IADC/SPE 102287
Improved Optimisation of Bit Selection Using Mathematically Modelled Bit-Performance
Indices
John Clegg, SPE, and Steve Barton, SPE, ReedHycalog
Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Bangkok, Thailand, 13–15 November 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors and 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 where and by whom
the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-
3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Despite the development of models describing
Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bit performance, bit
selection is often made on the basis of visible, geometric
features.
Bits can now be modelled routinely and described in terms
of their technical interaction with the drilling assembly and the
formation. Selection on the basis of modelling and this
interaction is novel and valuable, and will make for more
consistent selection and improved performance.
A new set of performance indices is presented for PDC
bits. These are derived from a sophisticated mathematical
model and describe performance in terms of:
• ROP – Rate of Penetration, or how fast the bit will
drill for a given Weight on Bit (WOB)
• Durability – how resistant the bit is to abrasive wear
• Stability – how resistant the bit is to lateral vibration
• Steerability – how the bit responds to side forces and
therefore how steerable it is on Rotary Steerable
Systems.
Once the relative importance of each index is established,
the optimal bit for the specific application can be selected.
A specialist interface is presented for Rotary Steerable
Systems. Using this, the user can input system type (from the
variety of systems available) and well profile, and the software
will create a list of bits ranked by decreasing suitability, based
on a variety of factors including some aspects of bit geometry
but primarily mathematically modelled response.
The paper presents results from pilot studies and
demonstrates a scientific and rational approach to bit selection
– giving not only improved but also more consistent and
reliable results.
Introduction
All bit designs can be described in terms of their
performance. Historically, this was done by recording actual
performance in bit records and using examples of good
performance, in close offsets, to justify repeat runs of specific
designs. To a limited extent, this technique can be effective,
but the danger is that because not all possible options are
considered, it is by no means assured that the bit selected will
be optimum for the application.
As the art of roller cone bit design, and subsequently of
PDC bit design, matured, it became possible to select bits
based on basic geometric features. For example, the IADC
coding systems were developed for roller-cone and PDC bit
design classification1, 2, and PDC bits have increasingly been
characterised in terms of their blade count and cutter size.
So, for example, a PDC bit with many blades would be
selected for a hard or abrasive formation – or a bit with few
blades and large cutters where penetration rate was most
important.
As easy as they are to understand, these simplistic
classification systems miss the point. As will be seen, there
are subtle differences between bit designs that can lead to
significant changes in bit performance.
Others have recently shown how bits can be ranked in
terms of performance in specific case histories, as an aid to bit
selection and optimisation3. There have also been publications
of methods of classification of bits according to geometric
features, for example cutting profile, number of blades and
number of cutters4, 5.
Over the last decade, sophisticated PDC bit models have
been developed that allow the loads on each bit design feature,
as a result of interaction with the formation, whether it be
cutting or rubbing, to be calculated6, 7.
2 IADC/SPE 102287
Features that can be modelled include, but are not limited
to, PDC cutters (both primary and secondary), diamond
impregnated buttons, tungsten carbide wear inserts, gauge
pads, gauge trimmers and, of course, the bit body itself.
Once the loads on each component are calculated, they can
be summed to give total loads on the bit. Thus WOB and
Torque on Bit (TOB) can be calculated for a specific Depth of
Cut (DOC) while drilling ahead in a particular formation.
In addition, the bit can be forced, in the model, to deviate
from drilling straight ahead and resultant displacements and
loadings calculated. This allows dynamic and directional bit
behaviours to be analyzed.
Finally, knowledge of component loading allows
component wear to be predicted.This knowledge of relative
performance can be used to calculate non-dimensional indices
that allow a consistent and reliable comparison of one bit to
another. As will be shown later in the paper, the indices are
interdependent. Hence it is vital that the importance of each is
ranked to enable the optimal bit to be selected for that specific
application.
Calculation of Bit Indices
A proprietary software program referred to in this paper as
the Drilling Model (DM) is used to calculate the four indices
for a bit. The following sections describe, in turn, how each of
the indices is calculated. Note that the current list is not
exhaustive and as our understanding of bits improves still
further, new indices can be derived to more completely
describe bit characteristics and response.
ROP (Aggressivity) Index
This is simply calculated using the DM, which simulates
all loads on the bit, sums them and iterates to find the ROP
that would result from applying a specific WOB while drilling
at a reference RPM in a reference formation. The specific
WOB is a function of bit diameter, in order to make index
values similar across the range of sizes.
