was adopted for the laboratory
simulatIOns, and the laboratory rotary speed (80 rev/min) and
hydraulics matched those for the field tests.
Bit: 6" 5-3-7
RPM: 80
ROP from exponential fit
otO--~~-'30~-----'6'0-------9~0-------'~20------~'50
Weight on Bit (kN)
Fig. 2-ROP as a function of WOB during field drill-off test.
330
140
Bit: 6" 5-3-7
RPM: 80
120
Z
:!.
:iic:: 80- Beginning of
Drill-off
0
E 60
f
40
20
~·5±0~0--~MO~0--~8~700=---~88'00-----89~00-----90~00-----9T'00--­
Time(s)
Fig. 1-WOB recorded during field drill-off test.
Results
Field Data. Two tests were performed with a 6-in. [l5.2-cm] in-
' sert bit, IADC Code 5-3-7, at a depth of 6,861 ft [2091 m] in a
well de~iated by about 15°. The formation was predominantly lime-
stone with some shale layers, and an oil-based mud was used. The
initial WOB was 29,2251bf [130 kN] in both cases, and the rotary
speed was 80 rev/min. Fig. I shows the WOB recorded during one
test as a function of time, together with the best-fit exponential curve.
The agreement between the data and the fitted curve is clearly very
good. Correlation coefficients of 99.91 % were given for both tests.
Threshold WOB's, wo , of2,855 and 2,520 Ibf[12.7 and 11.2 kN]
were found, and the corresponding drilling response coefficients,
k, were 1.68 and 1.51. Fig. 2 shows a crossplot ofROP vs. WOB.
Its apparent form supports the relationship between ROP and WOB
assumed in the drill-off test analysis. Fig. 2 also shows the ROP
computed during steady-state drilling immediately before the two
drill-off tests. It is within 5% of the ROP indicated by the drill-off
~ests for that WOB. This discrepancy is less than the uncertainty
In the computed drill string compliance and suggests that there are
no large transient effects on the drilling response during drill-off
tests.
. A number of drill-off tests were performed in a vertical well with
an 8V2-in. [21.6-cm] IADC Code 1-3-5 bit at depths ranging from
3,719 to 4,023 ft [1134 to 1226 m]. The formations over this in-
terval were mainly limestones with some interbedded shales. Three
tests were run immediately before the bit was pulled; these all
showed WOB offsets of about 6,750 lbf [30 kN]. Severe overpulls
were experienced during the early stages of the subsequent trip-out.
Laboratory Simulations. The laboratory drill-off tests all showed
more or less exponential decay of WOB with time. The form of
200
Bit: B1A?" 1-3-6 (TO)
Rock: Carrara marble
I
z
~ 120
~
5
E
'"
~ 80
40
~j50~------~1000~------~1~'5~0------~'3~OO--------,T45-0~
Time{s)
Fig. 3-WOB recorded during laboratory drill-off test.
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989
 Bit: B1f:;!" 1-3--6 (TO)
Rock: Carrara marble
TABLE 2-LABORATORY DRILL-OFF TEST PARAMETERS
..,
k Wo =
§. 6
Bit> (seconds -1)
Rock ~ c
0
Carrara marble 1-3-6 TO 0.0044 -3.2 '"t
Limestone concrete 1-3-6 T7 0.0050 -5.6 c
4
Portland limestone 1-3-6 TO 0.0053 -11.8 "c.
'0
Portland limestone 1-3-5 T8 0.0056 4.3
Portland limestone 1-3-5 T8 0.0022 15.8 ~
II:
Portland limestone 1-3-5 T8 0.0060 9.7
Portland limestone 1-3-5 T8 0.0112 4.8
Portland limestone 5-1-7 T1 0.0124 20.3
Portland limestone 5-1-7 T1 0.0218 10.5
Portland limestone 5-1-7 T1 0.0106 19.0 50 100 150 200 250

Portland limestone 5-1-7 T1 0.0311 10.4 Weight on Bit (kN)

