IADC/SPE 27470

An Expert System for Drill Bit Selection

M.J. Fear, * BP Exploration; N.C. Meany, * * Hughes Christensen Co.; and J.M. Evans,
Data Sciences UK Ltd.
'IADC and SPE Member
"IADC Member

Copyright 1994, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference heid in Dallas, Texas, 15-18 February 1994.

This paper was selectad for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following reviaw of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are SUbject to correction by the author(sj. The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication
raview by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT cutter shape.

An expert system has been developed to assist with
the selection of poly-crystalline diamond compact (PDC)
drill bits. The system uses a knowledge base of bit
selection rules to produce a generic description of the
most suitable bit for a particular set of drilling and
geologic conditions. The rules are derived from rigorous
study of foot-based drilling, geology and rock property
data from past bit runs. Compared to conventional bit
selection methods this approach makes more effective
use of past experience, leading to a higher and more
uniform level of bit selection expertise in drilling
operations.
INTRODUCTION
A worldwide review of BPX wells identified that 10-
40% of the dryhole cost of a well is bit related. On one
particular bit run, these costs are composed of the time-
based operating cost of the drilling facility, the duration
required to drill the bit run interval (Le. rate of
penetration), trip frequency, determined from the length
of the interval over which the bit can be kept drilling (bit
life), and the price of the bit itself. This means that
drilling cost is a strong function of the rate of penetration
(ROP) and life provided by the bit. This in turn means
that the suitability of a bit design for drilling in a given
interval is a major factor in bit run cost. On a PDC bit for
example, bit life can vary dramatically with subtle
changes in cutter distribution or the type of gauge
protection materials used, while rate of penetration may
vary substantially with changes in nozzle placement or
The sensitiVity of bit run performance to bit design
implies that good bit selection is crucial if bit-related
costs are to be minimised. Selection of a bit design
which is inappropriate for the conditions encountered
leads to low rate of penetration and/or short bit life, in
turn leading to excess time spent rotating and tripping.
As an example, consider the rate of penetration
achieved on the PDC bit runs listed in table 1. Two bit
styles were used, though both have identical IADC codes
for hydraulic design and cutter size/density (the
characteristics in the IADC classification expected to be
most influential to penetration rate). Despite their
apparent similarity, penetration rate from bit type 2 was
so poor compared to type 1 that the bit was pulled after
drilling only 41 feet. After careful scrutiny of foot-based
mud logging and wireline rock property data, the low
ROP was found to be an effect of cutter shape; bit type 2
had hemispherical PDC cutters which could not be
indented into the relatively hard rock with available
weight on bit. One and a half days of rig time was lost as
a result of the low ROP and consequent trip, compared to
drilling the interval with the first bit type.
This example illustrates that subtle differences in bit
design can be highly influential to drilling performance
and thus to well cost. In this case, the ROP reduction
due to minor variation in the geometry of the cutter tip
(backrake angle) led to a wholly uneconomic bit run.
A systematic approach to bit selection, which
identifies how a bit is expected to perform based on its
design characteristics and predicted geological and
drilling conditions, is a necessary step in optimisation of
bit performance. This paper proposes a means by which
this may be achieved.