Comparing with a reference ROP and normalizing then
gives a simple index. A low index value represents a bit with
a low ROP response to increasing WOB (an unaggressive bit)
and a high value represents a bit which responds strongly to
WOB (an aggressive bit).
The index so calculated is representative of the response of
a bit at a typical ROP and in sharp (unworn) condition. The
effects of any secondary elements (diamond inserts, for
example) would only be apparent if these were designed to
contact the rock with a sharp bit and at the reference ROP. As
will be seen below, the index is used to shortlist bits for a
candidate application and once this has been done, the DM can
be used to simulate actual run conditions and model behaviour
more thoroughly.
Durability Index
Durability is considered to be a function of how quickly a
bit will wear and is related to the volume of useable
Polycrystalline Diamond (PCD) in the design. This is not
necessarily the same as the total PCD volume, as a part of
each cutter is likely to be set below the blade of the bit and
therefore of little use for effective drilling. This is why simply
comparing cutter counts, or sizes, is a poor way of assessing
relative durability of bits.
To calculate the durability index using the DM, a two-
dimensional region is defined. This region is bounded by:
• a notional profile defined by the tips of the many PDC
cutters on the bit;
• a profile offset from this first profile, representing the
extent of useable PCD;
• the bit axis; and
• a line representing the gauge of the hole.
The bit is then rotated about its axis with zero ROP to
determine the positions of all cutters as they pass through the
band. The model then determines the total PCD height “hc”
within the band, as a function of radius, across the whole bit
radius. The value of hc for a single cutter is the length of PCD
measured parallel to the bit axis contained within the band.
The values of hc for all cutters at a particular radius R are then
summed to give a total hc at that R. So the total
hc = Σhci for i = 1 to n
where n is the number of cutters present at that radius.
However, the wear suffered by any PDC cutter is also a
function of its radial position8, 9. As radius increases, so does
volume of rock removed, and so does tangential velocity of
the cutter. Both of these effects tend to increase wear of the
cutter and so, for a given radial position on the bit, a Wear
Number WN is calculated whereby
WN = Rn/hc
where n is a power greater than 1.
This Wear Number is plotted against radius R and a
Durability Index can be calculated from the curve. This can
be done either by looking at the total value of the area under
the curve, or by inspection of maxima. The area so derived
will increase for a lighter set bit (as the value of hc will be
smaller) and so is reciprocated and normalized to calculate a
Durability Index.
As above, the index is expressed so that a low value
represents a bit with low wear resistance (low durability) and a
high value represents a bit with high wear resistance (high
durability).
It should be noted that other factors could affect the
durability of a bit. In particular the lateral stability of the bit
has a significant effect on durability- more stable bits resist
IADC/SPE 102287
lateral vibration that lead to cutter impact damage.
Additionally, the number and placement of secondary wear
inserts and hydraulic design are also important and should be
considered in conjunction with the calculated index value.
The selection of cutter type, for example the use of leached
thermostable PDC cutters10, 11, is particularly relevant to
durability and care must be taken to account for this when
comparing bit designs.
Stability Index
The Lateral Stability Index (LSI) represents the resistance
of a bit to lateral instability including backwards whirl. Its
calculation and validation are described elsewhere12.
The LSI is based on the fact that for each application a
Regenerative Force Threshold exists, below which bits are
likely to be stable and above which bits are likely to be
unstable. This regenerative force is normalised to form a
Lateral Stability Index, where a high level of LSI equates to a
very stable bit, and a low level equates to a very unstable bit.
High LSI bit designs can deliver superior vibration
reduction compared with more conventional bit designs,
including “Anti-whirl” designs, resulting in longer, faster runs
and reduced drilling costs12.
Other features can also contribute to bit stability, including
partial or full circumferential gauge rings13 and secondary
wear elements, and should be considered in conjunction with
LSI.
Steerability Index
Bit steerability is based on the Anisotropic Index (AI),
which is widely referenced elsewhere14, 15 and where AI is
defined as:
AI = LDE/ADE
and further where
LDE = Lateral Drilling Effectiveness
= Lateral ROP/Applied Side Force
and
ADE = Axial Drilling Effectiveness
= Axial ROP/WOB.
The Steerability Index therefore indicates how a given
cutting structure design will respond to a bit side force. It is a
function only of the bit cutting structure. In other words the
Steerability Index is a measure of the side cutting capability of
3
the cutting structure. A high value of Steerability Index is not
necessarily “good”. Some directional systems, for example
“push-the-bit” Rotary Steerable tools, require a high side
cutting ability to operate most effectively. Others do not. The
Steerability Index is one of the factors used to determine
suitability of a bit for a particular system, as described further
below.