Portland limestone 5-1-7 T1 0.0155 0.9

• lADe code, Fig. 4-ROP as a function of WOB •

WOB decay was not strongly influenced by test conditions, such
as the bit type, bit wear state, or fluctuations in rock drillability.
Fig. 3 is an example of the laboratory results from a simulated drill-
offtest on Carrara marble with an IADC Code 1-3-6 bit in TO-BO-I
condition. It shows the filtered WOB plotted as a function of time
and the exponential curve fitted to these data. Table 2 gives the
drill-off test parameters determined for this test and for other labo-
ratory tests. Fig. 4 shows the ROP vs. WOB relationship comput-
ed for the marble test and the corresponding reduced ROP data
determined during steady-state drilling of the same rock sample.
The relationship between ROP and WOB was clearly the same dur-
ing the drill-off test as during steady-state drilling in this imperme-
able rock. Furthermore, the relationship computed from the
exponential fit is very close to the directly measured relationship.
A laboratory drill-off with a 1-3-6 bit in T7 condition also showed
good agreement between the fitted exponential and the observed
WOB decay. Note the lack of any large threshold WOB with this
well-worn bit (see Table 2). Again there was no detectable differ-
ence between the ROP's at any given WOB during the drill-offtest
and during steady-state drilling.
The 1-3-5 bit with which field drill-off data were gathered was
used for four laboratory drill-off tests in Portland limestone, with
various mud flow rates and bottornhole pressures (BHP's). Table
2 lists the resultant drill-off parameters.
Fig. 5 shows the decay of WOB with time for a drill-off testTn
Portland limestone. The exponential curve seems to give a good
fit to the data, but some divergence between the two sets is notice-
able above - 13,500 lbf [60 kN] WOB. When the measured ROP
for this test is plotted as a function of WOB, it becomes clear that
their relationship is nonlinear (see Fig. 6). Coring and mechanical
testing subsequently established the presence of large local fluctu-
ations in strength (2,200 to 10,150 psi [15 to 70 MPa]) in this rock
sample that corresponded with the departure from linearity in
penetration rate. The ROP computed from the coefficients of the
exponential fit gives a reasonable representation of the average drill-
ing response over this interval of rapidly varying drillability, but
the quality of fit clearly is not as good as it is in more uniform rock
samples.
Five simulated drill-offs with a field-worn insert bit, IADC Code
5-1-7, were run in Portland limestone, again covering a variety of
mud flow rates and BHP's. These gave Wo values that ranged from
200 to 4,560 lbf [0.9 to 20.3 kN] with a mean of 2,740 lbf [12.2
kNJ. In one rock sample, the results of two drill-offtests with simu-
lated drillstring compliances equal to those of 2,225 and 4,450 ft
[678 and 1356 m] of 5-in. [12,7-cm] pipe were compared with re-
sults of steady-state drilling. Fig. 7 shows the ROP plotted against
WOB. The drill-off and steady-state data are clearly similar, with
data from the shallower drill-off giving an ROP slightly lower than
that of steady-state drilling.
To investigate the influence of hydraulics on drill-offtests, three
successive tests were run in Portland limestone with a new lADC
Code 5-2-6 bit. The first was run under standard conditions, the
second with a much reduced mud flow rate of 92 gal/min [350
Llmin], and the third with the full mud flow rate but a reduced
differential pressure across the workfront-Le., 435 psi [3.0 MPa]
as opposed to 1,450 psi [10 MPa]. Fig. 8 shows both the measured
and the computed ROP's as functions of the WOB. As expected,
the highest ROP for any given WOB was observed at the low dif-
ferential pressure and the lowest ROP was observed at the low mud
flow rate. For all three drill-off tests, the relationship between ROP
and WOB was not linear. Instead, all three tests indicated a con-
tinuously rising gradient of the ROP/WOB relationship, with no
evidence of any reduction in gradient with increasing weight. The
effect of poor hydraulics was apparently to reduce the ROP by a

2~.----------------------------------------;
Bit: aw'1-3-6 (TO)
BIt: BW' 1-3-6 (TO) Rock: Portland limestone
Rock: Portland limestone 16
200

Z
.!. 150 Measured RQP
iii J
C
0
:E
'"
';; 100
~
....... ROP from exponential fit

50

O+-~----'-------'-------~-------r------~
o 50 100 150 200 250

0 Weight on Bit (kN)

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Time(s)
Fig. 6-ROP as a function of WOB in limestone sample with
Fig. 5-WOB recorded during laboratory drill-off test of lime- large strength fluctuations.
stone sample with large strength fluctuations.

SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989 331


25
Bit:8112"5-1-7
RPM,80
••
Rock: Portland limestone
'l:"
~
20
___ Measured ROP
1c
ROP from exponential fit
.2 15
e
;;
c '0
!
10
'0
~
a:
O~C-----.-------~------~------~------~
o 50 100 150 200 250
Weight on Bit (kN)
Fig. 7-ROP as a function of WOB.
fixed proportion irrespective of the WOS in a manner that would
seem analogous to an increase in rock strength. The same effect
was observed in other tests with both milled-tooth and insert bits.
Laboratory vs. Field Drlll·Off Tests
The first point to emerge from this study is that the drilling response
during a drill-off test is similar to that during steady-state drilling.
The laboratory data indicate clearly that there are no significant
differences when impermeable rock is drilled. Small differences
were observed in the shallow simulated drill-off test of Portland
limestone (permeability about 10 md) when the WOS was decreas-
ing rapidly-i.e., when transient effects were at their greatest. A
theoretical analysis of transient effects on pore-pressure elevation
resulting from dynamic filtration beneath the bit was presented by
Peltier and Atkinson. 6 This indicates that the pressure gradients
will depend on the prevailing ROP and that changes in the ROP
will be followed by a transient period before the pressure gradients
attain their new steady-state values. During a drill-off test, the WOS
is continuously decreasing so that under some conditions the ROP
might be expected to be less than that for steady-state drilling at
the same WOS. The experimental evidence is inconclusive here;
the only disparities observed between drill-off and steady condi-
tions were not large in comparison with rock variability. Further
experiments are planned to pursue this point.
Overall, encouraging similarity was found between data gathered
during field drill-off tests and those from our laboratory simula-
tions. There was one significant difference, however, that concerned
the value of the threshold WOS indicated by the exponential fit.
The laboratory simulations showed modest Wo values that could
be either positive or negative. These seem to reflect nonlinear ROP
response to WOS because of the bit action, particularly insert-bit
action, and because of fluctuations in rock drillability. Interesting-
ly, the milled-tooth bits did not give large threshold WOB's when
worn even to TS condition. In the field, however, some drill-off
tests gave positive threshold WOB's that were significantly larger
than any observed in the laboratory. The occurrence of a large
threshold WOB is interpreted as indicative of poor weight transfer
downhole rather than tooth wear. This explanation is supported by
the observation of overpulls when tripping immediately after drill-
off tests that showed significant threshold WOB's.
TABLE 3-HOOK-LOAD CHANGES RESULTING FROM HYDRAULIC EFFECTS
OPsp
Interval (MPa)
AB -7.6
BC -3.6
CD 10.3
332
20
Bit: 8W'5-2-6
16
Rock: Portland limestone
'l:"
ic
t
12
c
!
~
a:
0
0 50 250
Weight on Bit (kN)
Fig. 8-ROP as a function of WOB at different mud flow rates
and BHP's.
Winters and Warren 7 showed that natural diamond bits display
threshold WOB's as a result of "pumpoff" effects. The mud pres-
sure drop across the bit causes significant upward forces that must
be overcome before the bit face can be brought into contact with
the rock. The return flow area available with roller-cone bits, typi-
cally 15 % of the total bit area, is much greater than that on natural
diamond bits. Consequently, pumpoff effects are likely to be negligi-
ble with roller-cone bits, so any threshold WOB cannot be attributed
to this cause.
Further support for the proposal that the offset WOB corresponds
to the weight lost between the surface and the bit is provided by
the effect of changing hydraulics during drill-off tests. Appendix
A shows that the hook-load variation accompanying changes in mud
flow rate will depend on the boundary condition of the bottom of
the drillstring. The mud flow rate was deliberately varied near the
end of a drill-off test for which a threshold WOB of 12,360 Ibf
[55 kN] was determined. Fig. 9 shows the hook load and mud flow
rate as functions of time during the test.
If the drillstring were freely hanging, then the hook-load varia-
tions would have resulted from nozzle-jet-reaction changes, which
were calculated to be at most 5S5 Ibf [2.6 kN]. The observed vari-
ations in hook load were clearly much larger than this. The hook-
load changes for the case of a fixed drill string were calculated with
Eq. A-S. The calculated and measured values are given in Table
3, where the letters A, B, C, and D refer to the points on Fig. 9.
The calculated and measured values are obviously in good agree-
ment, suggesting strongly that the bottom of the drillstring was fixed.
This confirms our interpretation that the occurrence of a large-offset
WOS, wo ' indicates weight loss between the surface and the bit.
The magnitude of Wo could be a valuable indicator of hole condi-
tion and could even provide early warning of stuck drillstring
problems.
It is generally held that there is an optimum WOS above which
the ROP of a roller-cone bit increases only slowly with increasing
weight. This WOB corresponds to the onset of bit floundering-
i.e., when the cones roll either on the workfront directly or on a
bed of cuttings, which prevents the attainment of higher ROP's.3.8
Bit floundering and the consequent insensitivity of ROP to WOB
should be manifest during a drill-off test as an initial WOB decay
rate less than that observed subsequently. No examples of this were
seen, either in the field drill-off tests or in the laboratory simula-
OPdP Error
(MPa) Computed Measured (%)
-0.7 33.0 35.5 7.6
-0.3 15.4 16.5 7.2
1.0 -45.0 -34.0 -24.6
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989
tions. In the case of drill-off tests performed with poor bit hydraulics,
the lack of any obvious optimum weight is slightly surprising, par-
ticularly because significant reductions in ROP accompanied the ~
reduced hydraulics. The obvious conclusion here is that a drill-off ~
test will not necessarily show an optimum WOB even if the ROP _0
I:~
is limited by poor hydraulics. Therefore, repeated drill-offtests with e:! zm 0

