Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Cuttings-test method for predicting rock strength

∗
Lian Chen a,b , , Xu Chen a , Ying-xin Yang a , Er-shuai Li c , Shi-wei Niu a
a
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
b
Post-Doctoral Research Workstation, CNPC Xibu Drilling Engineering Company Limited, Urumchi, 830046, China
c
China Petroleum First Construction Corporation, Luoyang 471000, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: In drilling engineering, it is an urgent technical problem to obtain the rock mechanical parameters
Received 25 January 2022 of the drilled formation in time and accurately. Rock cuttings is another form formed after rock is
Received in revised form 24 February 2022 broken. Rock cuttings contain some physical properties of the original rock. Taking cuttings as the
Accepted 5 March 2022
object of research, this paper puts forward the penetration test featuring ‘‘penetrating without fracture’’
Available online xxxx
to test penetrating depth using acicular indenter so as to demonstrate parameters of rock mechanics.
Keywords: Experimental study showed that if the rock did not crack, under a certain load, the depth of cuttings is
Cuttings correlated with the uniaxial compressive strength and hardness of primeval rock. In the paper, models
Rock mechanics of relationship between penetrating depth and uniaxial compressive strength of primeval rocks, and
Penetrating between the penetrating depth and hardness of primeval rocks were established, and were verified by
Formation
experiment. The error of experimental results is small. The method of ‘‘penetrating without fracture’’
Experiments
can reduce the dispersion of test data of cuttings, leading to high accuracy of calculation model. This
method is an effective way to obtain the parameters of rock mechanics of formation in drilling timely
and accurately.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction only after finishing drilling. The disadvantages of logging while

In the project of oil and gas drilling and exploitation, the
mechanics properties of rocks are the basic technical parameters
(Zeng and Liu, 2005; Kang, 2013; Lei et al., 2021; Liu, 2021; Tong
et al., 2018). To obtain mechanics properties of formation rock
in drilling accurately and timely is important for selecting ideal
drill bit, optimizing drilling parameters and analyzing stability
of borehole on drilling site (Yan et al., 2021). In order to obtain
mechanical properties of rocks, a lot of researches have been
carried out (Wang et al., 2020, 2018). The method of coring (Deere
and Miller, 1966; Santarelli et al., 1991; Cook and Thiercelin,
1989; Chen, 2004; Qu et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020) and well logging
data prediction (Bruce, 1990; Bond, 1990; Kuang et al., 2010;
Liu et al., 2011; Di et al., 2019; Chai et al., 2009) are useful in
obtaining mechanical properties of rocks. The coring method is
the way of drilling rock from formation, then taking rock cores
back to lab for experiment on rock mechanics. The disadvantages
of this method are difficult to complete, high cost, long period and
lack continuous data of rock mechanical properties. The method
of well logging data prediction includes logging after drilling and
logging while drilling. Logging after drilling can be conducted
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Mechatronic Engineering, Southwest
Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China.
E-mail address: chenlian8121@sina.com (L. Chen).
drilling are big error, low accuracy, high cost, and easily leads to
down-hole accident.
Another method is cuttings, testing mechanics properties of
cuttings taken from drilling field to get the mechanics properties
of formation. In the early 1990s, Exxon Production and Research
Company applied a patent of measuring the specific surface area
of cuttings to determine the strength of the formation indirectly
(Steiger and Leung, 1993), because of the weak correlation, the
patent was not promoted. A Norwegian oil company smash the
cuttings and made it into core, conducting triaxial strength exper-
iment (Santarelli et al., 1996; Xie et al., 2021), but this method
could not provide real-time reference for on-site drilling. Some
researchers tried to test wave velocity of cuttings to show the me-
chanics properties of the rock (Zhang et al., 2004; Zou et al., 2004;
Zausa et al., 1997). Marsala and Zausa developed measurement
techniques of pulse wave velocity (Marsala et al., 1997; Santarelli
et al., 1998). Nes et la. used acoustic technology to test the
mechanics parameters of rock (Nes et al., 1996, 1998). Zausa and
Santarelli used hemispherical indenter of 1 mm to conduct micro
point-load test on cuttings, finding that the slop of straight line
on the pressure and displacement curve is related to the uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock (Zausa and Santarelli, 1995). Ge
Hongkui et al. in Oil University also conducted study on testing
wave velocity and micro hardness of the rock (Ge et al., 2002).
Later, Wang Guihua in the same university conducted study on

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.005
2352-4847/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Chen, X. Chen, Y.-x. Yang et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969

Fig. 2. The loading principle of experiment device.