References and figures at end of paper

359
2 AN EXPERT SYSTEM FOR DRILL BIT SELECTION
THE CURRENT APPROACH TO BIT SELECTION
Given the obvious incentive to select the most
suitable bit design, tools should exist to assist drilling
engineers in bit selection. In fact, conventional bit
selection methods typically lack access either to
recorded bit selection expertise, to methods to identify
appropriate bit characteristics for the expected drilling
conditions, or to methods to predict performance for
various bit designs. The standard of bit selection is
thus heavily dependent upon the expertise of the
individual engineer, rather than being continually
improved through a process of organisational learning.
There are weaknesses for example in the way
historical data is used to review past bit performance.
Table 2 shows a suite of data typically employed for
this purpose. The information is a bit record, where
details of the bits used and runs made are reduced to
one line of data per bit run. This simple report has the
advantage of being quick to retrieve and review, and is,
with minor variation in format and content, an industry
standard drilling report. However, the brevity of the
data mean that much valuable information on bit
performance and bit selection is missed if more
comprehensive data is not utilised.
These limitations can be shown by reviewing table
2, bit run number 11. It is apparent from the bit record
that this was an unsuccessful run, where both ROP and
footage drilled were low, and the (expensive) bit fatally
damaged by the run end. The weakness of the bit
record however is that the reasons for the poor
performance are not at all apparent. In contrast, figure
1 shows a suite of foot-based mud logging and wireline
data for the problem bit run. Annotated on the log are
the events which, from patterns in the drilling parameter
relationships and their relationship to geology, explain
both the low penetration rate and severe bit damage.
In this case, the interpretation that bit balling caused the
low ROP is as expected from the bit design, which was
heavily set with medium size PDC cutters in an attempt
to provide adequate bit life in the sands. The heavy
cutter density limited space for waterways on the bit
face, in turn limiting bit cleaning capacity.
These observations have great value for future bit
selection under comparible conditions, providing that
guidelines exist into which this latest experience can be
inserted. Such a "knowledge base" is however rare in
bit selection, meaning that it is impossible to
demonstrate that bit selection decisions are made using
the best expertise and knowledge available in the
organisation at that time.
A bit selection process is therefore required which
is more befitting of the associated drilling costs. In
particular, such a process should provide (a) routine
use of foot based data, so that observations of use in
bit selection and performance optimisation are
identified and not missed, and (b) bit selection and
optimisation guidelines, so that expertise can be
recorded, updated, and periodically issued to
operational staff (in essence, a system to facilitate
organisational learning and performance improvement).
360
IADC/SPE 27470
It is clear from simple drilling economics that the
incentive to develop and implement such a process
depends upon the commercial return from improved
penetration rate and bit run duration. This commercial
incentive will be highest in regions where overall
operating costs are high, and prevailing penetration rate
and/or bit life is low. It is worthy of note however, that
previous studies have shown that, on a worldwide
basis, the majority of drilling time is spent drilling at low
penetration rate (1), so that the commercial incentive to
improve bit performance is both strong and
geographically widespread.
In response to this commercial incentive, an
improved bit selection process is being developed. The
bit selection technique at the heart of this process is the
main subject of this paper.
FORM OF THE BIT SELECTION GUIDELINES
The previous section highlighted the need to record
bit selection and optimisation experience from past bit
runs, and to transfer this expertise to operational
communities. Guidelines are needed that can be easily
updated with evolving knowledge, and that can deliver
advice based on the user's particular drilling conditions.
Industry feedback suggested that, in situations
where capture and dissemination of knowledge is
required, and where the efficiency of decision-making
has significant cost implications, expert systems have
proven successful. Other advantages of an expert
system for this application included the capability to add
on automated use of offset data or bit selection
methods based on risk analysis (2), and the tailoring of
bit selection recommendations to the user's own drilling
and geologic conditions. A low cost prototype expert
system was therefore developed, and successfully
demonstrated methods by which bit selection expertise
could be converted into "rules", which could be used to
make objective bit selection recommendations. The
prototype was also used to assess receptiveness of the
intended operational users to a software-assisted bit
selection process. Support was strong.
A decision was therefore made to develop an
operational expert system for bit selection. The
decision was also taken to involve a major drill bit
supplier in the development and implementation of the
system. Such a joint development was expected to
enhance the expertise contained within the system, and
to encourage other suppliers to develop a more
systematic approach to bit selection.
OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL DESIGN OF THE
EXPERT SYSTEM
At the outset, a number of functional objectives
were set for the expert system. First, the system would
initially target the selection of one class of bit only, to
minimise development cost and risk. PDC bits were
chosen, since they are a source of ROP improvement
over other classes of bit in many applications. Second,
bit selection recommendations from the system were to
relate to the user's specific drilling and geologic
IADC/SPE 27470 FEAR, M.J., MEANY, N.C., EVANS, J.M.
conditions, rather than to generalised geological
scenarios. Third, system recommendations would
define the acceptability of individual bit features for
various drilling and geologic conditions, and would build
these into a generic description of a suitable bit.
Classifying bits by the IADC classification was not used
because this classification scheme is not based on
expected performance, it is more descriptive of
materials used and bit geometry. Consideration of real
bit designs was also excluded, due to the speed with
which PDC bit product lines change, and the
consequent difficulty in updating the system. Users
also preferred the educational value of a generic bit
description. Fourth, geologic information would be
described by lithology· and wireline log measurements
rather than local stratigraphy, so that bit feature
recommendations could be derived from, and applied,
in any geographic area where the relevant geologic
criteria were met. Fifth, the system would not attempt
cost-based bit selection methods (e.g. by risk analysis),
since reliable prediction of penetration rate and run
duration for a planned PDC bit run is not yet feasible.
Sixth, since individual bit features were to be related to
facets of drilling conditions, a large rule base was
foreseen. This implied use of a formal rule generation
and organisation process to ensure manageability of
the rule base. Last, the system was to be developed
using hardware and software compatible with the
