Drilling Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
DATE: june 6
th
2002

I, Nicolas Picard ,
hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the
degree of:
Master of Science
in:
Aerospace engineering
It is entitled:
Development of novel hydraulics for oil well
Drilling

Approved by:
Dr. Ephraim. Gutmark
Dr. Prem K. Khosla
Dr Raj.M. Manglik

DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL HYDRAULICS FOR OIL WELL DRILLING

A Thesis submitted to the
Division of Reasearch and Advanced Studies
of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in the department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
of the College of Engineering

2002

by

Nicolas Picard

Ingenieur de lEcole Nationale Superieure DArts et Metiers, Paris, France, june 2000

Committee Chair : Dr. Ephraim. Gutmark
Dr. Prem K. Khosla
Dr. Raj.M. Manglik
Abstract:

Many projects have been carried out to reach the oil reservoirs with minimum time
and cost. In the 1950s, an importanat improvement was achived when fluid was
injected in the well bottom aera through nozzles placed in the drill bit body. This fluid
helps to increase mixing and turbulence at the bottom of the well The flow of the
drilling fluid is a main factor insuring efficiency in the drilling process.
Security-DB S a division of Dresser Industries Inc. decided to study these aspects by
testing new nozzles and by comparing the efficiency of these geometries with regard
to a conventional one by measuring the well floor pressure, turbulence and vortex
created.
This project aims to design and construct a new testing facility at the Fluid Mechanics
and Propulsion Laboratory of the Department of Aerospace Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics at the University of Cincinnati. Owing to this facility, several
measurements have been performed on a Security-DBS roller cone bit. The acquisition
of the pressure map on the well floor and the visualization of the flow field around the
bit are the main targets. The goal of the current project is to test these new nozzle
designs in a more realistic drilling environment .The results will show the influences
of different nozzle geometries on drill bit performance. The most important ones are
the cleaning of the annulus and the bottom hole, the lubrication of the bit and the
removal of the cuttings.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Security DBS for the collaboration and support that has
made this project possible. Special thanks go to Jim Dahlem (Technology Applications
Manager) and Tuck-Leong Ho (Technical Professional) at Security DBS, whose project
oversight has proven invaluable. I also wish to thank Dr. Ephraim Gutmark (Eminent
Scholar and Chaired Professor at UC), Dr. Prem K. Khosla, Dr. Raj M. Manglik
(Committee Members) and Mr. Russell G. DiMicco for their help and support of this
work. The author would also like to show his appreciation to Mr. Anthony Opalski for
his help in constructing the facility and guidance in its operation.
1
Table of Contents:
1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 The rock .............................................................................................................. 8
1.1.1 Characteristics............................................................................................. 8
1.1.2 Laboratory Experiments on Clastic flow and Fracture of Rocks.............. 14
1.1.3 Effect of Pore Fluid................................................................................... 16
1.1.4 Effect of Size............................................................................................. 16
1.1.5 Evolution of Sources of Shear Faulting.................................................... 17
1.1.6 Surface-Active Agents in Rock Fracture .................................................. 18
1.1.7 Fracturing of Rock in Drilling .................................................................. 20
1.2 Drilling process................................................................................................. 24
1.2.1 Advanced drill bits.................................................................................... 24
1.2.2 High-Pressure Jet Drilling Systems .......................................................... 26
1.2.3 Debris removal.......................................................................................... 26
1.2.4 Drilling fluids............................................................................................ 27
2 Experimental Facility................................................................................................ 30
2.1 Description of the facility ................................................................................. 31
2.1.1 Well Bottom Assemblies .......................................................................... 31
2.1.2 Rotary Table.............................................................................................. 32
2.1.3 Interface Stand .......................................................................................... 33
2.1.4 Supporting Table....................................................................................... 33
2.1.5 Pump Design............................................................................................. 34
2.1.6 Tank and Piping........................................................................................ 34
2.1.7 Supporting Equipment .............................................................................. 35
2.2 Instrumentation & Data Acquisition................................................................. 36
2.3 Flow Visualization............................................................................................ 40
2.3.1 Discussion................................................................................................. 41
3 Vortexx and Modular Nozzles.................................................................................. 46
3.1 Operating Conditions........................................................................................ 46
3.2 Nozzle Arrangements........................................................................................ 47
3.3 Test Matrix........................................................................................................ 48
4 Results....................................................................................................................... 50
4.1 Base Pressure Distributions .............................................................................. 50
4.2 Flow Visualizations .......................................................................................... 52
5 Discussion................................................................................................................. 54
5.1 Modular Nozzles............................................................................................... 54
5.1.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distribution........................................................... 54
5.1.2 Flow Visualization.................................................................................... 59
5.2 Vortexx Nozzles ............................................................................................ 63
5.2.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distribution........................................................... 63
5.2.2 Flow Visualization.................................................................................... 69
5.2.3 PDC Center Nozzle................................................................................... 72
5.2.4 New Diffuser Center Nozzle..................................................................... 74
2
5.2.5 Plugged Center Nozzle ............................................................................. 77
6 Conclusion about Vortexx
and Modular................................................................. 80
7 Side Port Nozzles...................................................................................................... 84
7.1 Nozzle Arrangements........................................................................................ 84
7.2 Test Matrix........................................................................................................ 86
8 Results....................................................................................................................... 87
8.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distributions ................................................................. 87
8.2 Flow Visualizations .......................................................................................... 89
9 Discussion................................................................................................................. 91
9.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distributions ................................................................. 91
9.2 Flow Visualization.......................................................................................... 102
9.3 Jet Features...................................................................................................... 103
9.4 Well Bottom Flow Patterns............................................................................. 108
9.5 Annulus Flow Field Features.......................................................................... 113
Conclusion about Side port Nozzles............................................................................... 119
10 Conclusions......................................................................................................... 122
11 Appendix............................................................................................................. 127
11.1 Matrix generation............................................................................................ 127
11.2 Procedue to start the rig .................................................................................. 129
11.3 Appendix Pressure Transducer Calibrations.................................................. 130
11.4 Appendix Test Data Filenames...................................................................... 147
11.5 Appendix Pressure Transducer Calibrations.................................................. 148
References:...................................................................................................................... 161
3
Table of figures

Figure 1.1 Principal components of drilling system........................................................... 6
Figure 1.2 Extrinsic fracture in compression initiated from a large crack........................ 10
Figure 1.3 Development of intrinsic fracture.................................................................... 11
Figure 1.4 Idealized model of the penetration of a tool wedge into rock......................... 22
Figure 1.5 drill bit cutting mechanisms ............................................................................ 24
Figure 1.6 Polycrystalline diamond cutter ........................................................................ 24
Figure 1.7 Roller cone Drill bit......................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.1 Layout of Experimental Facility...................................................................... 30
Figure 2.2 Well Bottom Shape (cross-sectional view) ..................................................... 32
Figure 2.3 Pressure Tap Pattern in the Well Bottom........................................................ 37
Figure 2.4 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition Setup................................................... 39
Figure 4.1 Notation Used For All Base Pressure Distribution Maps................................ 51
Figure 5.1 Modular Nozzles With PDC Center Nozzle.................................................... 56
Figure 5.2 Modular Nozzles With New Diffuser Center Nozzle...................................... 57
Figure 5.3 Modular Nozzles With Plugged Center Nozzle .............................................. 58
Figure 5.4 Modular Nozzle Jet.......................................................................................... 59
Figure 5.5 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Modular Nozzles with Plugged
Center Nozzle) .......................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.6 Flow Visualization of Stagnation Lines with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular
Nozzles) .................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 5.7 Locations of Flow Separation (Modular Nozzle)............................................ 62
Figure 5.8 Re-Circulation Zones in the Annulus (Modular Nozzles)............................... 62
Figure 5.9 Vortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle .................................................. 65
Figure 5.10 Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center Nozzle.................................. 66
Figure 5.11 Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle........................................... 67
Figure 5.12 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged
Center Nozzle) .......................................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.13 Vortexx Nozzle #1...................................................................................... 70
Figure 5.16 Swirl in the Annulus (Vortexx Nozzles) .................................................... 72
Figure 5.17 Lines of Stagnation with PDC Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)................ 73
Figure 5.18 Flow Pattern with PDC Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles) .......................... 74
Figure 5.19 Lines of Stagnation with New Diffuser Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles) . 76
Figure 5.20 Flow Pattern with New Diffuser Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles) ............ 77
Figure 5.21 Lines of Stagnation with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles) .......... 78
Figure 5.22 Flow Pattern with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles) ..................... 79
Figure 7.1 Orientation of Side Port Nozzle in Jet Position #2.......................................... 85
Figure 7.2 Orientation of Side Port Nozzle in Jet Position #3.......................................... 85
Figure 8.1 Notation Used For All Base Pressure Distribution Maps................................ 88
Figure 9.1 Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32) Modular Nozzle........................................ 95
4
Figure 9.4 Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet#1 ........................................................ 98
Figure 9.5 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32)
Modular Nozzle) ....................................................................................................... 99
Modular Nozzle) ..................................................................................................... 100
Modular Nozzle) ..................................................................................................... 101
Figure 9.8 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged
Jet #1)...................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 9.9 Main and Side Jets of a Side Port Nozzle...................................................... 103
Figure 9.10 12/32 Modular Nozzle Jet ........................................................................... 104
Figure 9.13 Plugged Jet Location #1 .............................................................................. 107
Figure 9.14 Orientation Of Well Bottom Flow Visualization Images............................ 108
Figure 9.15 12/32 Modular Nozzle Installation-Well Bottom Stagnation Lines............ 109
Figure 9.18 Plugged Jet Location#1 Installation-Well Bottom Stagnation Lines ....... 112
Figure 9.19 Flow Circulation within the Annulus for the Side-Port & 12/32 Modular
Nozzle Installation .................................................................................................. 113
Figure 9.22 Flow Circulation within the Annulus for the Side-Port & Plugged Jet
Location#1 Installation ........................................................................................... 117
Figure 11.1 2D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle... 135
Figure 11.2 3D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle... 136
Figure 11.3 2D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with New Diffuser Center Nozzle
................................................................................................................................. 137
................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 11.5 2D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle ........ 139
Figure 11.6 3D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle ........ 140
Figure 11.7 2D Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle. 141
Figure 11.8 3DPressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle.. 142
Figure 11.9 2D-Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center Nozzle
................................................................................................................................. 143
Figure 11.10 3D-Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center
Nozzle ..................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 11.11 2D- Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle... 145
Figure 11.12 3D- Pressure Mapping ofVortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle.... 146
Figure 11.13 Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32) Modular Nozzle 152
5
Figure 11.14 3-D Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32) Modular Nozzle
................................................................................................................................. 153
................................................................................................................................. 155
................................................................................................................................. 157
Figure 11.19 Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet Location#1. 158
Figure 11.20 3-D Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet Location#1
................................................................................................................................. 159
List of Tables