~
different hydraulics are needed to determine the adequacy of the
hydraulics:
.
1ii
~o
~

"~
Both the field and the laboratory data show that a good represen- ~g
0- "'~
o~
0: 0"
tation of a drill-off test can always be obtained by use of the ex- :I:

ponential relationship indicated by the simple theory discussed ""

::Ii

earlier. Fitting an exponential curve to the WOB recorded during ~ $

a drill-off test provides a representative average drilling response
for the rock and bit in question that is not sensitive to fluctuations
in drillability during the drill-off test. This procedure seems to over- § ~
7740 7800 7860 7920 7980 6040
come some of the data-reduction problems previously associated Time(s)
with the drill-off test. It would be a simple matter to use the drill-
off-indicated average drilling response in conventional drilling op- Fig. 9-Hook load and mud flow rate during field drill-off test.
timization routines with the incidental benefit that the weight loss
between the surface and downhole is indicated and automatically
incorporated into the ROP analysis.
All drill-off tests reported here were performed with soft forma-
Po = external pressure
tion bits drilling rocks of low and medium compressive strengths Psp = standpipe pressure
when the assumption of a linear relationship between ROP and WOB !:J.PbOO = pressure drop in bit and BHA
was clearly justified. It is possible that, in some cases, the ROP !:J.p dp = pressure drop in drillpipe
might not be directly proportional to WOB. 4 ,9 Then, if the form q = mud flow rate
of the ROP response were known, it would be, in principle, straight- ri = inner radius
forward to substitute it for Eq. 4 in our analysis to derive an ex- r0 = outer radius
pression for the decay in WOB that is more accurate than Eq. 8. R = ROP
This could be used to analyze the drill-off test data in a manner t = time
directly analogous to that adopted here with the exponential WOB v = rotary speed
decay. W=WOB
Wi = initial downhole WOB
Conclusions Wo = offset WOB
I. With good sensors and data logging, the drill-off test can give Ws = surface WOB
valuable information about drilling conditions. €z = axial strain