drilling database "DEAP". DEAP is a platform for
drilling engineering applications in drilling operations
(3). This stipulated that the system be developed on a
Unix platform, in an X windows/Motif environment.
In summary, the objective of the expert system is to
identify appropriate bit characteristics for use in a
particular set of geologic and drilling conditions. The
output would be a generic description of a suitable bit
for the interval to be drilled, which could then be
compared to available products at the procurement
stage, or could be used to initiate design and
manufacture of appropriate products by bit designers.
The expert system is therefore aimed at two main
categories of user; those involved in rule development
and maintenance of the knowledge base, and those
using the system to generate bit selection or design
recommendations. This is reflected in the structure of
the system, which is divided into two modules; the rule
management facility, and the bit advisor module.
These modUles, and their component parts, are shown
schematically in figure 2.
In the rule management facility, functions exist to
define those bit features and facets of the drilling and
geologic conditions for which rules are required, to
construct the rules, and to manage and update the rule
sets. In the bit advisor module, facilities exist to enter
data to describe expected drilling and geologic
conditions for the interval to be drilled, to generate
assessments of suitable PDC bit features for use under
those conditions, and to review the rules responsible for
the recommendations.
THE KNOWLEDGE BASE AND RULE MANAGEMENT
FACILITY
361
3
The knowledge base has been constructed by first
identifying which bit features, and facets of the
operating conditions, are to be used to construct rules.
A constraint here is that using too many of these bit and
drilling conditions "attributes" will result in a very large
and unwieldy rule base. In the current system,
attributes used are restricted to those most influential to
PDC bit performance.
An example of where a rule requirement exists is
the effect of open face (or "junk slot") volume on a PDC
bit, when hydratable rock is being drilled with water
base mud. The open face volume influences the ease
with which drilled material can be evacuated from
around the bit, and is a strong influence on ROP in
sticky formations. The system therefore requires a rule
to stipulate appropriate values of open face volume for
a PDC bit under these conditions.
Similarly, certain facets of drilling and geologic
conditions may affect the suitability of a particular bit
design. Carbide gauge protection may for example be
perfectly adequate when a sand section is to be drilled
with a rotary bottomhole assembly (BHA) at low
inclination, whereas a more abrasion-resistant diamond
guage may give better performance if the same interval
were to be drilled with a motor BHA in an inclined
section. In this case, a rule would be required to relate
preferred gauge protection to lithology, BHA type, and
inclination.
Once the rule requirements have been defined,
individual rules can be constructed. One such rule is
shown in figure 3. This rule shows required values of
bit open face volume in formations where bit balling is a
risk (here simplified to "shale"), and when the drilling
fluid is water based. Note that the wireline resistivity
measurement is used as a simple indicator of the
degree of compaction of a shale, and by implication, its
tendency to exacerbate bit cleaning problems.
This rule highlights a number of properties of the
expert system rules in general. First, the rules are
graphical, with the values of the bit feature as the y-
axis, and the operating conditions attribute as the x-
axis. This prOVides a smooth relationship between the
bit and operating conditions attributes, which is
essential when any value of the operating conditions
attribute can be chosen by an operational user.
Second, each bit feature is defined in terms of its
acceptability. This is divided into three categories;
preferred, showing the range of values in the bit feature
expected to give best bit performance; acceptable,
showing compromise bit feature values that may need
to be used because of other considerations; and
rejected, showing bit feature values that would give
unacceptable performance.
As part of the rule generation process, the context
within which each rule is to be applied must be defined.
In other words, the system must recognise from the
expected drilling and geologic conditions, which rules
are to be applied for which intervals. In addition, this
process must recognise that while each rule relates one
bit feature to one property of the downhole conditions,
other conditions may negate the rule or change its
4 AN EXPERT SYSTEM FOR DRILL BIT SELECTION
form. The rule shown in figure 3 for example would be
different if the mud type was oil based. In such a case,
the mud prevents bit balling, leaving greater freedom in
acceptable bit designs.
Defining the context within which particular rules
are to be used has been handled in the system by use
of a "rule tree". This is shown in figure 4. The rule tree
defines the scenario within which each rule is to be
applied in terms of lithology and mud type. These two
attributes were chosen since almost every rule has
some dependence on mud and/or rock type. One rule
tree is used for each combination of bit feature and
attribute of the drilling/geological conditions.
The rule tree is used as follows; when the need for
a rule has been identified, the rule is constructed as
shown in figure 3. It is then placed in a blank rule tree,
and linked to the mud and rock types within which the
rule is valid. The rule tree then prompts for all other
mud and rock "branches" to be terminated with
variations on the rule, so that all possible mud/rock
combinations available to operational users will give
information on the selection of that bit feature. The rule
tree therefore helps to ensure that there are no gaps in
the rule base; a critical consideration for reliable system
operation.
Between the individual rules and the lithology
section of the rule tree, further criteria to control the
application of rules can be defined. These are termed
"activation criteria", and test another property of the
downhole conditions or bit features before applying a
rule. This feature is especially useful when a suitable
range of a bit feature is dependent upon another bit
feature. For example, the preferred number of cutters
required to drill a particular interval will depend in part
upon the predominant cutter diameter on the bit. The
activation criteria order and handle this process.
In the current system, rule sets are split up by hole
size. This is because many of the values of
acceptability for bit features are valid only for one hole
size. For each hole size, the available rule set can be
viewed through another rule management tool, the rule
requirement matrix. This is shown in figure 5. The rule
requirement matrix shows which bit features and facets
of the operating conditions are linked by rules, and
whether the rules are currently enabled (individual rules
can be disabled for troubleshooting purposes).
Properties of the downhole conditions can also be
deemed mandatory or optional, the former meaning
that the system will not run the rule base for a planned
interval of drilling unless this information is provided.
The rule requirement matrix also indicates whether
rules need to be updated after changes to the
definitions of bit features or properties of the downhole
conditions.
Facilities exist within the rule management module