Table 1 Vortexx Nozzle Angular Orientation..48
Table 2 Test Matrix..49
Table 3 Well Bottom Pressure Levels......52
Table 4 Test Matrix......86
Table 5 Well Bottom Pressure Levels..89
6

1 Introduction
Drilling involves a set of processes for breaking and removing rock to produce
boreholes.
In petroleum industry applications, the target may be at considerable depth.
The paramount objectives of drilling are to reach the target safely in the shortest
possible time and the lowest possible cost. The pincipal elements of current drilling
systems are shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Principal components of drilling system
7

The drill head comminutes rock at the end of the borehole. In most applications, the drill
head is a drill bit that breaks rock by mechnical or mechanical- hydraulic action.
The rate of breakage is governed by bit design, including the effectiveness of the drill bit
in breaking rock and resisting wear and by rock type, temperature, pressure, and
operating procedure.The drill bit is usually powered from the surface through a drive
string.
Rock breakage by the bit is followed by transfer of rock fragments to the surface.In
petroleum drilling, fragmented rock typically transported to the surface by drilling fluid
(mud).
The drilling fluid provides power to drive the drill. It also acts as a coolant for the
cutters, a conditioner for stabilizing the borehole (i.e. preventing borehole collapse and
blowouts), and in some advanced applications, a medium for transmitting information to
the surface by pressure pulses. In most cases target acquisition requires interruption of
the drilling process to insert special tools to obtain rock samples or borehole
measurements. It is very important to recognize the warning signs of incipient loss of
function or catastrophic failure, by sensing the condition at the drill bit.
Key pocesses of the drilling system can be divided into two groups.
-The first includes processes such as drill bit sensing (i.e. drill bit monitoring ), rock
properties sensing and evaluation, drill bit or drillstring steering, and well bore damage
sensing.
-The second includes processes such as rock breakage, debris removal and the hydraulic
part. In this thesis, the second one will be focused on.
8
1.1 The rock
1.1.1 Characteristics
The term rock includes a great variety of material types with distinctive
characteristics. For example, granitic rocks can behave in a brittle manner up to a
confining pressure of 1 gigapascal (GPa), whereas carbonate rocks become plastic at
moderate pressures of about 100 megapascals (MPa). Extensive crystal plasticity is
observed in rock salt at moderate stress at room temperature, whereas most quartz-
bearing rocks do not show significant dislocation activities up to about 400C.
Rocks tend to be permeated with pores and micro cavities, which were either formed
during the inception of the rock or produced by its subsequent stress history. The
porosity and micro cavity morphology of rocks are as important as the mineralogical
composition itself. Collectively, the micro cavities cause nonlinear behaviors in many
mechanical properties. These manifest themselves in the stress or pressure dependence
of strain, velocity of sound, stress wave attenuation, and fracture behavior. Micro
cavities also introduce a scale effect into the prediction of mechanical behavior, and
heterogeneities in the form of distribution of micro cavities are the principal source of
scatter in test results. Thus, this relatively readily probed characteristic of rocks may
become an important indicator of mechanical properties to be sensed by the smart drill.
Rock has a finite hydraulic conductivity, which implies that a portion of the void space
forms an interconnected network. Petrological and geophysical evidence indicates that
rocks are saturated with water to a depth of tens of kilometers. Pore fluids play a
significant role in engineering applications for energy resource recovery. The effect of
9
pore fluids on fracture behavior can be either mechanical through pore pressure
diffusion or chemical through stress corrosion. The effect of pore fluid will be an
important measurable indicator of the mechanical properties of rock relevant to drill.
Like all solids, rocks can undergo true intrinsic inelastic behavior by dislocation motion,
diffusional flow, or analogous processes occurring in glassy media. In most crystal rocks
of interest, however, such intrinsic inelastic behavior is exhibited only at elevated
temperatures or pressures that are not encountered during mechanical drilling. In most
drilling applications, rocks act as purely elastic solids, but the heterogeneities can affect
their elastic behavior. Overviews of such self-consistent models have been given by a
number of authors [1]. Thus, considerable theoretical and mechanistic methodologies
exist that are capable of relating elastic properties to heterogeneities in the rock that
govern its fracture behavior.
The apparent inelastic behavior of rocks known as clastic flow, results from brittle
fracture processes due to the formation and stable growth of brittle microcracks. This
behavior has been dealt with in two ways. The first, a purely phenomenological
approach, is used widely by civil engineers for characterizing the related clastic flow of
concrete. Specific developments of this behavior by so-called deformation theories or by
incremental flow theories, these formalisms are quite useful for predicting the
development of shear faulting zones in rock, which is a central mechanism of rock
fracture in drilling. They also find ready application in the understanding of chip
formation under the drill bit.
Of fundamental interest to drill is the behavior of fractured rocks in compression.
Griffith [2] , who pioneered the understanding of brittle fracture in tension, also was the
10
first to elucidate brittle fracture in compression. He noted that in solid containing
microcracks of many orientations under triaxial compression, local tensile fracture is
initiated when shear stresses produced by unequal compression displace surfaces of
preexisting microcracks. These displacements produce tensile stresses near the tips of
these microcracks, which result in their growth across the local maximum tensile stress
when this stress reaches the cohesive strength. (Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.2 Extrinsic fracture in compression initiated from a large crack

Griffith used this model of crack initiation to show that the uniaxial compressive
strength of brittle solids must be many times (about eightfold) higher than their tensile
strength, and that this compressive strength could be increased monotonically by the
application of a conlining pressure. It later became clear that the Griffith model needed
modification to account for the frictional resistance on the touching faces of the
11
microcracks; such a modified model was provided by McClintock and Walsh [3] (1962).
It has been recognized that when the local recracking condition is satisfied, wing cracks
develop from the extremities of the initial microcracks and extend stably in the direction
of principal compression as shown in Figure 1.3.
Since the continued extension of the wing cracks necessitates continued relative
translation of the faces of the initial microcracks, and since the total amount of such
displacement is limited by their original lengths, overall compressive failure cannot
result from the limited growth of wing cracks in parts (individual rock pieces or
fragments) with dimensions much larger than those of the initial microcracks.
It is well known that brittle fracture in compression in massive parts occurs through the
development of shear faults. This occurs when many developing wing cracks, aligned in
a plane, begin to interact strongly en echelon and form a nucleus of a more macroscopic
shear fault (Figure 1.3), which then spreads longitudinally to result in overall fracture.

Figure 1.3 Development of intrinsic fracture
Although the conditions for development of the nucleus of the shear fault have not been
12
well studied, the overall asymptotic conditions for their localization have been
developed as a bifurcation model by Rudnicki and Rice [4] (1975). They found that the
critical strain at which the shear fault can develop freely depends strongly on the
incremental moduli of the material containing the accumulating microcracks. The best
agreement between theory and experiment, at least qualitatively, is obtained with a
deformation theory approach. However, the actual conditions for fault development
depend sensitively on the presence of initial imperfections, as is the case for all
bifurcation phenomena .The actual mechanism of brittle fracture in compression is a
simple criterion of equality between a crack driving force and material fracture
toughness at the tips of the microcracks, interacting en echelon. However, the
development of a shear fault that produces eventual failure or chip formation in drilling
obeys a phenomenological pressure-dependent deviatoric stress criterion .Such
mechanistic understanding of the development of shear faults should be most useful in
the effective control of the smart drilling process.
Two approaches have been taken in the study of the mechanical behavior of rocks that
together have contributed significantly to current understanding. The first is a global
applied mechanics approach commonly used for engineering design and for the
analysis of geologic faulting. The fracture process is taken as a discrete event without
significant prior deformation and without warning. The only physical quantity of interest
is the peak stress, which is of interest as an upper bound on solutions of the relevant
boundary value problems. The fundamentals of this approach have been covered by
many investigations including Jaeger and Cook [5] (1979), Goodman [6] (1980), Hoek
and Brown [7] (1980), and Germanovich and Cherepanov [8] (1987).
13
The second is a mechanistic approach that supplements standard deformation tests
with nondestructive evaluation and microscopy, aiming at a fundamental understanding
of the microscopic mechanism. The evolution of micro-structure is treated as a
continuous process cunninating in the coalescence of microfissures to form a
throughgoing fault.
14

1.1.2 Laboratory Experiments on Clastic flow and Fracture of Rocks
As noted previously, the true plastic response of rocks by dislocation motion occurs at
such high temperature and pressure as to be of no relevance to the problem of
mechanical rock drilling. Many constituent minerals in rocks can, of course, undergo
twinning that, for all practical purposes, is not a thermally assisted rate process but
usually requires very high stress. Moreover, twinning is a very inhomogeneous form of
deformation, and in the absence of local plasticity, it can at best influence only the
fracture behavior of rocks. Thus, experimental studies carried out in the laboratories
have been devoted largely to understand the complex processes of microcracking under
compression that result in clastic flow, which is a forerunner of the eventual shear
faulting process discussed previously.
The clastic flow response of some common rocks such as Indiana limestone [9] [10]
[11] has been investigated in a series of experiments. These experiments have identified
the key microstructural damage processes, which include fracturing of weak interface
boundaries and grain boundaries; Hertzian diametral fracturing of grains; relative sliding
across separated interfaces or boundaries, which act as inclined planes that jack open
tensile wing cracks running parallel to the principal compression direction; and finally,
en echelon action of interacting wing cracks that results in zones of shear faulting. In
porous rock, pores may be crushed closed, which results in substantial permanent
compression strains that locally stiffen and strengthen the rock.
In laboratory simulations of borehole breakout experiments on externally pressurized
15
thick-wall cylinders of Indiana limestone and Berea sandstone [12].
These breakout experiments have demonstrated the anisotropic nature of such rocks and
have also demonstrated a substantial size effect on rock strength. Compressive strength
measurements of about 140 MPa, which have been obtained from laboratories borehole
breakout simulations, are quite high. Nevertheless, the strength levels measured may be
more appropriate for understanding the local fracture strength of rock in the small
volumes subjected to contact pressure by a drill bit. Clearly, these factors must be well
understood to, at least develop proper strength scaling relations that will be relevant in
any definitive model of drilling.

16
1.1.3 Effect of Pore Fluid
The rocks are classified into two groups of deformation states: the drained and
undrained deformations. Drained deformation occurs when the pore pressure is
completely determined by the current fluid boundary conditions; the flow of pore fluid
has either vanished or has reached steady state condition.In undrained deformation, no
variation of fluid content in a material element exists.the pore pressure changes with
respect to the initial conditions is only related to the variation of pore volume.
If the interstitial fluid is not inert relative to the mineral constituents of the rock, the pore
fluid can exert a chemical effect in addition to the purely mechanical one. An evident
weakening effect in water-saturated samples has been observed in calcite and in quartz
.The observed behavior is usually attributed to stress corrosion cracking.