Interaction Between Indices
The indices described above are not totally independent of
each other. They interact to the extent that is not normally
practical to design a bit where all achieve the maximum value.
Otherwise, there would only be one bit design for each hole
size! These interactions have been explored and two examples
are illustrated below.
Firstly, as shown in Figure 1, there is a clear trade-off
between ROP index and Durability index. The graph shows
that there is trend towards an inverse relationship, which
strongly suggests that while it is easy to design a bit with high
durability and low ROP, or vice-versa, it is much more
difficult to design a bit whereby both indices are high – or
low. This is intuitively correct, as a durable bit will tend to be
heavy-set and slow, while a fast drilling bit will tend to be
light-set and less durable. However, the graph also shows that
the index pairs lie in a band, rather than along a straight line,
and hence that for a given value of one of the indices, it is
possible to design a bit where the other index is maximized.
This allows optimization of a bit for a given application by
getting as close as possible to the top right corner of the graph.
Such optimization is only possible if the indices can be
calculated and the bit design iterated to achieve the best
possible combination.
Figure 2 is equally interesting. It shows the relationship
between Durability and Steerability and while it does not show
a clear trend, it does show a clear bound, beyond which it is
difficult to increase Durability without reducing Steerability.
Again, this is intuitively correct. To make a bit highly durable
requires the bit to be heavy-set, particularly around the
shoulder. A heavy-set shoulder will tend to reduce side-
cutting ability (in the same way as a heavy-set bit drills more
slowly) and therefore high Durability will tend to exclude high
Steerability. However, as above, it is possible, if the indices
can be calculated accurately, to design a bit as close as
possible to the bound.
Bit Selection for Rotary Steerable Systems
Whether it is a Steerable Motor assembly or Rotary
Steerable System, drive technology has advanced
considerably, resulting in a large diversity of tools and one
compelling fact: drill bit designs need to be optimized to the
specific drive, directional requirement, and lithology. This is
not simply a matter of varying gauge length or geometry, and
cannot be resolved with a limited product offering. To provide
solutions truly matched to the system, an extensive range of
features and products is required to provide optimal
4 IADC/SPE 102287
performance. To fulfill this philosophy, the following steps
were implemented:
• Intensive interaction with directional tool suppliers
• Cutting Structure modeling
• Development of innovative features and technologies
• Run performance and analytical techniques
• Field verification tools.
These five aspects are not merely cyclical but fully
interactive, particularly as new challenges in directional
drilling rapidly arise. They have led to an in-depth
understanding of the effect of the drive, lithology, and well
trajectory on the four fundamental drilling characteristics of
ROP, Stability, Durability, and Steerability. The result is an
extensive and comprehensive product offering to provide
system matched solutions for the widest range of directional
drill bit requirements. However, the key question arises: with
all these different bits, which is the correct one for the specific
directional application?
Communication is critical to determining the system
matched solution for a given application, particularly given the
global distribution of directional activity. In order to ensure
consistent and accurate matching of the drill bit to specific
drive and trajectory, an interactive, intranet tool has been
developed for internal optimization of bit selection.
System Matching Tool
This unique software is primarily a specialist interface for
a database that contains logic tables. For each and every
commercial Rotary Steerable tool, a logic table has been
created, which in essence, is a matrix of trajectory requirement
against key characteristics of the drill bit. The latter includes:
1. Length of the drill bit
2. Gauge length
3. Gauge design, including cutting structure, profile, and
geometry
4. Presence or absence of a full or partial ring gauge13
5. Presence or absence of a tapered gauge16
6. Anisotropic Index.
Due to the vast diversity of features required to accomplish
the system matched concept, there are over 20 drill bit
variables assessed within the logic tables, not including the
factors that are encapsulated within the AI calculation.
The trajectory requirement within the matrix is segmented
into multiple options to provide the comprehensive range of
directional objectives in which Rotary Steerable tools are
employed. Aside from segmentation by dogleg requirement
(High, Medium, and Low), it also includes specific objectives
such as Kick-off from vertical and open hole sidetracks. The
effect of hole angle is also incorporated within the matrix,
with options existing for drilling at differing degrees of
inclination, as well as vertical sections with varying bed dip
angles.
For each individual variation in both drill bit characteristic
and trajectory option, a number is entered into the matrix. This
number depicts the degree of match of the feature to the
trajectory, for the specific RS tool. A high score represents an
ideal match, whereas a zero score represents incompatibility.