to expand the system to cater for other classes of bit
(roller cone, natural diamond etc). Appropriate
flexibility exists in definition of new bit features or
properties of downhole conditions should these need to
be changed for other bit classes.
OPERATING PRACTICES INFORMATION
362
IADC/SPE 27470
In addition to bit feature recommendations, the
system contains a facility to make other
recommendations that may aid bit performance. Such
recommendations may be relevant only to certain types
of drilling and geologic conditions, but may not be
suitable for encoding into rules. Examples could
include advice to run surface drive system control
equipment to suppress torsional slip-stick vibration in
hard formations, or information on the most appropriate
drilling parameter combinations for certain formations
or bits. This information is termed "operating practices"
in the expert system.
Activation of operating practices information is
triggered with a similar mechanism to that of the rules.
In other words, each item of operating practices
information is linked to facets of the drilling and
geologic conditions, and display of the information is
made if the same conditions are recognised in the
interval to be drilled.
GENERATING RULES FROM BIT RUN DATA
The expert system requires that objective bit
selection rules be generated from observations of past
bit performance. Use of foot-based data is preferred for
this purpose, so that observations of bit design effects
are clear enough to be formulated into expert system
rules. Integrated data sets of mud logging, wireline,
geology, survey and bit data are normally used
wherever available. Bit record data is inadequate for
this work.
The main requirement from analysis of field data is
to isolate which features of a bit are responsible for
varying performance. For instance, from the data in
table 1, knOWing only that bit type 2 drills at low ROP in
these formations is of little value to the expert system
knowledge base. What is important, and what really
improves future bit selection, is a knowledge of what it
was about that bit that made it drill slowly. That
particular feature can then be avoided under similar
conditions in future, while other, perhaps beneficial,
features of the same bit can continue to be safely
exploited. Thus, the generic description of a suitable bit
can be built up.
One example of how field data can be analysed to
determine bit feature effects on performance relates to
the rule shown in figure 3. In this case, the rule
requires values of open face volume that have been
shown, by correlation to ROP in water based mud/shale
applications, to give varying efficiency of bit cleaning.
To derive this rule, averages of foot-based (mUd
logging) data were used to quantify the relationship of
ROP to other drilling variables. For a group of PDC bit
runs in water based mUd, bit hydraulic horsepower and
bottomhole pressure were found by regression analysis
to be the dominant effects on ROP. A simple empirical
model developed to relate these three variables gave
an r-squared value of 0.881, from 13 samples; Use of
this model to normalise ROP for these drilling
variables, within one lithology, duly revealed the bit
design effect on ROP. This is shown in figure 6, as a
IADC/SPE 27470 FEAR, M.J., MEANY, N.C., EVANS, J.M.
plot of the ratio of actual to model ROP, versus the
open face volume of the six bit designs in the data set.
Incorporating this bit property into the ROP analysis
improved the fit of the model; r-squared rose to 0.934.
From this correlation between normalised ROP and
the bit feature, a rule can be generated to stipulate (for
example) no less than 200 cubic inches of open face
volume, in order to maximise ROP. Other rules would
temper this by stipulating more durability if more
arduous fomations were to be drilled in conjunction with
the shale, so that a greater cutter count would reduce
available open face volume.
In this exercise, it is critical to consider properties of
the bit that can feasibly affect performance. In the
above example, open face volume was preferred over
junk slot area since the latter is less useful in terms of
expected performance. It is again worthy of note that
the IADC classification for fixed cutter bits does not
consider many bit features that are influential to
performance.
Other rules in the system have, where possible,
been developed with similar objectivity. For example,
the durability of different styles of PDC bit in highly
abrasive applications (e.g. motor drilling of hard sands)
has been found to depend heavily on the shoulder
profile of the bit (cutter density), and cuttings removal
capacity at the outer part of the bit (a function of nozzle
diversity and applied hydraulic energy). Rules
therefore exist to make stipulations on bit profile, cutter
count, and nozzle count, in such applications.
Some examples of additional rules in the system
include those to relate bit cutter count to lithology,
hardness and thickness, bit body material (erosion
resistance) to applied hydraulic energy and lithology,
gauge protection materials to BHA type, inclination and
lithology, and gauge length to required well profile
(steerability).
GENERATING BIT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
SYSTEM
The bit advisor module is the part of the system
where bit selection and optimisation recommendations
are generated, based on a description of expected
geology and drilling conditions.
The operational user or bit designer is first required
to provide a suite of information on the interval to be
drilled (usually one hole section of constant size). This
"operating conditions" data includes descriptions of
each major lithologic layer, minor lithologies, average
rock properties for each lithology (using wireline
measurements), drilling fluid type and density, well
profile information by depth (inclination, azimuth),
expected bottomhole assembly types by depth (Le.
motor type, or rotary), and other drilling variables.
Some variables are then calculated from these data,
including expressions of required dog-legs, and
overbalance pressure. Other variables exist to record
the expected incidence of vibration or mechanically
unstable formations.
The system includes logic to sort these data for
processing by rules, so that the depth range over which
363
5
each item of data applies is known. For example, a
rock property would be deemed an attribute of a major
or minor lithologic layer. This logic is used to divide the
interval to be drilled into "zones", within which the rules
can work to provide one recommended set of bit
features.
Once the interval to be drilled, has been described
and the zones defined, the rule base is run. A
description of suitable bit features will be provided for
each zone within the interval. All bit features present
on the vertical axis of the rule requirement matrix for
that hole size (fig. 5), and for which rules exist, will be
covered by the recommendations. The mechanism of
rule processing is described in the next section.
The rule recommendations are presented adjacent
to the hole section details, and list the bit features most
suitable for use in each zone interval. The combination
of these features provides the generic description of the
suitable bit, in each zone. An example of the bit
feature recommendations by zone is shown in figure 7.
On the output screen, these are aligned to correspond
to the interval over which each generic bit description
applies. Flexibility exists to zoom in on particular
intervals for full display; otherwise a chosen sub-set of
critical bit features will be displayed next to the hole
section details. Figure 8 is an example of a display