1.1.4 Effect of Size
Because of their brittle nature, the compressive strength of rocks depends on size.
Size effects are particularly important in relating laboratory fracture experiments both to
failures in massive crustal formations and to the high-gradient local fracture processes
under the drill bit.
17
1.1.5 Evolution of Sources of Shear Faulting
The sequence of processes of microcrack interactions leading to the evolution of shear
faults has been studied in laboratories both by techniques of systematic sectioning
experiments and by a variety of acoustic techniques. For example, monitoring the
acoustic emission from the compressed samples by multiple probes has permitted
determination of the spatial correlation of signals emanating from microcracking events
leading to formation of shear faults. Such sophisticated acoustic emission studies
support the microstructural studies discussed previously and show that existing
imperfections are likely sites of acoustic emission activity. Microcracking is found to
intensify in the neighborhood of previous microcrack sites and is often persistent in a
locality until final shear faulting sets in. Recent experimental observations on the
evolution of microcracking damage in rocks and scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
experiments provide graphic means for understanding shear localization measurements
by acoustic emission. Central features in the development of a faulting nucleus are the
en echelon interaction of microcracks and the planar form of dilatancy they introduce
into the fracture problem. Tapponier and Brace [13] (1976) concluded that dilatancy is
primarily a consequence of two types of cracking: (1) widening and extension of
preexisting discontinuities such as grain boundaries, cracks, and pores; and (2) initiation
and propagation of cracks at heterogeneity sites. These observations clearly demonstrate
that a continuum description of the fracture localization behavior of rocks is adequate
only over a so-called representative continuum volume element large enough to smooth
out grain-scale inhomogeneities. This presents a problem of how to translate laboratory
18
findings in quasi-homogeneous deformation fields to the high-gradient fields under a
drill bit or cutter, for eventual application for control of cutting operations by a smart
drill.
The SEM observations show, for example, that quartz, which comprises about one-third
by volume of granite, has limited participation in the localization process in the initial
postfailure stage. In other words, localized deformation extending over a continuum
element with grains of all major mineral types is not observed until the sample has been
deformed well into the postfailure stage. Such analyses predict that the onset of
localization under axisymmetric compression should occur when the sample has been
deformed well into the strain-softeningstage-another factor of importance in the
mechanistic rationalization of the drilling process.

1.1.6 Surface-Active Agents in Rock Fracture
In brittle fracture of solids, the work of fracture results largely from the surface free
energy of the solid. Even in pseudoductile fracture where the actual fracture process is
one of extension of brittle cracks, the surface free energy is the overall factor that scales
to specific fracture work, even though other energy-dissipating phenomena such as
frictional rubbing and true plastic deformation are present [14]. Under these conditions,
the presence of surface-active agents, which significantly reduce the free energy of the
surfaces that have been created by fracture, can have dramatic effects on the overall
specific work of fracture.There are many examples of dramatic reduction of the local
work of brittle separation by active liquid environments in laboratory experiments [15].
Although the fundamental mechanisms of these effects are not fully understood, they are
19
often well characterized, and some have been used with mixed success in near-surface
drilling. Some evidence [16] suggests, however, these effects are considerably reduced
when the part is under pressure or when the surface-active agent cannot penetrate to the
crack tips, particularly when the key shear faulting events are of a subsurface nature.
Consequently, it is not clear whether these effects are present in deep drilling
environments. Surface-active agents can also promote stress corrosion cracking of
drilling equipment. However, this problem could probably be avoided by careful process
planning.
Another important potential application of surface-active agents is their use to influence
wear rates of diamond tool bits in cutters. In a detailed experimental study, Cooper and
coworkers have established that few, if any, surface-active agents have produced
unambiguous weakening of a variety of rocks, including marble and granite. They have
shown that these agents can either increase or decrease wear rates of the cutters, and that
oxidizing agents in particular promote increased diamond wear. The best understanding
of this effect is that these agents promote effective nucleate boiling heat transfer
between the hot diamond and the cooling fluids, and that this appears to have a major
beneficial effect in most cases.
Whatever the mechanism of the effect of the environment on the rock destruction
process, be it by changing the strength of the rock or affecting the wear process of the
tool, the effects are sufficiently dramatic, when present, that they merit further special
consideration to exploit their full potential.
20

1.1.7 Fracturing of Rock in Drilling
Phenomenology of Drill-Rock Interaction.
One of the important practical applications of fracture of brittle solids in compression is
the penetration of drilling tools. Examples include rotary drilling and drag drilling.
Despite the extreme commercial importance of tool penetration into brittle rock, details
of the penetration mechanism are poorly understood. Much of the past work on this
problem has been directed toward semi-empirical drilling models specific to a particular
formation. Although such models have some engineering utility, they generally are not
consistent with recent developments concerning the constitutive behavior of rock, and
they are not based on the mechanistic processes described above. Hence, their range of
applicability is quite limited. Next, a review shows the current practice in
phenomenological theories for tool penetration into rock and the attempts at developing
mechanistic models for chip formation. Quite clearly, a detailed understanding of these
will be of key importance in the establishment of controlled cutting strategies for
exploitation of the full potential of the smart drilling process.Quasi-static tool
penetration tests have established the features of the penetration mechanism.
The penetration process occurs in a repetition of two distinct phases. The first is a
crushing phase, in which the forces on the tool increase monotonicaily. Hydrostatic
stresses in the vicinity of the tool tip are extremely high; the material under the tip is
crushed in the region of very high contact pressures and undergoes a volumetric
expansion. The crushed and expanded material behaves in an almost plastic fashion. The
21
tool-bit stresses are transmitted through the crushed zone, resulting in a stress field
closely resembling that of a plastic indentation problem. In the second phase, a
macrofracture zone is initiated, and with a subsequent load increase, it eventually grows
to form a chip. The cycles repeat under increasing total force as the contact area between
the tool and the rock increases.
A typical drill bit action may see two to four cycles per blow. The cyclic behavior is
also observed in drag bits. This cyclic penetration behavior applies to rock at low
confining pressure. At high confining pressure (i.e., in deep drilling), rock develops
more prominent clastic flow behavior and the force-penetration curves become
smoother.
Theoretical Plasticity Models for the Faulting of Rocks
The process of chip formation as outlined above involves the repeated application of
local shear faulting in the rock under the concentrated pressure of the tool. The
mechanics and mechanisms of the evolution of microcracking processes leading to the
formation of a shear fault nuc1eus in a homogeneous compressive stress field under
confining pressure apply locally in the rock that is to be chipped.
In such situations, more formal phenomenological theories clearly are needed to deal
with the problem on the basis of a continuum, without repeatedly coming to grips with
the details of faulting. The constitutive localization model of Rice , which develops
conditions of shear localization by treating the brittle rock undergoing microcracking as
if it were a pressure-sensitive, somewhat dilating plastic continuum, serves as a guide.
This approach is currently under active development [17]. A number of attempts have
been made to model the behavior of granular materials such as. These models have been
22
applied with varying degrees of success to inhomogeneous problems, such as indenta-
tion of a half space of sand or soil, but they have not found application to corresponding
problems of machining or chip formation in rocks where modifications that take into
account the small size of the stressed volume, the scale of heterogeneities, and the
effects of pore fluids become necessary. This will be a fertile area for immediate
development for application to the smart drilling process.

Specific Models for Chip Formation
Theoretical models using slip line plasticity approaches have been developed
specifically for the purpose of dealing with chip formation in rocks by the wedge
indentation process. Figure 1.4 shows a schematic two-dimensional view of a wedge
penetration model developed by [18] Paul and Sikarskie (1965).

Figure 1.4 Idealized model of the penetration of a tool wedge into rock

The plane strain model has assumed symmetrical distortions and an initial local
23
penetration by crushing that is linear with the applied force. The model further assumes
that the chips are planar blocks and that they move out of the way when the Coulomb
criterion of a pressure-dependent plastic resistance can be counteracted. The model
demonstrates that for proper chip formation, the wedge angle shown in Figure 1.4
must be less than a given amount, determined by the friction angle between the wedge
and the rock, and the pressure dependence of the plastic resistance that governs the
Coulomb-Mohr criterion. The model is capable of presenting an upper-bound, outer
envelope to the force-penetration behavior of a wedge.
The simple wedge penetration model described above is not fully consistent with the
actual phenomenon. Altiero and Sikarskie [19] have studied this in some detail on
models made of plaster of Paris to better understand the complex processes of vertical
splitting, crushing, and chip formation. On the basis of their observations, Sikarskie and
Altiero (1973) analyzed the wedge penetration process as a quarter-space loading
problem, where the free surface and the vertical splitting delineate the quarter-space
boundaries as shown in Figure 1.4. The normal and frictional loading of the interface
between the rock and the wedge is then considered in detail, the stress distribution in the
rock is calculated, and the Coulomb-Mohr criterion is applied to determine the point at
which fracturing will begin.

24
1.2 Drilling process
1.2.1 Advanced drill bits
Conventional drill bits remove rock by impact or shearing processes figure 1.5. Impact
or roller bits utilize steel or tungsten carbide cutters to impact and break the rock. New
wear-resistant, diamond-coated cutters are finding increased use in hard abrasive
rocks.Shear-type bits utilize polycrystalline or natural diamond cutters to remove rock
by shearing processes.

Figure 1.5 drill bit cutting mechanisms
Polycrystalline diamond cutter (PDC) hits utilize cutters consisting of a thin layer of
small synthetic diamonds bonded to a tungsten carbide substrate, as shown in Figures
1.6 a and 1.6 b.

Figure 1.6 Polycrystalline diamond cutter

Diamond layer Carbide substrate
25

These bits have potential for very high drilling rates because they can operate at much
higher rotary speeds (800 to 1,000 rpm) and power levels than roller bits (100 to 200
rpm). In laboratory tests, these bits drill 9 to 14 tunes faster than conventional roller bits.