Fig. 1. The method of experiment.

micro-hardness of the rock to identify mechanics parameters

of formation. Cathrine Ringstad et al. used Young modulus to
conduct pressuring test on rock samples and cuttings in different
size, finding that the size of the indenter and sample has impact
on results of the test (Wang et al., 2003). Cathrine (Ringstad
et al., 1998; Uboldi et al., 1999), and (Meyers et al., 2005) test
the strength of the cuttings to show the mechanical properties
of rock. Li et al. (2005) in Southwest Petroleum University have
conducted study on identifying mechanical properties of rock by
using hardness and plasticity parameters of cuttings. The test-
ing of wave velocity can be largely influenced by components,
density, micro structure and defects of rock, leading to discrete
results. Due to the large indenter, the pressure, the micro point-
load or hardness test of cuttings could fracture the rock. The test
can be also influenced by granularity, shape, micro defects of the
rocks and direction of pressure, leading to casual testing results
and difficulties to comply with rule of statistical.
As a kind of heterogeneous material, cuttings is a form of frac-
tured rock in formation and must contain some of the mechanical
properties of primeval rocks (Chang et al., 2020). Cuttings is
byproduct of drilling, which can be returned to the ground timely
and accessed easily. In order to obtain mechanical properties of
rock in drilling formation timely and accurately, this paper takes
cuttings as the study object and adopts acicular indenter, putting
forward penetrating method-‘‘penetrating without fracture’’ to
obtain mechanical properties of rock.
2. Methods and principles of experiment
The testing method of ‘‘penetrating without fracture’’ means
that the acicular indenter penetrates into cuttings under certain
load without fracturing it. In this process, the penetrating depth
of indenter is recorded, and then a correlation between depth
and parameters of rock mechanics is established. The penetrating
depth of indenter reflects the mechanical properties of cuttings.
The study uses the acicular indenter of 30◦ angle. The experi-
ment method of penetrating one particle of cuttings is shown in
Fig. 1.
3. Experiment test
3.1. The way and device of test experiment
Due to the size of specimen is small and the shape is irregular,
the load cannot be too large to prevent the cuttings from frac-
turing. To facilitate loading and ensure the accuracy of loading,
the lever principle is used for loading. The method and principle
of experiment is shown in Fig. 2, the lever OAB turns around
O, when increasing load F1 on end B, in accordance with lever
3965
Fig. 3. The Equipment of experiment.
principle, the load F2 on end A must meet the following formula:
F 2 · L2 = F 1 · L1 (1)
Wherein, L1 presents the distance between end B with load F1
and fulcrum O. L2 presents the distance between point A on lever
loading on cuttings and fulcrum O.
On basis of formula (1), calculating formula of the load F2 on
cuttings can be derived as:
F1 · L1
F2 = (2)
L2
The loading method used in the experiment is simple and easy
to operate. When L2 is unchanged, we can adjust L1 or F1 to
get different load F2 . The adjusting range of load F2 is large, the
loading becomes convenient, more accurate and easier to adjust.
In accordance with the above method and principle, the loading
experiment device is developed (shown in Fig. 3).
3.2. The selection of sample and preparation of cuttings
There are hard formation and soft formation on drilling sites.
In this experiment, we choose 4 kinds of rocks from soft to
hard. They are yellow sandstone, fine sandstone, sandstone and
limestone. The uniaxial compressive strength and hardness pa-
rameters of the rocks are shown in Table 1.
In order to get cuttings which are similar with that on drilling
site, the cuttings samples of this experiment are taken from
corresponding rocks drilled by experimental drilling bit. Fig. 4
shows drilling process. Fig. 5 shows the cuttings generated by the
process in Fig. 4. The cuttings particles used in the experiment
should not be too small, so as to provide enough pressing space
for the acicular indenter. The particle size of cuttings selected in
the experiment shall be more than 3.5 mm. Rock cuttings will
encounter water or mud after formation, so they need to be dried
L. Chen, X. Chen, Y.-x. Yang et al.
Table 1
Mechanics parameters of rock sample.
Category of rocks
Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa
Hardness, MPa
Fig. 4. The process of drilling and breaking rocks.
Fig. 5. The cuttings.
before the experiment. The cuttings shall be placed in a low-
temperature (no more than 70 ◦ C) oven for more than 1 h, and
the water in the cuttings shall be dried slowly.
3.3. Determining the load
The experiment adopted acicular indenter of 30◦ angle and
followed the method of ‘‘penetrating without fracture’’. Ensuring
the integrity of cuttings, indenter penetrate in the cuttings under
certain load in certain depth, using of penetrating depth to reflect
the mechanical properties of rock.
Due to the small size of cuttings, the large load may break
the cuttings. If the penetrating load is small, the depth is hard
to measure and is not accurate. To select the proper load, the
experiment used different load to penetrate in the cuttings. The