combining hole section details and bit features, and
showing the zone structure. Note how the sub-division
of major lithologic layers into zones is made on the
basis of changes in other important variables such as
mud type, BHA type or well profile.
At this point, some refinement to the bit
recommendations is required. It is obvious that the hole
section will not be drilled with bit runs corresponding in
depth to the zones defined by the expert system. This
reflects the common practice of selecting compromise
bit designs to drill a number of intervals, thus
minimising trip time for bit changes. The expert system
caters for this by allowing definition of expected bit run
intervals, based on a comparison of generic bit
descriptions from the zones. In other words,
commonality in bit descriptions between adjacent zones
means that some zones can be merged and a
compromise bit sought.
Defining target bit runs in this way then triggers the
rule base to be re-run. The same processing logic as
applied to the zones now produces a generic bit
description for each (extended) bit run interval. An
example of a partial set of recommendations for bit run
intervals is shown in figure 9. Note that the bit run
intervals encompass a number of zones.
Accompanying the bit feature recommendations is
the operating practices information that is designed to
aid bit performance once the bit has been selected.
Figure 10 shows a window of operating practices
information, for one zone. In this case, advice is
provided on how to combat PDC cutter breakage and
vibration, both being anticipated in this zone.
Following definition of the programme of generic
bits, the operational user can then compare each with
available products, and recommend the products with
closest resemblance. Alternatively, the bit designer can
6 AN EXPERT SYSTEM FOR DRILL BIT SELECTION
use the suite of features described as suitable by the
system to initiate design of a new product.
REVIEWING SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
To develop the confidence of operational users in
the expert system, and to aid trouble-shooting, facilities
have been included to review system
recommendations. These rule review facilities also
show how the logic from many rules combines to
deliver a bit feature recommendation for one zone or bit
run.
From the rule requirement matrix shown in figure 5,
individual rules used can be identified and examined.
The rule shown in figure 3 has the value of the rock
property from the zone indicated. Where the marker
crosses the preferred and acceptable regions defines
the acceptable and preferred range of this bit feature,
based on the one facet of the drilling and geologic
conditions only.
The combined effect of a group of rules produces
the final feature recommendation for a zone or bit run,
after processing for all items of drilling and geologic
data within the interval. This can be reviewed by use of
the tool shown in figure 11. In this example, the final
recommendation for 40-44 cutters is seen to be the
result of six rules, the sequential application of which
has progressively narrowed down the preferred number
of cutters to this range. This process is repeated for all
bit features within each zone or bit run, culminating in
the generic bit description for that interval.
COMPARISON OF SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH CURRENT PRACTICE
Current bit selection practices rely heavily on the
expertise of individuals to identify appropriate bit styles
for given applications. This process is not foolproof.
For example, in large organisations, learning which has
benefitted performance in one area may not be
promptly and effectively communicated to other areas.
In addition, the standard of bit selection may be uneven
due to varying experience between individuals. The
expert system aims to eradicate these weaknessses
and provide a uniform level of bit selection expertise
corresponding to the highest available within an
organisation at anyone time.
Consider the contribution of the expert system in
the following example.. Table 3, run 1 lists data from a
highly succesful bit run at 17.1/2". Table 4 lists
pertinent design data for the bit (labelled as bit type 1).
Note that the run was made in oil base mud, so that the
presence of shale did not cause bit cleaning problems
despite the use of a face-set, non-bladed bit design.
The same bit design was later run in water based
mud, in a section of similar geology. The performance
is shown in table 3, run 2. Performance was poor and
the bit pulled after only 8 feet. The face of the non-
bladed bit was unable to kept clear of the hydratable
drilled shale, causing the bit to ball up.
The reason why this run was attempted was that
little experience with PDC bit selection existed within
364
IADC/SPE 27470
that operational community in water based mud. The
importance of an open-faced design for bit Cleaning,
and the differences in bit requirements between oil and
water base mud, were not appreciated. Also, the
supplier did not have sufficiently close involvement to
prevent the run being made.
Under the same conditions as this unsuccessful
run, the expert system stipulates an open face volume
of 602-885 cubic inches (which requires a bladed
design), with 33-70 3/4" PDC cutters. A bit meeting this
generic description made a run in a similar geologic
interval in another well, the performance of which is
shown in table 3 (run 3). Actual design data for this bit
type is shown in table 4, together with the expert
system stipulations. While not equalling the
performance of the run in oil base mud, performance is
significantly better than with bit type 1 in water based
mud.
The critical point here is that, because bit run
experience existed elsewhere which made the poor
performance of run 2 predictable, a better bit selection
could have been made if that experience, and
guidelines developed from it, were available to this
particular group of operational users at that time. The
expert system is the means by which this is made
possible. It appears idealistic to expect the best bit
selections always to be made without the assistance of
a guidelines mechanism. This is not surprising given
the complexity of the biVrock interaction.
CONCLUSIONS
1. In many areas, a concerted effort at optimisation of
bit performance is justified by large potential
savings in well cost. This is particUlarly so where
time-based costs of the drilling operation are high,
or where penetration rate and/or bit life are low.
2. The current approach to bit selection cannot
demonstrate best use of past experience, and
relies too heavily on data that is conveniently
available rather than being fit for purpose. These
deficiencies can be rectified by development of bit
selection guidelines drawn from past bit runs,
accompanied by rigorous analysis of foot-based
data.
3. Greater access to, and use of, foot-based data is
an essential component in a more rational
approach to bit selection. Improving access to
these data, and developing the expertise to exploit
it, will be rewarded by an improved understanding
of how to optimise bit performance.
4. An expert system provides a suitable means to
ensure that learning from past bit runs improves bit
selection.
5. Bit selection guidelines, in a format suitable for use
in an expert system knowledge base, can be
derived from analysis of foot-based drilling and
geologic data.
6. Design and construction of an expert system for bit
selection requires a systematic approach to
identification of rule requirements, construction of
rUles, and definition of how rules will be applied.
IADC/SPE 27470 FEAR, M.J., MEANY, N.C., EVANS, J.M.