Figure 1.7 Roller cone Drill bit
26
1.2.2 High-Pressure Jet Drilling Systems
Experimental high-pressure jet drilling systems operating at 10,000 to 20,000 psi can
drill two to three times faster than conventional drills .A dual-wall drill-pipe system
currently being field tested utilizes mud pumped at high pressure (34,000 psi) to cut
slots in the rock ahead of roller bits and lower-pressure mud to remove the broken rock
from the hole bottom .This system drilled two to three times faster than conventional
bits in an east Texas oil field test .in another experiment, a high-pressure downhole
motor operating at 10,000 psi produced drilling rates in excess of 1,000 ft/h in medium-
strength rock.
Despite these high drilling rates, these systems have not been commercialized because
of problems with the high-pressure equipment. These problems include erosion and
leaks in the drill pipe caused by the abrasive drilling muds. A new concept being
evaluated to eliminate these problems is the use of high-pressure downhole pumps
powered by low-pressure pumps at the surface. Additional work on these systems is
needed to develop improved pumps, drilling pipe, high-pressure motors.
1.2.3 Debris removal
Materials handling involves the relocation of materials when a hole is drilled or
excavated. The current practice of materials handling depends on the type of hole being
constructed, the site conditions and the size, orientation, and length of the hole. In
general, materials must be transported from the bit face to the surface and from the
surface to disposal. Materials handling limits the rate of hole advance when materials
cannot be transported to the surface as rapidly as they are mined or when they cannot be
27
moved from the surface to a disposal area as rapidly as they are brought to the surface.
The problems that restrict the movement of materials from the bit face to the surface are
often the result of material movement interfering with other functions that occur in the
same space. For example, in a well, the handling of large amounts of materials might
interfere with the drill bit itself,or the materials may not fit in the annular space between
the hole and the drill pipe.
1.2.4 Drilling fluids
Rotary drilling, the most common process for drilling wells, uses circulating fluids to
remove the drilled solid cuttings. Other removal methods include screw augers, which
continuously remove solids; buckets; and bailers, which allow water and solids to fill a
tube that is periodically retrieved and emptied. These methods are seldom used and are
not be described here. In the circulating fluid method, The fluid is picked up by the
pump, circulated through the surface piping, and sent down the inside the drill pipe and
drill collars, where it exits the bit and entrains the drilled cuttings. The fluid carries the
cuttings to the surface for separation and disposal. The behavior of the cuttings in the
circulating fluid depends on fluid rheology. The different behaviors of the fluid help
determine the degree of difficulty in removing the cuttings from the hole.
The ability to use fluids to transmit solids depends on fluid properties such as density,
viscosity and velocity (Bourgoyne [20]1986). Because cuttings are usually denser than
fluids, they will fall under the influence of gravity. As the density difference between
fluids and solids decreases, the rate of fall slows. Consequently, the higher the fluid
density, the easier it is to remove the solids from the hole. Similarly, as the viscosity of
28
the fluid increases, the difference in velocity between the fluid and solids decreases.
Consequently, the higher the fluid viscosity, the easier it is to remove solids from the
hole. The higher the fluid velocity, the more rapidly solids are removed from the hole.
The velocity must, at a minimum, exceed the rate of fall of the solids for the solids to
have a positive velocity out of the hole.
Unfortunately, fluid properties such as density, viscosity, and velocity serve other
purposes that limit the range of properties that can be used. For instance, if the density is
too high, circulation will be lost; if it is too low, the well will flow. Higher viscosities
reduce the drilling rate and can also cause greater friction-induced pressure buildups,
which in turn lead to loss of circulation. Excess velocity can erode the hole wall and
produce pressure drops that may lead to loss of circulation
Circulating fluids serve purposes other than removal of drilled cuttings, namely, density
for well control, chemical stabilization of the rock, prevention of filtrate invasion of the
rock, cooling and lubricating the bit, suspension of cuttings and weight materials, and
corrosion prevention .These functions must be maintained as the removal of drilled
solids is accomplished. Interference among these functions is one of the major problems
faced when using a circulating fluid to remove drilled cuttings.
Once the cuttings have been circulated to the surface, they must be separated from the
fluid.
The goal of this research is to provide an efficient basis to obtain a system that can
gather all the benefits described above: the system must be maintained easily for the
long term with minimal environmental impact and with the minimum disturbance of the
drilling objectives, and drilling costs. The Hydraulic part in one of the main factor to
29
reach this goal.
With the goal of simulating a more realistic drilling environment to study the fluid
injection process, a facility was designed and constructed to investigate the flow regime
around a 12- inch drill bit. The focus of this report is a comparison of both the
pressure distribution below and flow field visualization around a Security-DBS roller
cone drill bit employing various fluid injection nozzle schemes. The results will show
what influence the different nozzle geometries have on drill bit performance through the
study of well floor pressure distribution and flow visualization images.
30
2 Experimental Facility

Figure 2.1 Layout of Experimental Facility

Research performed in a previous study, Reference [22], indicated that an atmospheric
pressure drill rig facility could be built to simulate a realistic drilling environment if
flow rate and pressure drop, per nozzle, were properly represented. As a result, a
conceptual design for the drill bit simulator facility, Figure 2.1, was developed. In this
simulator, a 12- inch roller cone oil drill bit and simulated collar is suspended from
offset steel plates. This offset steel plate structure supports the simulated drill collar and
the drill bit through 2 large bearings. Currently, these bearings are not utilized for
rotation. Beneath the drill bit assembly, a cast acrylic tube and contoured well floor is
positioned and supported by a rotary table. This assembly, the well cylinder assembly,
simulates the walls and floor of the oil well. The contour of the well floor is intended to
31
mimic that excavated by the bit during the drilling process. Water is pumped through
the simulated drill collar/bit assembly and associated nozzles, impacting the well bottom
and subsequently moving up through the well annulus and overflows into a capture tank.
Water from the capture tank then drains back into the main reservoir tank for re-
circulation. The capture tank capacity is approximately 120 gallons. The reservoir tank,
with internal underflow and overflow weirs, used to disperse the entrained air, has a
capacity of 960 gallons. Water flow through the system is achieved through the use of a
75 hp centrifugal pump. A bypass loop is used to control flow rate, and subsequently
pressure drop, through the drill bit. For a detailed discussion of the design methodology
of the facility, the reader is referred to Reference 2 for a complete review of the system.
2.1 Description of the facility
2.1.1 Well Bottom Assemblies
In order to accommodate the different goals specified in the testing program, two
separate well bottom assemblies were constructed, Figure 2.2, each having a contour
intended to mimic that excavated by the drill bit. A cast acrylic well bottom assembly is
utilized for flow visualization purposes, while an aluminum well bottom assembly is
used for base pressure measurements.

32

Figure 2.2 Well Bottom Shape (cross-sectional view)
In order to completely map the pressure distribution on the well bottom under the drill
bit, a rotary table is used to turn the entire well cylinder assembly, which includes the
well bottom and well cylinder walls. The rotary table has to be accurate and strong
enough to support the 4-foot long cast acrylic tube and the loads associated with facility
operation.
2.1.2 Rotary Table
The loads on the rotary table are composed of the forces induced by the water jet(s), the
weight of the water contained both in the drill collar and the annular well cavity, the
weight of the spill plate mounted at the top of the well assembly, and the weight of the
cast acrylic tube(s) and mating fittings. The combination of these loads was estimated
to be below 500 lbs.
The use of the rotary table configuration allows for a large load capacity. This table
features a rigid pair of 4-point contact radial ball bearings, which produce smooth
tabletop rotation. The low backlash precision bronze and steel worm gear drive
provides high accuracy and superb repeatability. This rugged construction offers load
capacities of 1000 pounds (45.3 N) and moment loads of 225 ft-lbs (305 N-m). A
33
Baldor servomotor and dedicated programmable logic controller drives the rotary table.
The servomotor features a built-in encoder for accurate positioning capability.

2.1.3 Interface Stand
In order to collect both pressure data and flow visualization images, an interface stand
was erected to position the well cylinder assembly above the rotary table. This stand is
composed of two steel plates, with one positioned above the other by a fixed distance
using 10 threaded rods housed within 10 equal length tubes. These spacers maintain
an equal distance between the lowest point on the drill bit and the well bottom assembly.
This combination of threaded rod and spacing tubes increases the rigidity of the
structure and prevents excessive vibration of the facility during operation. This
interface stand provides space for pressure tap tubing to exit from the bottom of the
aluminum well floor assembly and permit the insertion of a 45 inclined mirror under
the cast acrylic well floor, permitting the use of a horizontally mounted camera to
capture flow visualization images directly beneath the drill bit.
2.1.4 Supporting Table
To provide for position adjustment of the well assembly in two horizontal directions, the
rotary table with its associated interface stand and well cylinder assembly mounted
above, is affixed to a supporting table and base stand. This arrangement allows for
adjustment in the vertical direction in order to level the entire well support and
positioning structure.
34
2.1.5 Pump Design
To provide us an enhanced capability over the laboratory scale facility previously
constructed, Reference 1, a 400 gpm, 150 psi discharge pressure (200 psi max working
pressure), 75 hp, 3500 RPM pump has been installed. The selection of this size pump
was based on a compromise between cost and functionality. Initial discussions with the
sponsor indicated a desire to have a flow rate of 400 gpm at 200 psi. This size pump,
although available as a standard industrial product, would have required a 100 hp
electric motor, with the associated electrical infrastructure. The larger pump belongs to
the next class of industrial liquid pumps. At more than twice the price and with all the
installation problems involved with a bigger pump (large electric cables, safety
requirements, etc.), the decision to utilize the smaller pump was made. Moreover, this
change will not affect the results, in that it will still allow us to operate in the same
region of the gpm/psi curve developed in Reference [21].
2.1.6 Tank and Piping
The main feature in the design of the drill bit simulator is that it functions at atmospheric
pressure. Due to this feature the facility eliminates the need for a sealed water supply
and return system and the subsequent problems that result due to heat rejection
requirements. These design features provide reduced system complexity, but as a result
embody an inherent need to eliminate the entrapped air bubbles. To address these
issues, a capture tank and reservoir tank arrangement has been implemented.
The reservoir tank supplies the pump with conditioned water. The conditioning done by
the reservoir tank is the elimination of the entrapped air bubbles created during the
35
operation of the facility. The tank incorporates three settling compartments constructed
as underflow and overflow weirs. These compartments act to slow the progress of the
water and allow the entrapped air bubbles to rise and exit by natural buoyancy action.
In addition, the open top design of the tank allows heat to escape from the water via
natural convection. Frictional forces by the pump generate this heat in the water. As
with any engineered system, a trade-off between overall facility space requirements and
financial constraints dictated the size of the tank. As currently configured (96x 48x
48), the tank stores approximately 960 gallons of water and is constructed of sheet
polypropylene.
The capture tank located above the well cylinder assembly, functions to collect the water
that flows over the spill plate. The tank is designed as a donut with (4) three-inch
flanged nozzles positioned as low as possible on one side to allow the collected water to
drain into the reservoir tank. The capture tank, constructed of HDPE, can store
approximately 120 gallons of water. Interconnecting pipe throughout the facility is
standard 3 inch. Copper pipe is used for the pressurized loop, while PVC is used
between the capture and reservoir tanks.
2.1.7 Supporting Equipment
In order for the well cylinder to rotate on the rotary table, the drill collar/bit assembly is
attached to a steel suspension cage structure. Since the collar has been designed for
future drill bit rotation, the cage features upper and lower plates offset by four steel
spacer feet. Each plate contains a bearing assembly. The uppermost bearing, mounted
to the suspension cage upper plate, is a tapered thrust roller bearing designed to carry the
36
weight (1000 lb) of the facility. The lower roller bearing is fastened to the lower plate
and is designed to position the drill collar assembly and absorb radial loads from the
facility.
The upper plate of the supporting steel cage holding the drill collar assembly is
suspended from the ceiling via 4 arms. Each arm is constructed from square steel tubes
with the associated mounting plates and fixtures. In order to avoid any movement of the
cage during operation, (twisting around the z-axis), the upper plate has been linked to
the concrete side wall an additional steel bar. The lower plate is linked to the wall by
four steel bars, two perpendicular to the wall and two more at an angle of 45
o
. The steel
suspension cage is located such that drill bit is 4 feet from the floor, allowing access for
optical measurement diagnostic techniques.
2.2 Instrumentation & Data Acquisition
To achieve detailed pressure measurements on the well floor, a novel pressure
measurement tap arrangement scheme was required. The method employed in this
study was to place pressure taps in a spiral layout. The pressure taps are located every
30, with a 0.04 increase of radius for each angle increment, as shown in Figure 2.3.
This technique requires 154 pressure taps to adequately cover the well floor bottom. We
are constrained by our current instrumentation to measure the pressure from only 141
taps. Since too many taps in certain areas are not useful and other areas of the well floor
require higher accuracy, pressure measurement from some taps were sacrificed to
benefit others. Initial testing conducted indicated that the taps on the outer radius have
minimal effect on the overall pressure distribution accuracy and have since been
37
plugged. The reduction in outer radius pressure taps has benefited those areas on the
well floor deemed critical.