2. The WOB decays during a drill-off test in a more or less ex-
ponential manner. The exponential decay constant determined from
the recorded WOB data gives a good representation of the drilling
response of the rock and bit in question.
3. No significant transient effects on ROP response were observed
in either field drill-off tests or laboratory simulations.
4. The presence during a drill-off test of a large threshold WOB
below which the bit does not drill indicates poor weight transmis-
sion between the surface and the bit, and could provide a useful
guide to hole condition. ' ments necessary for the development of this project. We also thank
5. Poor bit hydraulics that lead to reduced ROP will not neces-
sarily be revealed by the presence of an optimum WOB during a
drill-off test.
Nomenclature
A = effective steel section area of drill string
A de = steel section area of drill collars
A dp = steel section area of drillpipes
A g = internal section area of gooseneck
Ahw = steel section area of heavy weights
Ai = internal section area of drillpipes
An = bit-nozzle area
E = Young's modulus
f = function of rotary speed in drilling model
F = drillpipe tension
F boo = total force between formation and BHA
Fh = hook-load force
k = drilling-response coefficient
K = drilling-model coefficient
L = effective drillstring length
Lb = length of formation drilled in drill-off test
Ldc = drill collar length
L dp = drillpipe length
Lh = hole length
Lhw = heavy-weight length
Pi = internal pressure
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989
JL = Poisson's ratio
p = mud density
a r = radial stress
az = axial stress
a 0 = hoop stress
Acknowledgments
We thank Esso REP for permission to carry out the field experi-
the Sedco-Forex and Schlumberger Cambridge Research staff whose
assistance and cooperation made this work possible.
References
1. Lubinski, A.: "Proposal for Future Tests," The Petroleum Engineer
(Jan. 1958) B50-B52.
2. Bourgoyne, A. T. et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, Textbook Ser-
ies, SPE, Richardson, TX (1986) 227-29.
3. Vidder, A.: "Chevron Drill-Off Test (DOT)," Chevron Oil Co., New
Orleans.
4. Speer," J. W.: "A Method of Determining Optimum Drilling Tech-
niques," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1958) 130-47.
5. Cooper, G.A. and Peltier, B.: "Advanced Techniques for Laboratory
Full-Scale Drilling Tests," paper SPE 14783 presented at the 1986
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Feb. 10-13.
6. Peltier, B. and Atkinson, C.: "Dynamic Pore Pressure Ahead of the
Bit," SPEDE (Dec. 1987) 351-58.
7. Winters, W.J. and Warren, T.M.: "Laboratory Study of Diamond-Bit
Hydraulic Lift," SPEDE (Aug. 1986) 267-76; Trans., AIME, 281.
8. Outmans, H.D.: "The Effect of Some Drilling Variables on the In-
stantaneous Rate of Penetration," JPT (June 1960) 137-49; Trans.,
AIME,219.
9. Cunningham, R.A.: "An Empirical Approach for Relating Drilling Pa-
rameters," JPT (July 1978) 987-91.
10. Winters, W.J. and Warren, T.M.: "Field Application of Diamond-Bit
Hydraulic-Lift Principles," SPEDE (Aug. 1986) 277-87; Trans., AIME,
281.
11. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York City (1982).
333
Appendix A-Hydraulic Effects During
a Drlll·Off Test
Winters and Warren lO presented an analysis of the changes in hook
load and WOB that accompany changes in drillpipe pressure dur-
ing drill-off tests with natural diamond bits. Here, similar princi-
ples are applied to the case of changing flow rate with a roller-cone
bit when the pressure drop across the bit is not influenced by WOB.
If the drillstring hangs freely, the hook load changes as a result
of changes in the jet reaction force:
OFh = -(pIAn)(qt -q6) -2(PIAg)(qt -q6) . ........... (A-I)
When both ends of the drillstring are' fixed, as when the bit is on
bottom or when the BHA is stuck to the formation, the system is
statically indeterminate, and changes in the drillstring length will
affect the hook load and the WOB. Timoshenko and Goodier ll
show that the axial strain of the drillstring can be expressed as
€z = (lIE){ U z -2j.t[(Pir l-p o r;)/(r; -rlm . ...... .' ... (A-2)
Variations of annulus mud pressure can usually be neglected in
comparison with those inside the drillstring. Thus, the variation
of axial strain of the drillstring is related to axial stress and mud
pressure variations by
O€z =(lIE){ouz -2j.t[rlop/(r; -rlm . ............... (A-3)
Assuming that there is neither buckling of the drillstring nor ax-
ial friction between the drillpipe and the formation and that the com-
pliance of the drill collars can be neglected, this expression can
be integrated to find the virtual elongation of the drillstring.
oL=(LdplE)(A/A dp )[ -2j.t0Pbha + 'h(l-2j.t)OPdp]· ...... (A-4)
Invoking the principle of elastic superposition, the boundary con-
ditions of no displacement at either end of the drillstring lead to
334
the following expression for the variation of drillpipe tension, of,
resulting from a change of hydraulics.
(oFIAdpE) + (oLdpILdp) =0. . ....................... (A-5)
Combining the two previous expressions gives
of= -Ail-2j.toPbha + 'h(1-2j.t)OPdp]' ............... (A-6)
Forces acting directly on the top support must now be added.
These forces result from the variations of hydraulic momentum in
the gooseneck (negligible) and of standpipe pressure acting at the
top end of the drillstring. Thus, the hook-load change resulting from
changes in hydraulics is
OFh = -Ail(l-2j.t)opsp + 'h(l-2j.t)OPdp]' ............ (A-7)
F bha experiences the same variation because of drillpipe elon-
gation and also changes as a result of variations of the bit nozzle
jet force and of the pressure drop in the BHA.
oFbha = -oF+AioPbha -(PIAn)(qt -q6) . ............. (A-8)
With no friction between the BHA and the formation, the WOB
is equal to F bha .
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bar x 1.0* E-Ol MPa
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
lbf x 4.448222 E+OO N
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
• Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 15,1987. Paper accepted for publica·
tion May 5, 1989. Revised manuscript received Dec. 12, 1988. Paper (SPE 16162) first
presented at the 1987 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, March 15-18.
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1989