Rule management tools can be developed to

assist these steps.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank BP Exploration, Hughes

Christensen Company, and Data Sciences UK Limited
for permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

1. Brett, J.F., Warren, T.M., and Behr, S. : "Bit Whirl:

A New Theory of PDC Bit Failure," SPE Drilling
Engineering (December 1990) 275-281.
2. Fear, M.J. et al. : "Optimisation of Rock-Bit Life
Based on Bearing Failure Criteria," SPE Drilling
Engineering (September 1992) 163-167.
3. Sawaryn, S.J., and Grayson, H.L. : "Industry
Participation in the Development of an Integrated
Drilling Engineering Applications Platform," paper
23892 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE drilling
conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 18-
21.

365
 Table I Comparison of penetration rate with two bit types

Bit ROP Weight Rotary Flow Hydr.H Wellbore Sonic Gamma Bit
type rt/hr on bit Speed rate Power pressure tr.time ray wear
KLBS RPM GPM HPIIn2 osi micslft api state
I 5.9 24 135 579 0.58 10101 58 63 Worn

2 2.5 24 126 573 0.56 10124 60 56 New

I 9.1 17 127 564 0.39 10101 59 65 New

Table 2 Industry standard bit report

BIT IADCI JETS DEPTH HRS ROP WOB ROT FLOW MW GRADING
RUN DIAM InlFeet TOT rt/hr klbs RPM l!pm PPl! IADC8PT
4 M614 9X13 1925 55.6 36.0 5 150 1300 9.6 2121BU/A
17.5 4XI2 2001 62.1 30 180 10.0 XlIlWTIPR
5 S612 3XI6 3926 27.8 22.8 10 150 1300 10.5 818/LT/A
17.5 2XI8 633 31.4 30 190 11.0 XlllROIPR
IX20
6 321 3X22 4559 2.1 4.8 20 130 1300 11.0 0/4IBTIH
17.5 10 4.8 45 180 2I1IJDIPR
7 135 2X22 4569 12.0 9.2 20 180 1340 11.0 313/WT/A
17.5 IX24 110 12.3 45 FJIlAlPR
8 M433 4XI5 4679 15.0 5.5 10 180 1340 11.0 111 INOlA
17.5 3X16 83 15.9 30 200 XIlINOIPR
9 S613 7XI5 4762 14,1 47.7 5 200 1340 11.0 II1INO/A
17.5 673 16.1 16 XIlINOIPR
10 S613 7XI5 5435 16.1 7.4 10 200 1340 11.0 8nIBT/A
17.5 119 21.5 35 X/I/WTIPR
II M433 2XI5 5554 51.8 5.5 10 180 1340 11.0 8/3IBTIN
17.5 5XI4 284 55.7 35 200 Xl2lWTIPR
12 435 2X22 5838 58.5 5.8 10 100 1120 11.0 2I2IWT/A
17.5 IX24 337 64.5 35 150 1330 EI1IOIFM
13 S232 2XI4 6175 44.4 16.5 5 140 1120 11.0 I/IINO/A
17.5 3XI5 732 52.6 20 160 XI1/NOITW
2X16

Table 3 PDC performance variation due to mud and bit type

BIT RUN BIT TYPE ROP (rt/hr) FOOTAGE MUD TYPE BIT WEAR STATE
1 I 20.3 2914 OBM 1-2
2 I 2.2 8 WBM 3-2
3 2 29.1 742 WBM 2-3

Table 4 Bit designs from field runs versus an expert system recommendation for WBM

BIT TYPE OPEN-FACE CUTTER FACE CUTTERS FACE CONFIG.