Figure 2.3 Pressure Tap Pattern in the Well Bottom

To complement the well floor pressure distribution, the measurement of nozzle
discharge coefficient is required. At this time in the research study, plans are being
made to directly measure this parameter. This will require the placement of pressure
taps within the body of the drill bit and at the exit of the nozzle. Other options for
collection of this parameter will be investigated. Knowing the discharge coefficient for
each type of nozzle (with this facility or the laboratory scale facility) should be useful in
understanding the effectiveness of the various nozzle styles.
As currently configured and presented in this report, the pressure distribution on the
bottom hole was composed of the pressure measurements from 141 out of 154 taps
available. Three multi-port pneumatic pressure valves, Scanivalves, were utilized to
collect this data. Each Scanivalve can sequentially acquire measurements from 47
38
pressure taps. With three valves configured in parallel, data from 141 pressure taps
could be acquired for each index angle selected by the user. Since the set of spiral
pressure taps are spaced at relative angles of 30
o
, the rotary table could be indexed to
angles whose multiple was 30. The pressure distributions shown in this report utilized
an index angle of 3
o
.
Each pneumatic valve utilized an independent pressure transducer. Two pressure
transducers had a pressure range up to 100 psig, while the third had a range of 75 psig.
Excitation voltage and signal conditioning was provided by external scientific quality
instrumentation amplifiers. Each pressure transducer was calibrated prior to data
collection utilizing a traceable pressure standard. Calibration information can be found
in Appendix. To provide facility operating conditions, water supply pressure, flow rate
and temperature was recorded for each well floor pressure measurement.

The amplified signal from each sensor was then acquired by a Pentium class PC based
data acquisition system. The system employed a National Instrument 16-bit A/D board
attached to an external multiplexer (AMUX). Digital I/O signals from the AMUX board
controlled the three Scanivalve systems, while the rotary table positioning was
controlled using ASCII data strings sent to the Baldor PLC unit via the PC RS232 serial
communication port. A schematic of the data collection system is shown in Figure 2.4.
A specialized data acquisition and control program was written in the LabView
programming language. Data collection and rotary table positioning control was
automated with the user selecting increment angle, rotary table rotational speed, the
number of samples collected and the sampling rate.
39
Figure 2.4 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition Setup
40
2.3 Flow Visualization
Flow visualization can aid in understanding the efficiency of the nozzles at removing
rock cuttings from under the drill bit. To provide this insight, the cast acrylic well
bottom was installed in the facility. The drill bit simulators inherent construction, clear
cast acrylic tubes and well bottom, provide a unique opportunity to examine the nature
of the flow structure on the well bottom and around drill bit. All aspects associated with
the installation of each nozzle under examination were recorded on videotape. This
included the startup process, jet structure and fluid discharge up and out through the
annular passage.
As previously discussed, the interface stand was designed to allow the installation of an
inclined (45
o
) mirror under the drill bit. This arrangement permits both still
photography and video imaging of the fluid processes. Keeping with the times, a digital
still camera and digital video camera were used to capture these images. The digital
camera is an Olympus Model D-600L mega-pixel camera, while the digital video
camera was a Sony Model DCRTRV120 digital camcorder. The camcorder utilizes a
470,000-pixel CCD sensor and the digital images were recorded on 8mm videotape.
The camera is equipped with a Firewire (IEEE 1394) serial interface for direct download
into an equipped PC for video editing and detailed study. After editing, a VHS
formatted videotape was created for wider publication.
41

2.3.1 Discussion
The complexity of the flow field across the faces of a typical roller cone drill bit
significantly reduces the probability of optimizing hydraulic design through purely
analytical means.measurements of flow field characteristics, therefore, has been assumed
necessary in this research to obtain essential data around which optimization porcedures
can be developed.as described in previously, the facility simulates downhole flow fields
using a full-scale bit.
To simulate bottomhole flow fields adequaly in the laboratory, one of two approches must
be taken. The first and the most straightforward approch, is to use fluids and flow rates
identical to those used in the field. The opacity of drilling muds, however rendres these
fluids useless in flow visualization tests, which are extremely useful in the investigation of
complex flow fields. The second approach circumvents this problemby using the principle
of similitude.
Similitude is the principle used in fluid mechanics to simulate flow fields around full-scale
geometries with smaller-scale models and /or different test fluids. This principle is
illustrated by an examination of the non dimensional Navier Stoke equation for the flow of
an incompressible, Newtonian fluid.
The effects of non-Newtonian behavior of the drilling fluid on observable flow field
characteristics are assumed to be second order effects ([22] Dave Glowka) and are not
considered further.Although viscous effects are not negligible in determiningthe shape of
streamlines. The effects of relatively small variations in viscosity caused by variable
42
transverse velocity gradients should be outweighed by the large momentum and pressure
force effects present in the high speed flows under consideration.
The scale of pressure is much lower than the one at the bottom hole in a real rig.
It can be considered that the flow field is similar; the difference is just due to an offset of
static pressure.
In the current application, the implication of this conclusion is that simulation of downhole
flow fields may be accomplished in the laboratory using clean water at regular flow rate

Regarding the characteristic of the formation ,the elastic limit and ultimate strengh of it are
the most important formation properties affecting penetration rate as described previously
the permeability of the formation also has a significant effect on pentration rate and some
less significant on flow field characteristics.in pemeable rocks, the drilling fluid filtrate can
move into the rock ahead of the bit and equalize the pressure differential acting on the
chips formed beneath each tooth.It also can be argued that the nature of the fluids
contaained in the pore spaces of the rock also affects this mechanism since more filtrate
volume would be required to equalize the pressure in a rock containing gas than in a rock
containing liquid. For commodity reasons those parameters cannot be taken in account in
our facility .the following paragaphes describe other the problems or phenomena
encountered and which it is very difficult to deal with and to evaluate how much important
they are.nevertheless it has to be kept in mind that they can affect in a certain measure the
data which have been taken .
The properties of the drilling fluid reported to affect the pnetration rate include density,
rheological flow properties filtration characteristics, solids content and size distribution,
43
and chemical composition.
Penetration rate tends to decrease with increasing fluid density, viscosity, and solids
content, and tends to increase with increasing filtration rate. The density, solids content,
and filtration characteristics of the mud control the pressure differential across the zone of
crushed rock beneath the bit. The fluid viscosity controls the parasitic frictional losses in
the drillstring and, thus, the hydraulic energy available at the bit jets forr cleaning. There is
also experimental evidence that increasing viscosity reduces penetration rate even when the
bit is perfectly clean. The chemical composition of the fluid has an effect on penetration
rate in that the hydration rate and bit balling tendency of some clays are affected by the
chemical composition of the fluid.
It has been reported that the presence of colloid-size particles., which are less than I
micron, are an order of magnitude more detrimental to penetration rate than are particles
coarser than about 30microns. It is believed that the colloidal particles are much more
efficient at plugging off the filtration beneath the bit. The development of the nondispersed,
polymer muds was aimed at reducing the concentration of colloidal-size particles present.
The effect of drilling fluid density and the resulting bottomhole pressure on penetration rate
has been conducted using a single bit tooth under simulated borehole conditions. have
provided some insight into the mechanism by which an increase in drilling fluid density
causes a decrease in penetration rate for rolling cutter bits. An increase in drilling fluid
density causes an increase in the bottomhole pressure beneath the bit and, thus, an increase
in the pressure differential between the borehole pressure and the formation fluid pressure.
This pressure differential between the borehole pressure and formation fluid pressure often
called the overbalance.
44
When a chip is being lifted, a vacuum can be created under the chip unless sufficient liquid
can be supplied to fill the opening void space. The liquid can he supplied only by (I)
drilling fluid flowing through the fracture.Drilling fluid filtrate flowing through the pores
of the chip. and formation fluid flowing into the void from the rock beneath the chip.
When drilling a rock of low permeability with a clay/water mud, which readily forms a
filter cake, the flow of liquid into the void beneath the chip was found to be too slow to
prevent a pressure reduction beneath the chip. Penetration rate decreased with increasing
mud pressure, even though the static overbalance remained constant. This indicates that the
effective dynamic overbalance during chip formation was greater than the static
overbalance. When water was used as the drilling fluid, pressure equalization beneath the
chip was more rapid for the rocks of moderate permeability, and penetration rate remained
constant with increasing mud pressure.
To obtain the effect of overbalance on penetration rate for a drag bit, Gamier and van
Lingen operated their drilling machine at various levels of borehole pressure while
maintaining the pore pressure constant at atmospheric pressure. Since the pore pressure was
already quite low, the dynamic and static overbalance was essentially equal.
Some field data on the effect of overbalance on penetration rate are also available. The
effect of overbalance on penetration rate in shale on seven wells drilled in south Louisiana
was studied by Vidrine and Benit. Data obtained on Well Data depth of about 12,000 ft
with an 8.5-in-diameter rolling cutter bit This type of behavior is accepted widely by field
drilling personnel familiar with changes in penetration rate due to changes in mud density.