The number is resultant from the steps identified prior:
intensive communication, research, and testing with the
directional tool providers; mathematical modeling;
development of innovative features and technologies for
specific tools; analysis of the thousands of runs accumulated;
and use of field verification tools and techniques.
The logic tables are linked to an interface, which allows
the user to enter three sets of search criteria:
Bit: The required bit size is the only mandatory factor that
must be entered, though the user has the option to further
define the search with specifics such as blade count and bit
body material.
Tool: The interface has a dropdown menu that lists all
commercial Rotary Steerable tools, plus any alternate
configurations i.e. some tools may be run as either a Push or
Point-the-Bit, depending on its set-up, though still comes
under the same tool name. Each tool and configuration has its
own specific logic table.
Well Profile: A dropdown menu allows the user to select
the best-fit directional objective for the application.
With the bit size, RS tool, and well profile defined, the
search function can commence. This links the specific logic
table to the drill bit characteristics for the entire rotary
steerable product line. For each defined characteristic of the
drill bit, a number is provided from the logic table that
correlates to its suitability to the specific tool and trajectory.
The search results generated provide a list of all the drill bits
of that size with their corresponding total score expressed as a
percentage. The ideal bit design will return a 100% total
score.
The user will have a number of drill bit designs returned
by the SystemMatcher tool. They are arranged in rows, with
each row detailing an individual product or version. These
rows are sorted into ranked, descending order, thus revealing
the optimal designs towards the top of the screen. In addition
to the total score, the results are grouped:
Optimal: This reveals an optimal match of the drill bits
characteristics to the specific RS tool in the well profile
selected.
Adequate: This reveals that the bit will perform
adequately, but less optimally than a bit listed in the Optimal
group.
Incompatible: This relates to a low score, which will be
resultant from the drill bit possessing one or more
characteristics that would be detrimental in combination with
the specific tool and trajectory selected.
IADC/SPE 102287
With access granted to all the company’s employees
worldwide, the SystemMatcher tool allows rapid identification
of the most appropriate designs from the product line.
However, there are additional benefits:
• Effective communication of knowledge and lessons
learnt
• Consistency in bit selection
• Visibility of new products as they are created
• Avoidance of products or features that would be
detrimental to performance
• Simple interface
• Dynamic logic tables.
The last point is critical. The logic tables are continuously
updated based on ongoing communication, testing,
development, and field performance verification. As such,
changes in drill bit requirement are evident within the
SystemMatcher tool immediately.
There are, however, limitations to the tool. The process of
selection is based on compatibility of drill bit characteristics to
the operating mechanism of the tool in a specific trajectory i.e.
Steerability. It does not directly match durability,
Aggressivity, or Stability. This is where we need to interact
the results of the SystemMatcher search tool with these three
remaining indices.
Selection of Bits Using ROP, Durability and Lateral
Stability Indices
A second search tool has been developed for selection of
bits for any application and based on the other three prime
indices. As with the system matcher tool, the first step in
selecting the optimal bit solution is to specify the application.
The application matcher allows the user to weight, or rank, the
importance of indices of Durability, Stability and ROP in a
particular application.
Since there are tradeoffs in these indices, as previously
identified, it is not practical or possible to design a bit that can
drill at the highest ROP and is the most durable in the product
line, for instance. The application matcher tool recognizes this
so that increasing the importance ranking of one index
decreases the other two. The user can lock an index, after
which increasing the importance of an unlocked index
decreases the importance of the third index only.
The bit size is then specified and the option is given to
select a baseline bit, perhaps a bit that has been run in that
application previously.
The tool can be used to conduct a weighted search based
on index values – for example figure 3 shows an application
where ROP is considered most important and where a 5-
bladed bit is used as the baseline for comparison. Figure 4
shows a typical search return – note that in this case the search
has found 10 designs more suited for the application than the
bit initially selected.
5
The fit returned by the application matcher is based on the
sum of the products of the individual indices and their
individual weightings. The indices themselves are not
revealed during the process – they do not need to be. Rather,
the tool recognizes that weighting the importance of
Durability, Stability and ROP in the application and then
searching for a bit that is best matched in terms of its indices is
the key to optimal performance in the field. The technique is
purely comparative – it compares one bit with another. It does
not try to predict exact performance.
Further analysis and display of a shortlist of selected bits
from the search return can then be conducted, giving a more
detailed comparison of the weightings assigned to the three
indices and the fit of each short listed bit.