VOLUME DIAMETER
(cubic inches) (inches)
I (from table 3) 215 3/4 82 Face-set
Expert system 602-885 3/4 33-70 -
2 (from table 3) 677 3/4 64 Bladed

366
 Wi rei in. Data Penetratian Rate Weight on bit Tarque
GAMMA RAY ROP SURFACE WOB AVER SURFACE TORQUE
150 I ;O::""_....J.(..:.'1'-.:":.:.rJ.)_-..:.;l0~0::'1.2 ,i"2,.l
° (CAP' )

ROTARY SPEED PREDICTED TQRQUE

4-.9I,O=-- {'"'K""'..;.I~. ';.:.;.:0...

MINIMUM SURFACE TORQUE

) .;.30.;.1

.2 .i.r,£".l. __ 15,9 (KIl.I.o) 30 ° 9.••••__._••••••••t~!_~d.·.!l. ._••••••••.:lQ.

MAXIMUM SURFACE tORQUE
.2 i.K.!.I ... 'lol .}Q.
t :.. ~-:.~ ...
) ..........
..................1 ~~ . . . . . . _
\
I ..~--.,.......
'--
,:' «;' TORQUE/ROP DROP
I ,:... ~ NO CHANGE IN
\ ~ GAMMA RAY & NO
(
I
WOB DROP -
I INDICATES BIT
I BALLI NG
(

)
\
,
I

,
I
1
)
\ TORQUE LOW
J COMPARED TO
I PREDICTED - ALSO
\ SHOWS LOW ROP IS
.• I DUE TO BIT
BALLING

HIGHLY ERRATIC
TORQUE IN SANDS;
SUGGESTS
VIBRATION CAUSED
THE BIT FAILURE

....-::.......
-~
;.---l...::.:;;;.;......_~ _

Figure 1. Interpretation of Bit Response from Foot-based Data

Rule Editor ConftgMngt

Rule Management

-- _ _ Fa~iIIt~ _
Drill Bit
Advisor
-

Figure 2 Basic System Design

367
 Drill Bit Advisor: Recommendations for Junk Slot Volume from Shale Resistivity: Rule 3
Version: IPlan I PDC I
Facilit;:y~:I====., Bit Class:
VVeu:I~ ~ Hole Section:[ll;li] lin 01 Zone: UJ
In ut:
Ka .-. 1
.$
Preferred: Ittt~i~tl
Acceptable: II1II
--:l
u
CIoI
E
:l

~
Rejected: _
Input Value: _
-oS
rI:l
,.:,c
..,c:
:l

o 50 100
Shale Resistivity (OHM-M)

I( Explain... ) ( About... ) ( Close ) ( Help... ) I

Figure 3 Rule for Bit Open Face Volume

Rule Management Facility: Rule Tree Display

Bit Class: PDC Version: 1.1 Hole Size: 12.25 in Status: Experimental

..-
Mud Type Rock Type Available Bit HSI Rules
Ka iZ!
Preferred: t"",:""",:",,1 10 -> 10

•
·r..
Acceptable:
Rejected:
Enabled:
--
--- J OBM
'h !I lie

Ois!lbl..d,
- 0-> 10 Rule Not Applicable I

..
/1
·h.... "/11
I>"rl, 'II

I Junk Slot Volume I J 0 ->3

~V
vs. I

I Shale Resistivity I :h .. l ..
1"lit..
1\

( Redraw )
1 WBM I

~n ..

- H
' 3 -> 10

0->10
I-

• Rule Not Applicable I

( Xref.•• ) ~" ./

I( Apply )[ Undo )[ Reset... )[ Close... )[ Help... )

I ( Add-> ) ( Edit... ] ( Link ) ( Override) ( Delete ) ( Save... )

Figure 4 Complete Rule Tree for One Bit Feature

368
 Rule Management FaciUty: Rule Requirements Matrix
Bit Class: PDC Version: 1.1 Status: Experimental
ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES
Hole Size: 112•25 In 0 I
M M 0 0 M MIM M MIM M

Ku 1:1
_ Enabled .2... .... ...
lIIIIIIIl1IIIl
•
Disabled
Rule
f
:2 ~
'"~ ~ ""5t rI.l
:: ...!
1:1
~
...l!: .......
~ Activation Criterion > ~ ~ :: Q
Jl .!l! .l!l 1:1 ~ !. == U

. =..... .!
rI.l
" Has Bit Feature Q 1:1 fl .5l ~ Jl ~
:: ~ .lI!
~ ClIl
[] Activation Criteria
Modltled 1:1 .¥
1:1
Q
ClIl
1:1 ! <
~