Fig. 6 shows the curve of penetrating depth of different rock types
under different load. When the load is over 60N, the cuttings of
soft yellow sandstone and fine sandstone would fracture. When
the load is 40 to 50N, the 4 rock types can obtain obvious pene-
trating depth. When the load is below 30N, the penetrating depth
of limestone is small and hard to test. The figure presents that
the depth will get deeper with the increase of load. The harder
the rock is, the more load it can bear. The softer the rock is, it is
easier to fracture.
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969
Yellow sandstone Fine sandstone Sandstone Limestone
28.69 38.58 57.18 92.89
267.7 541.3 1013.4 1523.6
Fig. 6. Different depth under different load.
Fig. 7. The curve of relationship between dispersion of the experiment and the
amount of samples.
In accordance with experiment results, loading 50N to inden-
ter of 30◦ angle, the penetrating depth on 4 types of cuttings is
effective and obvious and the rock remains integrity. Therefore,
the load of this experiment is 50N.
3.4. Defining the amount of sample
The small and irregular cuttings leads to dispersion of the
experiment results. To identify the amount of sample, the statistic
analysis was conducted on different amount of cuttings rang-
ing from 10, 15, 20...to 50. The Fig. 7 shows the relation curve
between the discrete coefficient of experiment results and the
amount of sample. The Fig. 8 shows the relation curve between
the average value of penetrating depth of test and the amount of
sample. The Fig. 7 shows that the dispersion will decrease with
the increase of the amount of sample. The Fig. 8 reflects that the
average value of penetrating depth is stable with the increase
of the amount of sample, which means that the fluctuation of
average depth is getting smaller. When the sample reached 25,
the discrete coefficient is around 30%, and the average depth
begins to become stable. The study of rock mechanic shows that
the dispersion of strength of rocks is between 15% and 40% (Xu
and Yu, 1984). Therefore, under the precondition that the ex-
periment results meet the rule and requirement of statistics, the
experiment takes 30 rock samples to improve the effectiveness of
the experiment.
3966
L. Chen, X. Chen, Y.-x. Yang et al.
Table 2
The average penetrating depth of different cuttings.
Category of rocks Yellow sandstone
Average penetrating depth, mm 0.317
Fig. 8. The changing trend of penetrating depth alone with the amount of
samples.
Fig. 9. The stuck and polished cuttings.
4. Analyzing experiment results and establishing models
4.1. The test and results of experiment
The cuttings with certain granularity is selected and stuck on
the platen. The cuttings are polished with sandpaper, forming a
plane with an area of over 1 mm (shown in Fig. 9). The acicular in-
denter penetrates in the cuttings with 50N load, recording the
depth within 30 s to 2 min after penetrating in (shown in Fig. 10).
Table 2 shows the average penetrating depth of 30 cuttings of
these four types.
4.2. Establishing models
(1) The model of relationship between penetrating depth and
uniaxial compressive strength
In Fig. 11, the curve shows the relationship between aver-
age penetrating depth and uniaxial compressive strength. The
depth increases with uniaxial compressive strength getting big-
ger. Through analysis, the penetrating depth and uniaxial com-
pressive strength are correlated, and the logarithmic function has
sound fitting results. Correlation coefficient R is 0.99. Significance
probability P is 0.002. F of F-test (also known as joint hypothesis
test) is 548.423. The significance of regression equation demon-
strates that if the significance probability P is lower than the
3967
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969
Fine sandstone Sandstone Limestone
0.248 0.202 0.118
Fig. 10. The penetrating experiment.
Fig. 11. The relationship between penetrating depth and uniaxial compressive
strength of rocks.
significance level α = 0.05, the regression equation has meaning
of significance, and P < 0.01 shows that the regression equation
is highly significant. In the experiment, the number of samples
for regression is 4. The F-test table tells when α = 0.05, Fcritical
is 6.388. The regression function satisfies F ≫Fcritical . It indicates
that the degree of significance test of logarithmic function is very
significant. Therefore, the penetrating depth and uniaxial com-
pressive strength fits the relation model of logarithmic function,
which means:
σ = −67.19 ln (H ) − 51.04 (3)
Wherein, σ is uniaxial compressive strength (MPa); H is pene-
trating depth (mm), penetrating load 50N.
(2) The model of relationship between depth of penetrating
and hardness
The Fig. 12 shows the curve of relationship between average
penetrating depth and hardness of four rocks types. The depth
decreases with the increase of hardness. With the same way of
analysis, the penetrating depth of cuttings and the hardness of
rock have sound correlation. The linear function has the best
fitting results. The penetrating depth of cuttings and the hardness
of rock fit the linear relationship model, which means:
p = −6549.2H + 2287.2 (4)
Wherein, p is the hardness of rocks (MPa); H is penetrating depth
(mm), penetrating load 50N.
L. Chen, X. Chen, Y.-x. Yang et al. Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969