As shown, there are many aspects which are not taken in account, and in order to
45
quantify how important they are , the sets of data which have been taken , have to be
compared to the ones got in the field.
46

3 Vortexx and Modular Nozzles
3.1 Operating Conditions
Initial qualification testing of the facility provided the extents of the operating range for
the drill bit simulator with the roller cone bit installed. For this study, two types of
injection nozzles were studied: Modular and Vortexx. With each type of nozzle
requiring different operating conditions, a compromise set of conditions was chosen that
would allow for the comparison of the resulting data.
The design of the facility allowed the user to set either drill bit inlet pressure or system
flow rate, up to the limits of the pump capacity. Setting both parameters independently
is not possible. For this set of tests, the inlet pressure of 140 psig was chosen. The
discharge coefficients for the nozzles installed then defined the flow rate through the
system.
To properly map the pressure distribution on the well floor, an angular increment of 3
was chosen. This corresponds to 120 angular positions and hence 141 x 120=16920
data points to define the pressure map of the well floor. Each test required 3 hours to
complete, during which the temperature of the water increased from 22C to 35C (72F
95F). An evaluation of the effect of this variation on pressure measurements produced
no measurable influence.
Data collection proceeded via computer control. Based on information collected during
system qualification runs, 500 data samples were acquired for each pressure tap at a rate
47
of 1000 samples per second. Prior to collecting this data, a settling time of 1 second was
chosen to allow the pressure at the transducer to reach equilibrium. Mean information
was calculated for each of the 16920 data points. Data repeatability, at nearly identical
test conditions, proved exceptionally good. To quantify this data repeatability, three (3)
sets of pressure data were acquired for each test condition.
3.2 Nozzle Arrangements
The focus of this series of tests was to study the relative effectiveness of using
asymmetric nozzles in a roller cone drill bit. Modular style nozzles are symmetric and
cannot be orientated in any direction. The roller cone drill incorporates an inherent cant
to each nozzle installation, identified as nozzle locations #1, #2 and #3. The cant angle
for locations #1, #2 and #3 are 15o, 16o, and 17o, respectively. The Vortexx style of
nozzle incorporates an angle adjustment mechanism to help direct the jet in a direction
other that that prescribed by the drill bit.
To properly orientate the nozzle for each location, Tuck-Leong Ho (from Security DBS)
was on-site and through a trial-and-error process of nozzle adjustment, installation and
test, an independent angle for each nozzle position was developed. The criteria used to
select the positions, shown in Table 1, was a compromise between the jet not hitting the
roller cone teeth and not hitting the well wall. This compromise was designed to obtain
the maximum jet impingement on the well floor.
48

Table 1 Vortexx Nozzle Angular Orientation

Nozzle Location
Bit Cant Angle Nozzle Angle
1 15
o
Approx. 85
o

2 16
o
Approx. 70
o

3 17
o
Approx. 70
o

3.3 Test Matrix
The results presented in this report focus on the performance of the modular and
Vortexx nozzles on well bottom pressure distribution and flow patterns. A roller cone
drill bit incorporates four (4) nozzle ports, three canted and one central. Discussions
with Security DBS indicated that a parametric study of the nozzles required the
inclusion of three different center nozzles for each canted nozzle, in order to assess their
overall performance. The test matrix for this study in shown in Table 2. All testing was
performed at an inlet pressure of 140 psig.
49

Table 2 Test Matrix
Nozzle Type Size Center Nozzle Type Size No. of Runs
Modular 16/32 Std. PDC 11/32 3
Modular 16/32 New Diffuser 11/32 3
Modular 16/32 Plugged N/A 3
Vortexx 16/32 Std. PDC 11/32 3
Vortexx 16/32 New Diffuser 11/32 3
Vortexx 16/32 Plugged N/A 3
50
4 Results

4.1 Base Pressure Distributions
The base pressure distributions from this series of tests are presented in Figures 5.1 thru
5.3 for the modular nozzle and Figures 5.9 thru 5.11 for the Vortexx nozzle. The data
presented represents 16920 data points from one of three runs recorded of each
configuration for this report. In order to interpret the data from the well bottom, both 2-
D and 3-D representations of the pressure distribution have been utilized in these
figures. For all of the base pressure distribution maps that follow, the orientation of the
nozzle jets are represented as shown in Figure 4.1.
The main features of each pressure distribution include an impact pressure peak for each
of the canted jets and a central peak for the center located nozzle, if one was used. The
pressure level on the well bottom attributable to each of the four jets is shown in an
accompanying table on each figure. That information is repeated here as Table 3. Each
figure is in color and features a pressure scale to better interpret the data. The entire set
of data collected for this report, shown as 2-D and 3-D pressure plots, is presented in
Appendix .The inlet pressure for each test case was 140 psig.

51

Figure 4.1 Notation Used For All Base Pressure Distribution Maps

52

Table 3 Well Bottom Pressure Levels

Main
Nozzle
Type
Center
Nozzle
Type
Flow
Rate
(gp
m)

P
1max
(psig)

P
2max
(psig)

P
3max
(psig)

P
CENmax
(psig)

P
min
(psig)
M PDC 302 26.1 26.5 26.8 9.6 0.5
M Diffuser 302 25.4 26.2 27.2 6.8 0.1
M Plugged 282 28.6 28.0 27.9 N/A 0.5
V PDC 287 15.2 17.5 19.0 8.9 1.5
V Diffuser 287 15.1 16.3 18.3 5.9 1.5
V Plugged 242 16.3 17.8 20.2 N/A 1.5

4.2 Flow Visualizations
Documentation of the flow field for both the Modular and Vortexx nozzles was recorded
via a digital camcorder described above. This information was downloaded to an
equipped PC to edit the recorded footage and extract single frame images that are
included in this report. The selected images are a representative sample of those present
on the videotape. The complete video record has been translated into VHS compatible
format for wider distribution and is provided with this report.
The images selected for inclusion in this report illustrate the flow behavior under and
around the roller cone drill bit. Similar images are presented for both types of nozzles.
The included images show the following information about each nozzle.
Jet structure
Flow structure in annular passage above drill bit
53
Localized separation zones
Well bottom stagnation lines
Jet/drill bit teeth interference

Comparisons between the recorded pressure data and the images will be addressed. In
addition, the effect of the installation of a center nozzle will be examined.
54
5 Discussion
5.1 Modular Nozzles
5.1.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distribution
A representative set of pressure data associated with the modular nozzle is shown in
Figures 5.1 thru 5.3. Well bottom pressure levels for this nozzle are included with each
figure and summarized in Table 3. Features of the pressure distribution on the well floor
indicate the clear impact pressure from the modular nozzle jets. Comparing the
magnitude of the maximum impact pressures indicate that when a center nozzle is
installed, the pressure attributable to nozzle #3 is consistently the largest. In addition,
the impact pressure increased almost equal levels as we progressed from jet 1 to 3.
When we take the increasing cant angle into consideration, it appears that the discharge
coefficients of the three modular nozzles are similar. With a plugged center nozzle, the
pressure maximum is located below jet #1. Examining the impact pressure under each
nozzle, corresponding to the different center nozzle installations (i.e. PDC, diffuser and
plugged), the variation from the average maximum impact pressure associated with the
dataset is 1.3%, 3.4% and 1.3%, respectively. This is a further indication of similar
discharge coefficients between the three modular nozzles.
Center jet maximum impact pressures are as expected with the diffuser nozzle producing
a maximum impact pressure approximately 29% lower than the level due to the PDC
nozzle. Further examination of the pressure data indicates that the minimum pressure
level on the well bottom is at or below 0.5 psig. Since the well cylinder contains
55
approximately 4 feet of water (1.8 psig), the modular nozzle installation creates a
pressure level lower than the calculated hydrostatic pressure over the well bottom. The
diffuser style nozzle produces the largest reduction in the minimum observed well
bottom pressure (0.1 psig). This is an indication of the local fluid velocity on the well
bottom. For the diffuser nozzle, this corresponds to approximately 16 ft/sec, as
compared to 14 ft/sec for the PDC and plugged configurations.
The change in flow rate between the PDC and diffuser configurations verses the plugged
center nozzle configuration, does not appear to alter the pressure distribution on the well
bottom. Other than the expected increase in impact pressure and absence of a center jet
impact pressure peak, the only change to the pressure distribution is the reduction in the
width of the stagnation line region under the each roller cone. This region will be
discussed in the next section.
56

P
1max
26.1 psig P
CENmax
9.6 psig
P
2max
26.5 psig P
min
0.5 psig
P
3max
26.8 psig Flow Rate 302gal/min
Figure 5.1 Modular Nozzles With PDC Center Nozzle
57

P
1max
25.4 psig P
CENmax
6.8 psig
P
2max
26.2 psig P
min
0.1 psig
P
3max
Figure 5.2 Modular Nozzles With New Diffuser Center Nozzle
58

P
1max
28.6 psig P
CENmax
---------
P
2max
28.0 psig P
min
0.5 psig
P
3max
Figure 5.3 Modular Nozzles With Plugged Center Nozzle
59
5.1.2 Flow Visualization
The flow visualization images presented here were chosen to show the overall features
of the flow field around the drill bit with the modular nozzles installed. Those
corresponding to the modular nozzles are shown in Figures 5.4 thru 5.7. As previously
discussed images of jet structure, flow in the annular passage, localized separation zones
and stagnation lines are presented.

Figure 5.4 Modular Nozzle Jet
60

The jet emanating from a given modular nozzle is shown in Figure 5.4. This jet is
centered between two adjacent roller cones and impinges on the well floor. The jet
appears well structured and does not spread an appreciable amount. Other than the
inherent difference in cant angle between jets 1, 2 and 3, all modular nozzle jets display
the same structure. The fluid from the jets impact the well floor and spread beneath the
roller cone teeth. As a result, three stagnation lines appear in both the pressure data and
flow visualization images. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show this behavior. The red lines shown
in Figure 5.5 correspond to the axis of the cones and the clearly visible stagnation lines,
shown in Figure 5.6, occur at the same location. (Please note that the well bottom was
rotated when Figure 5.6 was imaged.)

Figure 5.5 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Modular Nozzles with Plugged
Center Nozzle)
61

Figure 5.6 Flow Visualization of Stagnation Lines with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular
Nozzles)

After the jet impinges on the well floor, the fluid flows up passed, around and between
the cone fingers and pads. During the fluids upward travel, it appears to impinge upon
the underside of the drill bit body near the exit of the jets, creating visible flow
separation zones at the edge of the body itself, as shown in Figure 5.7. This separation
zone appears to encompass the entire pad of the drill bit body, creating large re-
circulation zones in the annulus, as shown in Figure 5.8.