Case Study 1: SystemMatcher Selection, Gulf of
Thailand.
A significant advancement of the system matcher tool is
the communication of the side cutting capability of the drill
bit. The Anisotropic Index value utilized relates to variation in
the cutting structure, and as such, impossible to determine in
the field based on visible geometric features. The following
example demonstrates how this has a major effect on
directional performance.
The application is a slim hole section within the Gulf of
Thailand to be drilled with a mainstream Push-the-Bit Rotary
Steerable tool. The well profile calls for high dogleg
requirement. Offset experience, in a similar application,
resulted in limited dogleg achievement with a 5 bladed, matrix
bodied, PDC drill bit with 13mm cutting structure. The
SystemMatcher tool was employed to analyze suitability of
the design used. Although bit length scored well, neither the
gauge length nor design was optimal. However, the most
compelling fact was a low AI value, thus limited side cutting
capability of the cutting structure. This design only scored a
73% match and was classified Incompatible due to its low AI
value. This bit was selected based on conventional thinking at
that time. In retrospect, after employing the system matcher,
this bit should not have been used in this application.
The ideal product identified by the system matcher was
actually also a five bladed PDC design with 13mm cutting
structure. Although having the same length and gauge design
as the original bit, this scored a 90% total match and was
color-coded green. Specific variations in the cutting structure,
undetectable by visual examination, resulted in an AI value
more than doubling that of the original bit, and ensuring
suitability for this high dogleg, side force tool application.
With addition of an aggressive gauge design, the final total
score was 95% match, and the bit was suitably recommended
for this directional application. This bit is being run at the time
of authoring this paper.
6 IADC/SPE 102287
Case Study 2: Design of a New Bit Based on
Performance Indices, RS Application in Abu Dhabi.
A six-bladed, 13mm cutter design, shown in Figure 5
below, was developed some years ago for the first slimhole
Rotary Steerable systems. The bit was successful at the time
but is now showing signs of age and a replacement was
commissioned. The replacement was designed specifically to
optimize lateral stability but also to improve the other three
indices, as far as the trade-offs would allow, and the resulting
design is shown in figure 6. The index values were optimized
by iteration, recalculating after each design step. The bit was
designed for a push-the-bit rotary steerable system, and hence
a high Anisotropic Index (AI) was particularly important. In
addition, to ensure wellbore stability, a gauge hole, and no RS
tool damage, lateral stability was considered important and a
high LSI was needed.
The two bits were compared in terms of their application
matched indices (AMI) and the change from the legacy design
to the new design, expressed as a percentage, is shown below:
ROP AMI +21.6%
Durability AMI +7.0%
Stability AMI +12.5%
Steerability AMI +105.9%
It can be seen that despite both bits having 6 blades and
13mm cutters, the new bit is superior in all respects to the
legacy bit. This superiority is only clear after calculation of
the performance indices. It does not contradict the trade-offs
between indices described above – but it does reinforce the
point that can be moved closer to the top right corner if the
indices can be calculated as part of an iterative design process.
Both bits have the same number of blades, and a similar
number of 13mm cutters. How could they be differentiated?
Simply selecting the bit based on the simple criteria of blade
count and cutter size would not have allowed discrimination
between the two designs, and an opportunity for optimization
of performance would have been missed.
Additional features added to the bit include a taper on the
gauge, known to reduce stick-slip events16, and the addition of
depth-of-cut controlling buttons in the centre of the bit, also to
limit stick-slip.
In its first outing, this bit drilled 4,473ft in 71 hours for an
average ROP of 63fph. It drilled the required interval in a
single run while achieving all directional and performance
objectives. The run was longer, and significantly faster, than
the average offsets. Average offset ROP was 47fph.
Maximum dogleg of over 6O/100ft was achieved with no
lateral shocks observed and a 75% reduction in stick-slip
recorded.
Such a performance improvement would not have been
achieved without use of the calculated performance indices in
design of the bit.
Conclusion
There are four indices that substantially describe the
performance of a bit: ROP; Stability; Durability; and
Steerability.
Since the indices are interdependent, it is not possible to
design a bit that is optimal in all four indices. Hence optimal
bit selection relies on being able to first establish the
importance weighting or ranking of each index in a particular
application.
A tool that is capable of calculating the four indices for a
bit allows optimal bits to be developed for application once
the importance rankings are defined for that application.
The indices interact with each other in ways that are
intuitively correct, however the calculation of quantitative
indices allows these interactions to be overcome to the extent
that bits can be optimized for specific applications.