Table 3
The comparison of experiment results of uniaxial compressive strength, hardness and penetrating test of cores.
Cores Penetrating depth (mm) Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) Errors (%) Hardness (MPa) Errors %
Value of actual test Calculating value Value of actual test Calculating value
1# 0.336 28.29 22.24 −21.38 103.6 86.7 −16.31
2# 0.187 60.64 61.61 1.60 1088.4 1062.5 −2.38
3# 0.243 40.93 44.01 7.53 599.7 695.7 16.01
4# 0.023 238.90 202.42 −15.27 1969.5 2136.6 8.48
5# 0.123 105.49 89.76 14.91 1331.2 1481.6 11.30

(3) The ‘‘penetrating without fracture’’ testing method can re-

duce the dispersion of testing data, having more accurate results
than the existing cuttings methods.
The new method is an effective tool to obtain the parameters
of rock mechanic of the formation timely and accurately in the
process of drilling.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lian Chen: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Xu

Chen: Writing-original. Ying-xin Yang: Methodology. Er-shuai
Li: Investigation. Shi-wei Niu: Resources.

Fig. 12. The relationship between penetrating depth and hardness of rocks.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The research work was supported by Postdoctoral Science

Foundation of China (Grant No. 2021M693909), and National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51304168 and
51374176).
Fig. 13. Drilled core.
References