62

Figure 5.7 Locations of Flow Separation (Modular Nozzle)

Figure 5.8 Re-Circulation Zones in the Annulus (Modular Nozzles)
63
The flow in the annular passage is highly unsteady. A true appreciation of this can be
reached by viewing the videotaped images. This unsteady behavior is not conducive to
the efficient removal of rock cuttings and contributes to increased system energy losses.
5.2 Vortexx Nozzles
5.2.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distribution
The set of pressure data associated with the Vortexx
nozzle is shown in Figures 5.9

thru 5.12. Well bottom pressure levels for this nozzle are included with each figure and
summarized in Table 3. Features of the pressure distribution on the well floor indicate
the clear impact pressure peak from the Vortexx nozzle jets. These maximum impact
pressure values are 28% to 43% below those associated with the modular nozzles.
Comparing the magnitude of the maximum impact pressures from jet 1, 2 and 3
indicates that the pressure attributable to nozzle #3 is consistently the largest. In
addition, the impact pressure increased as we progressed from jet 1 to 3 for every center
nozzle configuration. This increase in the maximum impact pressure is linked to both
the increasing cant angles of the nozzle locations 1, 2 and 3 as well as the nozzle angles
given in Table 1 for each Vortexx nozzle installation.
When we examine the impact pressure under each nozzle, corresponding to each
different center nozzle installation (i.e. PDC, diffuser and plugged), the variation from
the average maximum impact pressure associated with each dataset is 11%, 9.6% and
10.5%, respectively. This variation, approximately 10%, indicates that the compound
angle configuration for this Vortexx installation affects the discharge coefficient of the
64
nozzle, as can be surmised from the impact pressure data, since the modular nozzle
installation indicated a similar discharge coefficient for any jet location.
Center Nozzle maximum impact pressures are as expected with the diffuser nozzle
producing a maximum impact pressure approximately 33% lower when compared to the
PDC nozzle. Unlike the modular nozzle configuration, the minimum pressure level on
the well bottom is 1.5 psig for each case. This is only a slight variation from the local
hydrostatic pressure of 1.8 psig. This is an indication of the local fluid velocity on the
well bottom of approximately 6 ft/sec. This velocity is approximately 40 % less than
that observed in the modular nozzle configuration.
In a manner similar to the modular nozzle installation, the change in flow rate between
the PDC/diffuser and the plugged center nozzle configurations does not appear to
change the overall structure of the pressure distribution on the well bottom. The
reduction in the overall flow rate for all Vortexx nozzle installations indicates that the
discharge coefficient for the Vortexx nozzle is not as efficient when compared to the
modular nozzle installation.

65

P
1max
15.2 psig P
CENmax
8.9 psig
P
2max
17.5 psig P
min
1.5 psig
P
3max
Figure 5.9 Vortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle
66

P
1max
15.1 psig P
CENmax
5.9 psig
P
2max
16.3 psig P
min
1.5 psig
P
3max
Figure 5.10 Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center Nozzle
67

P
1max
16.3 psig P
CENmax
---------
P
2max
17.8 psig P
min
1.5 psig
P
3max
Figure 5.11 Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle
68
A clear indication of the effect of the compound angle installation of the Vortexx nozzles is
the shift in the stagnation lines from directly under the cones. Since the jets are not
symmetric and are not in a plane perpendicular to the bottom hole, the jets do not hit each
other under the cones, but rather to one side of the cones. This cross flow created by the
jets is an attempt by the jets to clean underneath the cones. The location of the shifted
stagnation lines is shown in Figure 5.12. The red lines correspond to the axis of the cone
and it can clearly be seen that the stagnation lines are shifted, in particular between jet #1
and #3.

Figure 5.12 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged
Center Nozzle)
69

5.2.2 Flow Visualization
The flow visualization images presented here were chosen to show the overall features
of the flow field around the drill bit with the Vortexx nozzles installed. By utilizing
CFD analysis, the deflection of the jet emanating from the Vortexx nozzle was
calculated to have an angle of 11 with the axis of the nozzle. Examination of the flow
visualization images, Figures 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15, indicate this angle to be much larger,
somewhere between 15 and 30. Further study of this nozzle, installed in the
laboratory scale nozzle flow tank, would be a reasonable course of action to
experimentally determine this deflection angle.
As a result of this deflection, the jets from the Vortexx nozzles impinge upon the teeth
of the roller cone bit. This clearly is a situation that must be avoided. The erosive
behavior of the water used in this series of tests was capable of removing small diamond
pellets from the teeth of the used drill bit supplied for this research study. From
anecdotal information the utilization of a drilling fluid, a more abrasive media, was able
to erode the teeth completely. Efforts by the research staff to position the jets to avoid
hitting the teeth proved unsuccessful. No re-orientation of the nozzles was possible to
fulfill what appeared to be the two competing criteria used to position the nozzles. As
previously discussed, that criterion was 1) for the jet to avoid hitting the roller cone teeth
and 2) for the jet to avoid hitting the well wall.
70

Figure 5.13 Vortexx Nozzle #1

71


The flow pattern created by the Vortexx nozzles within the annular region, between the
drill collar and the well walls, is quite unlike that which is produced by the modular
nozzles. The Vortexx nozzles give rise to a helical flow pattern that surrounds the drill
collar. From the flow visualization video and still images, Figure 5.16, the flow pattern
produced by the Vortexx nozzles funnels the drilling fluid into a structured upward
spiral, resulting in a very steady flow pattern. Using the many air bubbles as an
indication of the effectiveness of this process, it would appear that the fluid motion
would operate like an elevator, transporting rock cuttings upward. As an added benefit
to this flow pattern, no significant re-circulation or flow separation zones were observed
72
around the drill. Hence, the flow separation phenomenon around the drill bit pads,
observed in the case of the modular nozzle installation, are of less overall importance to
the flow pattern.

Figure 5.16 Swirl in the Annulus (Vortexx Nozzles)

5.2.3 PDC Center Nozzle
The purpose of the center jet in the roller cone drill bit is to help the canted nozzles in
their mission of cooling and cleaning the roller cone teeth, as well as the removal of the
cuttings from directly below the drill bit body. By examining the well bottom pressure
distributions, the PDC nozzle produces a concentrated jet with an enhanced impact
pressure level, Table 3, when compared to the diffuser nozzle. The extent of this
enhancement for the PDC jet as compared to the diffuser jet, as revealed through the
maximum impact pressure level, is approximately 40% larger when installed with the
73
modular nozzles and 50% larger when installed with the Vortexx nozzles. The
difference between the two installations, modular verses Vortexx for a given type of
center nozzle installation, most likely arises from the reduced flow rate for the Vortexx
nozzle tests. Additional parametric studies would be required to quantify this effect.
Further examination of the well bottom pressure distribution, Figure 5.17, indicates that
the jet from the PDC nozzle does not impact the well bottom at its center. This
deflection can be attributed to the interference of the one set of roller cone teeth that
protrude directly below the center nozzle location of the drill bit assembly.

Figure 5.17 Lines of Stagnation with PDC Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)

74

Figure 5.18 Flow Pattern with PDC Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)

A more focused and concentrated center jet may increase the erosion of the teeth on the
roller cone. Also evident in this figure are the three radial stagnation lines (shown as red
lines) emanating from the center. An additional feature, a red circle, has been added that
indicates the stagnation line created by the center jet installation. These stagnation lines
are clearly visible from the flow visualization images, as shown in Figure 5.18.
5.2.4 New Diffuser Center Nozzle
The well bottom pressure distribution with the new diffuser center nozzle is shown in
Figure 5.19. The new diffuser pressure pattern exhibits the same overall features as the
PDC nozzle installation but at somewhat lower levels, as its name would imply. This
75
feature may prove beneficial when considering roller cone teeth erosion due to direct jet
impingement. The level of the maximum impact pressure from the diffuser nozzle is
approximately 30 % less than the PDC pressure levels. From the pressure data
collected, it is not clear whether this pressure level is sufficient to prevent balling.
Additional simulations would be required to quantify this behavior. The deflection of
the jet due to the interference of the roller cones is still evident.
In a manner similar to the PDC nozzle installation, three radial stagnation lines (shown
as red lines in Figure 5.19) are apparent. The addition of the diffuser nozzle creates an
additional stagnation line, but unlike the PDC installation this stagnation line appears to
be a collapsed circle, most likely caused by the overall lower well bottom pressure level
created by the diffuser nozzle. This rounded triangle is clearly visible in the flow
visualization image shown in Figure 5.20.

76

Figure 5.19 Lines of Stagnation with New Diffuser Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)

77

Figure 5.20 Flow Pattern with New Diffuser Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)
5.2.5 Plugged Center Nozzle
The well bottom pressure distribution with no center nozzle installed is shown in Figure
5.21. Overall, the pressure pattern exhibits features similar to the two previous center
nozzle installations. The principal change from the previous circumstances is the
observation that the three stagnation lines (shown as red lines) merge at a single psoint;
that origin is the center of the well bottom. Additionally, these stagnation lines are not
as well defined when compared to the PDC and diffuser installations. This pressure
distribution lacks the circular or triangular stagnation feature indicative of an installed
center nozzle. The flow visualization image of this behavior is shown in Figure 5.22. In
addition, video images of this configuration indicate the presents of a large re-
78
circulation zone directly below the plugged center nozzle. This behavior contributes to
the observed balling phenomenon under roller cone drill bits. This re-circulation
event appears in the pressure data as the reduced strength stagnation lines.

Figure 5.21 Lines of Stagnation with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)

79

Figure 5.22 Flow Pattern with Plugged Center Nozzle (Modular Nozzles)

80
6 Conclusion about Vortexx
and Modular
The focus of this first study was to simulate the fluid injection process from the nozzles
of an oil drill bit in a more realistic drilling environment. The facility is built around a
used 12- inch roller cone drill bit with a simulated drill collar, initially utilizing
modular and Vortexx nozzles to study the injection process. The facility, as currently
configured, was designed to measure well bottom pressure distribution and provide
visual access to the drill bit for flow visualization and optical diagnostic measurement
techniques (i.e. PIV, LDV, PDA). A 150 psig-400 gpm centrifugal pump, driven by a
75 hp electric motor, provides the means to simulate the fluid injection environment in
this test rig. Additional supporting components include tanks, piping, rotary table,
sensors, amplifiers and data acquisition hardware/software. The facility operates
smoothly, exhibiting acceptable vibration and noise levels. This first study presents well
bottom pressure distributions and flow visualization still and video images, for six
different configurations.
The modular nozzle produced larger maximum impact pressures on the well bottom
floor when compared to the Vortexx
nozzle installation. Both the cant angle of the