Secondary bit design features can be used to supplement
the index values, for example the use of partial or full
circumferential gauge rings can enhance stability.
Suitability of bits for specific directional drilling systems
can be assessed using a sophisticated search tool,
supplemented by knowledge of the requirements of specific
systems and well profiles, allowing the optimum bit to be
recommended for a given application.
Selection of optimal bits in terms of Durability, Stability
and ROP can be achieved using a tool that first ranks the
importance of the each index and then shortlists bits on the
basis of the sum of the product of the ranking multiplied by
the index for each index.
Many bits which look similar to each other can perform
very differently, and bit selection based on indices gives much
more appropriate bit recommendations than “conventional
wisdom” selection based on coarser, visible measures such as
number of blades or cutter size.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
ReedHycalog in providing the time and resources necessary to
write this paper.
Also, thanks to Alan Jennings for his work in coding the
database searches, Graham Watson for his tireless work
researching and writing the algorithms for the SystemMatcher
tool, David Jelley for creating the DM and devising the index
calculations, and Peter Jun Rui Haw for the analysis of index
interactions.
IADC/SPE 102287
References
1. McGehee, D.Y. et al: “The IADC Roller Bit Classification
System” paper IADC/SPE 23937 presented at the 1992
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 18-21 February.
2. Winters, W.J. and Doiron, H.H.: “The 1987 IADC Fixed Cutter
Bit Classification System” paper IADC/SPE 16142 presented at
the 1987 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 15-18
March.
3. Lenamond, C., et al: “Performance Gains for Rotary Steerable
Through Specialized Bit Design” paper AADE-05-NTCE-46
presented at the AADE 2005 National Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 5-7 April.
4. Menand, S. et al: “Classification of PDC Bits According to
Their Steerability” paper IADC/SPE 79795 presented at the
2003 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 19-21
February.
5. O’Hare, J. et al: “Design Index: A Systematic Method of PDC
Drill-Bit Selection” paper IADC/SPE 59112 presented at the
2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23-25
February.
6. Jelley, D.J. and Wilcox, N.S.: “Method of Determining
Characteristics of a Rotary Drag-Type Drill Bit” United States
patent 6,246,974 June 2001.
7. Barton, S.: “Development of Stable PDC Bits for Specific Use
on Rotary Steerable Systems” paper IADC/SPE 62779 presented
at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 11-13 September.
8. Glowka, D.A.: “Development of a Model for Predicting the
Performance and Wear of PDC Drill Bits” Sandia Report,
SAND86-1745.uc-66c, September 1987.
7
9. Glowka, D.A. and Stone, C.M.: “Effects of Thermal and
Mechanical loading on PDC Bit Life” paper SPE 13257
presented at the 1984 Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE, Houston, 16-19 September.
10. Schell, E.J., Phillippi, D. and Fabian, R.T: “New, Stable PDC
Technology Significantly Reduces Hard Rock Cost per Foot”
paper SPE/IADC 79797 presented at the 2003 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 19-21 February.
11. Clegg, J.M.: Faster, Longer, and More Reliable Bit Runs With
New-Generation PDC Cutter” paper SPE 102067 presented at
the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, 24–27 September.
12. Johnson, S.: “A New Method of Producing Laterally Stable
PDC Drill Bits” paper IADC/SPE 98986 presented at the 2006
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami 21-23 February.
13. Roberts, T.: “Development of a New Concept of Steerable PDC
Bit for Directional Drilling,” paper IADC/SPE 39307 presented
at the 1998 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 3-6 March.
14. Ho, H.S.: “Method and System of Trajectory Prediction and
Control Using PDC Bits” United States patent 5,608,162 March
1997.
15. Clegg, J.M.: “An Analysis of the Field Performance of
Antiwhirl PDC Bits” paper IADC/SPE 23868 presented at the
1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 18-21
February.
16. Niznik, M.R. et al: “A New Approach to Stick-Slip
Management Integrating Bit Design and Rotary-Steerable-
System Characteristics “ papers IADC/SPE 98962 presented at
the 2006 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami 21-23
February.
8 IADC/SPE 102287

Figure 1: Durability Index v ROP Index

Figure 2: Durability Index v Steerability Index

IADC/SPE 102287 9

Figure 3: Weighted Index Search Inputs

Figure 4: Weighted Index Search Results

10 IADC/SPE 102287

Figure 5: Legacy “613” Design Figure 6: New “613” Design