5. Application of model
After obtaining the models of relationship between penetrat-
ing depth of cuttings and uniaxial compressive strength of rock,
and between penetrating depth and hardness, we test and apply
the models. Fig. 13 shows the drilled core. In the application, tests
of uniaxial compressive strength and hardness were conducted
on the core and penetrating tests were carried out on relevant
cuttings. Table 3 illustrates the tests of uniaxial compressive
strength and hardness as well as the penetrating depth (average).
Substituting the depth of penetrating into formula (3) and (4).
As shown in the table, the calculating value of the models fits
real test value of uniaxial compressive strength and hardness, the
error is within 21.38% and 16.31% respectively. It demonstrates
the high accuracy and applicability of the models.
6. Conclusion
(1) This new method takes cuttings as research object and
proposes the penetrating method featuring ‘‘penetrating without
fracture’’ to obtain rock mechanics by test penetrating depth. The
new method is simple and easy to operate.
(2) In this paper, relationship models between penetrating
depth and uniaxial compressive strength, and between penetrat-
ing depth and hardness, are established and applied. The error
of the application is small. The penetrating method is reasonable
and relation models are more accurate and applicable.
Bond, D.F., 1990. The optimization of PDC bit selection using sonic velocity
profiles present in the Timor sea. Soc. Petrol. Eng. Drill. Eng. 5, 135–142.
Bruce, S., 1990. A mechanical stability log. In: IADC/SPE 19942. pp. 275–281.
Chai, H., Li, N., Xiao, C.W., et al., 2009. Automatic discrimination of sedimentary
facies and lithology of reef beach reservoir by imaging logging. Appl.
Geophys. 6 (01), 17–29 + 102.
Chang, Y.H., Yao, Y., Liu, Y., et al., 2020. Can cuttings replace cores for porosity
and pore size distribution analyses of coal? Int. J. Coal Geol. 227, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2020.103534.
Chen, Mian, 2004. Review of study on rock mechanics at great depth and its
applications to petroleum engineering of China. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 23
(14), 2455–2462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02911033.
Cook, J.M., Thiercelin, M., 1989. Indentation resistance of shale: the effects of
stress state and strain rate. In: The 30th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
USRMS, American Rock Mechanics Association, pp. 757–764.
Deere, D.U., Miller, R.P., 1966. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for
Intact Rock. Technical Report NO: AFWL-TR-65-116.
Di, S.H., Hong, J., P, L.Y.U., et al., 2019. Method for fracturability evaluation of
tight oil reservoirs in the Shulu Sag. Logging Technol. 43 (05), 536–541. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.16489/j.issn.1004-1338.2019.05.018, (in Chinese and abstract
in English).
Ge, H.K., Song, L.L., Lin, Y.S., et al., 2002. Primary study on testing of cuttings
acoustic velocity and micro hardness. Petroleum Drilling Techniques 02, 1–3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-0890.2002.02.001, (in Chinese).
Kang, Y.Z., 2013. Status of world hydrocarbon resource potential and strategic
thinking of overseas oil and gas projects for China. Nat. Gas Ind. 03, 1–
4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3787/j.issn.1000-0976.2013.03.001, (in Chinese and
abstract in English).
Kuang, Y.C., Wang, Y.P., Liu, H.Q., et al., 2010. Modeling on physical and
mechanical properties of rock based on well-logging data. In: Proceedings of
the National Conference on Metallogenic Theory and New Methods for Deep
Exploration and Key Technologies for Exploration and Development. China
Society of territorial economists, (in Chinese).