~
..
~
.!l!
A~ ! 'iii
.c
rI.l .... I
y
1:1 :a ~
:: .I
~
...
<
1:1
Q
rI.l
BIT FEATURES ==
Bit Body Material
~r
Pred. Cutter Diameter ~
Pred. Cutter Type
~
~
•• • ~ ~

No. of Primary Cutters ""

Pred. Backrake Angle ~ III • •• • ~
~

Bit Face Volume

No. of Nozzles
Gauge Prot'n Mat'l ~
•
• •• II
~
Ai1 III
[4(

Gauge Pad Design

Gauge Pad Length • • ~
Bit Proflle
Cutter Back-up Features •••
..... • II ~ ~ ~ II
Back Reaming Cutters

I( • •I
Edit... ) ( Disable ) ( Copy ) ( Paste )( Delete)
II

I( Save... ) ( Undo ) ( Reset... ) [ Close... ) [ Help... ) I

Figure 5 Rule Requirement Matrix
c.. 1.4

.... •
0
a:
..J 1.2
LU
Cl 1.0
0
~

c..
0
0.8
0.6
•
a:
..J
<
::::>
0.4
0.2
•
I-
0
< 0
0 100 200 300 400
OPEN FACE VOLUME (cu. in.)

Figure 6 Bit Design Effect on ROP

369
Zone Bit Feature Units Preferred Acceptable
1 OK: v J
Bit Bodv Material· N/A Matrix Matrix. Steel
Pred. Cutter Diameter: Imm ~I IF 116,19 IF 113, 16, 19, 24
Pred. Cutter Type: N/A IFEI Standard IF·· 1Standard, Dome
No. of Primary Cutters: N/A 1B§130 -> SO 1~120->80
Pred. Backrake Anele: Idel! ~I 25,30 15,20,25,30
Bit Face Volume: Iin3 ~I ~30->SO ~20->80
No. of Nozzles: N/A mS->7 ~3-> 10
Gaul!e Prot. Materials: N/A ND Flush Set ND Flush Set. Carbide
Gaul!e Desil!D: N/A Standard Standard
Gauge Pad Length: '1m ~I 2 ->4 1-> 6
Bit Profile: N/A Short. Medium Short. MedIUm
Cutter Backup Features: N/A Hybrid Posts Hybrid Posts
Back Reamine Cutters: N/A No No
2 OK: v J
Bit Bodv Material: N/A Steel Matrix Steel
Pred. Cutter Diameter: Imm ~I ~16 1F¥113,16

Figure 7 Bit Feature Recommendations by Zone

TVDMD Lithology Geometry BRA Bit Run Zone Cal Bit Body Material Pred. Cutter Diameter
Key••• AZ Key•••
13
5 P Matrix 16, 19
A Matrix, Steel 9, 13, 16, 19,24
p Steel 19,24

J
A Steel 16,19,24
etc etc etc

! 2

Figure 8 Combined Hole Section and Bit Recommendations Display

370
TVDMD Lithology Geometry BHA Bit Run Zone Cat Bit Body Material Pred. Cutter Diameter
Key•••
p Matrix 19
A Matrix, Steel 16,19,24

) 1
2

3
4
5 P Steel 19,24
A Steel 16,19,24
6
7

2
8

Figure 9 Bit Recommendations by Bit Run

Drill Bit Advisor: Operating Practice Recommendations

Facility: I I Well: I I I
Version: Plan I
Hole Section: 112.2511 in 01 Bit Class: IPDC 1
Zone: 1ill:Lllf1
The Following Operating Practices are Recommended:
~ Practice
1 Cutter Size and Breakage
If cutter breakage (IADC Code BT, CT) has been seen on
offset bit runs in this formation, using smaller cutters
and/or higher backrake angle may reduce breakage, if
compatible with other rule recommendations.

56 Soft Torque System

A soft torque system should improve bit life in this
formation, as slip-stick vibration is expected.

I [Explain... ) ( Close 11 Help... 11

Figure 10 Operating Practices Information

371
 Drill Bit Advisor: Recommendations for No. of Primary Cutters
Facility: 1 Version: 1Plan 1 Bit Class: IPDC 1
Well: 1 Hole Section: 112.2511 in 01 Zone: [1J
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES
Ka c
.2
.-
Preferred: mill cu ~

Acceptable:

..
1111
"Cl
c<I.l
S
S ~ 0 ....
~
~

~ ....0>
...
-....... ~
CZl
=c ~

....~/Xl...
~
Rejected:
~ ....ur::: r::: '" /Xl

Attr. Missing: ~
~ 0
Q)

9 ~ E-<
~
.~
Q)
-- B
til
Q)

.... ~...
.0

Constraint: T
..!><:
CZl

~
'"
g "0r::: ..r::: ;j
til
CZl
- -<
Q)
~

CZl /Xl
~
~
0
~
til
~
>
Q)

.....
0

~
::::::::::IQ~R::mypi;::~::I:I::

~
I [EXPlain... ) ( About... ) [ Close ) [ Help... ) I
Figure 11 Stipulation of Bit Requirement from a Group of Rules

372