3968
L. Chen, X. Chen, Y.-x. Yang et al.
Lei, Q., Xu, Y., Yang, Z.W., et al., 2021. Progress and development direction of
ultra-deep oil and gas reservoir reconstruction technology. Petrol. Explor.
Dev. 48 (1), 193–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.11698/PED.2021.01.18, (in Chinese
and abstract in English).
Li, J.N., Xie, H.P., Chen, L., et al., 2020. Exploring deep-rock mechanics through
mechanical analysis of hard-rock in situ coring system. Adv. Civ. Eng. (4),
1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8899156.
Li, B., Yang, C.L., Liu, Y., 2005. Rock mechanical properties according to hardness
and plasticity coefficient of rock cuttings. Chin. J. Underground Space Eng.
06, 915–917+939, (in Chinese and abstract in English).
Liu, G.Q., 2021. Challenges and countermeasures of log evaluation in
unconventional petroleum exploration. Petrol. Explor. Dev. (05), 1–12
http://dx.doi.org/10.11698/PED.2021.05.02, (in Chinese and abstract in
English).
Liu, C.Y., Dong, S.B., Yan, F.P., et al., 2011. Status quo trend of petroleum logging
technology. J. Chengde Petrol. College 13 (2), 12–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3969/j.issn.1003-5400.2013.06.132, (in Chinese and abstract in English).
Marsala, A.F., Zausa, F., Martera, M.D., et al., 1997. Sonic while drilling: have you
thought about cuttings? SPE Form. Eval. 12 (02), 77–84.
Meyers, A.G., Hunt, S.P., Behr, S., et al., 2005. Point load testing of drill cuttings
for the determination of rock strength. In: Alaska Rocks, the 40th US Sym-
posium on Rock Mechanics. USRMS, American Rock Mechanics Association,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19447023908659324.
Nes, O.M., Horsrud, P., Sonstebo, E.F., et al., 1996. Rig-site and laboratory use
of CWT acoustic velocity measurements on cuttings. Euro. Petrol. Conf. Soc.
Petrol. Eng. 1 (04), 282–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/50982-PA.
Nes, O.M., Sonstebo, E.F., Horsrud, P., et al., 1998. Dynamic and static measure-
ments on mm-size shale samples. In: SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Qu, H.Z., Zhang, F.X., Wang, Z.Y., et al., 2016. Quantitative fracture evaluation
method based on core-image logging: A case study of cretaceous bashijiqike
formation in ks2 well area, kuqa depression, Tarim Basin, NW China. Petrol.
Explor. Dev. 43 (03), 425–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.11698/PED.2016.03.13.
Ringstad, C., Lofthus, E.B., Sonstebo, E.F., et al., 1998. Prediction of rock param-
eters from micro-indentation measurements: the effect of sample size. In:
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Santarelli, F.J., Detienne, J.L., Zundel, J.P., 1991. The use of a simple index test in
petroleum rock mechanics. In: The 32nd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
USRMS, American Rock Mechanics Association.
Santarelli, F.J., Marsala, A.F., Brignoli, M., et al., 1998. Formation evaluation from
logging on cuttings. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 1 (03), 238–244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36851-PA.
3969
Energy Reports 8 (2022) 3964–3969
Santarelli, F.J., Zaho, S., Burrafato, G., et al., 1996. Wellbore stability analysis made
easy and practical. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Steiger, R.P., Leung, P.K., 1993. U.S. patent no. 5, 205, 164. Washington, DC: U.S.
patent and trademark office.
Tong, X.G., Zhang, G.Y., Wang, Z.M., et al., 2018. Distribution and potential of
global oil and gas resources. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 45 (4), 727–736. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(18)30081-8.
Uboldi, V., Civolani, L., Zausa, F., 1999. Rock strength measurements on cuttings
as input data for optimizing drill bit selection. In: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wang, G.H., Cheng, Y.F., Liang, H.S., 2003. Method to determine the formation
mechanical properties with cuttings microhardness. Petrol. Drill. Tech. 03,
7–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-0890.2003.03.003, (in Chinese).
Wang, Q., Gao, S., Jiang, B., et al., 2018. Rock-cutting mechanics model and its
application based on slip-line theory. Int. J. Geomech. 18 (5), 04018025.1-
04018025.10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001136.
Wang, C., He, B., Hou, X., et al., 2020. Stress-energy mechanism for rock failure
evolution based on damage mechanics in hard rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
53 (3), 1021–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01953-y.
Xie, S.J., Ling, H., Chen, Y.F., et al., 2021. A new nonlinear empirical strength
criterion for rocks under conventional triaxial compression. J. Central South
Univ. 28 (05), 1448–1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11771-021-4708-8.
Xu, X.H., Yu, J., 1984. Rock Breakage. China Coal Industry Publishing House, (in
Chinese).
Yan, T., Xu, R., Sun, W.F., et al., 2021. Similarity evaluation of stratum anti-drilling
ability and a new method of drill bit selection. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 48 (02),
386–393.
Zausa, F., Civolani, L., Brignoli, M., et al., 1997. Real-time wellbore stability
analysis at the rig-site. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/37670, MS.
Zausa, F., Santarelli, F.J., 1995. A new method to determine rock strength from
an index test on fragments of very small dimension. In: 8th ISRM Congress.
International Society for Rock Mechanics.
Zeng, Y.J., Liu, J.L., 2005. Present situation and development trend of deep
and ultra deep well drilling technology. Petrol. Drill. Tech. 33 (5), 1–5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12253/j.issn.2096-3661.2020.18.546.
Zhang, Z.P., Li, G.S., Weng, X.F., 2004. Study on the technology and feasibility of
drilling cuttings. Petrol. Drill. Tech. 32 (6), 4–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.
issn.1001-0890.2004.06.002, (in Chinese).
Zou, D.Y., Cheng, Y.F., Liu, H.Q., 2004. Testing study on rock drillability evaluation
by acoustic velocity of cutting. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 14, 2439–2443, (in
Chinese and abstract in English) YSLX.0.2004-14-030.