drill bit and the inherent jet angle from the Vortexx nozzle contribute to these measured
differences. In particular, the direction of the jet from the Vortexx nozzles is such that
they impinge upon the teeth of the roller cone bit. Significant effort was expended at
each of the three main nozzle locations to remedy this difficulty to no avail. This
orientation dilemma will create premature wear of the roller cone teeth, as the flow
visualization images and anecdotal real world events indicate. Additional effort and
81
studies should focus on re-directing the jet from the Vortexx nozzle to reduce the
detrimental effects on the roller cone teeth.
Although the discharge coefficient for the modular and Vortexx nozzles was not
recorded in this series of tests, the combined information from well bottom impact
pressure distribution and the flow rateinlet pressure information seems to indicate that
the discharge coefficient of the Vortexx nozzle is less than the modular nozzle.
At first glance, the reduced impact pressure and the apparently inadequate discharge
coefficient from the Vortexx nozzle installation in the roller cone bit, would tend to rule
out its use if it werent for the striking flow behavior it creates under and around the drill
bit. Namely, the shift in the stagnation lines from directly under the roller cones
(modular nozzles) to a position slightly askew creates a cross flow under the cones that
may aid in the removal of cuttings. In addition, this sweeping action continues up past
the drill bit body and into the annulus created between the drill collar and well cylinder
walls. No significant re-circulation zones were present. In a sense, the Vortexx nozzles
seem to work together to direct the flow in a given general direction, reducing system
energy losses.
This highly structured flow field (swirl) from the Vortexx nozzle is diametrically
opposite of that created by the modular nozzle installation. The modular nozzle flow
field is composed of large re-circulation zones and fluid impingement under the drill bit
body pads. These large re-circulation zones contribute to overall system energy losses
that may equal those that can be attributed to the reduction in discharge coefficient from
the Vortexx nozzle. With the addition of a center nozzle, new stagnation lines develop.
The strength and shape of these stagnation lines require further study. In particular, at
82
what level does the center jet help or harm the act of removing the cuttings from under
the drill bit. Since both the PDC nozzle and the diffuser nozzle exhibit similar pressure
distributions, the relative impact pressure levels may determine which nozzle is more
effective. The reduction in the relative strength of the three radial stagnation lines with
the plugged center nozzle indicates that the use of relatively small center nozzles may
produce the desired reduction in bit balling. Directing the center nozzle jet at some
angle may prove beneficial.
Flow separations around the drill bit body are evident in the flow visualization video
images. It is clear that the shape of the body is not a hydrodynamically efficient shape.
Some flow separations occur, resulting in system energy loss. This trait is more
pronounced with the modular nozzle installation. The inherent spiral flow structure
developed by the Vortexx nozzles is not influenced as much by this geometric feature.
83

For this second study, two types of injection nozzles were studied, Side Port and
Modular. The design of the facility allows the user to set either drill bit inlet pressure or
system flow rate, up to the limits of the pump capacity. Setting both parameters
independently is not possible. For this set of tests, the inlet pressure of 140 psig was
chosen. The discharge coefficients for the nozzles installed then defined the flow rate
through the system.
To properly map the pressure distribution on the well floor, an angular increment of 3
was chosen. This corresponds to 120 angular positions and hence 141 x 120=16920
data points to define the pressure map of the well floor. Each test required 3 hours to
complete, during which the temperature of the water increased from 25C to 45C (77F
113F). An evaluation of the effect of this variation on pressure measurements
produced no measurable influence.

84

7 Side Port Nozzles
.
7.1 Nozzle Arrangements
The focus of this series of tests was to investigate the applicability of utilizing the side
port nozzle in creating a stable swirling flow field, similar to the behavior induced by the
Vortexx nozzle, on the well bottom and within the well cylinder annulus. In order to
accomplish this task, two side port nozzles were used in conjunction with one modular
nozzle. The roller cone drill bit incorporates an inherent cant to each nozzle installation,
identified as nozzle locations #1, #2 and #3. The cant angle for locations #1, #2 and #3
are 15
o
, 16
o
, and 17
o
, respectively. The side port nozzles have been installed in nozzle
locations #2 and #3, while the various modular nozzles occupy location #1. All tests were
conducted with a plugged center jet.
The side port style of nozzle incorporates an angle adjustment mechanism to help direct
the side port jet in a direction other than that prescribed by a random installation within
the drill bit. To ascertain the proper orientation of the side port nozzle for this new
swirling function, several different orientations were evaluated for this test series. The
criteria used to select the positions was a compromise between the side port jet not hitting
the roller cone teeth and not hitting the well wall. In addition, an added requirement to
prevent balling, since no center jet would be used, was imposed. For this series of tests,
the side port jets were directed toward the center of the drill bit, to prevent balling as
85
shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2, with, as much off-axis orientation as possible to create a
swirling motion in the annulus.

Figure 7.1 Orientation of Side Port Nozzle in Jet Position #2

Figure 7.2 Orientation of Side Port Nozzle in Jet Position #3
86
7.2 Test Matrix
The results presented in this report focus on the performance of the side port and
modular nozzles on well bottom pressure distribution and flow patterns, as well as well
annulus flow behavior. A roller cone drill bit incorporates four (4) nozzle ports, three
canted and one central. The current parametric study, whose test matrix is shown in
Table 4, investigates three different modular nozzles for a given side port nozzle
configuration, in order to assess their overall performance. The side port nozzle used for
this study was equivalent to a 16/32 modular nozzle. In addition, a test condition with
only the two side port nozzles and no modular nozzle was performed. All testing was
performed at an inlet pressure of 140 psig.

Table 4 Test Matrix

Nozzle Configuration Modular
Nozzle
Size
Center Jet
Type
No. of
Runs
Location#1 Location#2 Location#3
Modular Side Port Side Port 12/32 Plugged 3
Plugged Side Port Side Port N/A Plugged 3
87
8 Results

8.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distributions
The base pressure distributions from this series of tests are presented in Figures 9.1 thru
9.4. The data presented represents 16920 data points from one of three runs recorded for
each configuration in this report. In order to interpret the data from the well bottom,
both 2-D and 3-D representations of the pressure distribution have been utilized in these
figures. For all of the base pressure distribution maps that follow, the orientation of the
nozzle jets is represented as shown in Figure 8.1. The main features of each pressure
distribution include an impact pressure peak for each of the canted jets. The pressure
level on the well bottom attributable to each of the three jets is shown in an
accompanying table on each figure. That information is repeated here as Table 5. Each
figure is in color and features a pressure scale to better interpret the data. The entire set
of data collected for this report, shown as 2-D and 3-D pressure plots, is presented in
Appendix . The inlet pressure for each test case was 140 psig.
88

Figure 8.1 Notation Used For All Base Pressure Distribution Maps

89

Table 5 Well Bottom Pressure Levels

Modular
Nozzle
Size
Center
Nozzle
Type
Flow
Rate
(gpm)

P
1max
(psig)

P
2max
(psig)

P
3max
(psig)

P
CENmax
(psig)

P
min
(psig)
12/32 Plugged 210 17 23 21.5 N/A 1.0
16/32 Plugged 247 25 22 19.5 N/A 0
20/32 Plugged 292 47 21 19 N/A -2.0
N/A Plugged 165 0 24 22 N/A 1.0
8.2 Flow Visualizations
Documentation of the flow field for this series of tests was recorded via a digital
camcorder described above. This information was downloaded to an equipped PC to
edit the recorded footage and extract single frame images that are included in this report.
The selected images are a representative sample of those present on the videotape. The
complete video record has been translated into VHS compatible format for wider
distribution and is provided with this report.
The images selected for inclusion in this report illustrate the flow behavior under and
around the roller cone drill bit. Similar images are presented for all test cases examined.
The included images show the following information about each installation.
90

Jet structure
Flow structure in annular passage above drill bit
Localized separation zones
Well bottom stagnation lines
Jet/drill bit teeth interference
Comparisons between the recorded pressure data and the images will be addressed in the
Discussion section of this report.
91
9 Discussion
9.1 Well Bottom Pressure Distributions
A representative set of pressure data associated with this series of tests is shown in
Figures 9.1 thru 9.4. Well bottom pressure levels for the configurations tested are
included with each figure and summarized in Table 5. Features of the pressure
distribution on the well floor indicate the clear impact pressure by both the side port and
modular nozzle jets.
Comparing the magnitude of the maximum impact pressures for the side port nozzles as
a group indicates that the nozzle installations are similar. If an average impact pressure
level of those associated with the side port nozzles were calculated for this test series
(those with a modular nozzle installed in jet location #1) the maximum deviation from
the mean for this set of tests would be no more than 5%. That translates roughly into 1
psig. Given the inherent difference in cant angle between jet locations 2 and 3, the
impact pressure level similarity is exceptional.
As a consequence of this relative similarity in impact pressure level amongst the side
port nozzle data, it appears that the discharge coefficients of the two side port nozzles
are similar. Furthermore, utilizing the well bottom impact pressure data from the
(16/32) modular nozzle for comparison purposes, it appears that the discharge
coefficient for the side port nozzle is less than the modular nozzle for the same given
size. This is to be expected due to the added losses associated with the side port jet from
this nozzle.
92

The maximum impact pressure created by the modular nozzles varies with nozzle size.
This is to be expected since the impact pressure level and flow rate are related. From
the pressure and flow rate data recorded, an estimated installed flow rate for the modular
nozzles can be determined. Table 6 presents the relevant installed modular nozzle.

Table 6 Modular Nozzle Installed Properties

Modular
Nozzle
Size
Maximum
Impact
Pressure
Approximate
Flow Rate
12/32 17 psig 45 gpm
16/32 25 psig 82 gpm
20/32 47 psig 127 gpm

A detailed examination of the well bottom pressure distributions reveals the flow
direction. Realizing that the structure of the pressure distribution of the jet on the well
bottom is shaped like a horseshoe reveals the cross flow direction. This behavior is seen
clearly in Figure 8. The impact pressures associated with jet#1 and jet#2 display two
downstream pressure lobes. This behavior is well documented in the fluid mechanics
literature. Namely, a jet injected into a cross flow develops two counter rotating
vortices on the downstream side of the injected jet, away from approaching flow field.
93
Furthermore, examination of Figures 9.1, 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 display the same behavior
with varying degrees of clarity. In all four cases discussed in this report, the impact
pressure distribution associated with jet#3 shows no such behavior.
A review of like pressure distributions from Reference [21] indicate that only one
modular nozzle installation (that with the New Diffuser center nozzle) seems to
indicate this cross flow pattern in the well bottom pressure data. Examination of the
pressure distribution data for the Vortexx nozzle installation appears to show this
behavior for both the New Diffuser and Plugged center nozzle configurations. In all
cases, this behavior was evident in the pressure data associated with jet#1.
For the current study, a system of dissimilar nozzles was utilized. This arrangement can
be termed unbalanced, in that the flow rates associated with each nozzle are not equal.
The unbalanced nature of the flow field is evident in the shifting of the three stagnation
lines. These stagnation lines, shown as red lines for clarity in Figures 9.5 thru 14, are
located generally beneath the roller cones. When three nozzles are installed, three
stagnation regions appear in both the pressure and flow visualization data. We can
approximate the angle encompassed between each stagnation region. This angular
information is shown in Table 7. Angular information for the plugged jet #1
configuration formed only one stagnation line, hence a cross flow region was
established under two of the three roller cones.
94

Table 7 Approximate Angle Encompassed Between Stagnation Regions

Modular
Nozzle
Size
Angle
A
(Jet 1)
Angle
B
(Jet 2)
Angle
C
(Jet 3)
12/32 115
o
130
o
115
o

16/32 130
o
115
o
115
o

20/32 140
o
110
o
110
o

Examination of the data presented in Table 7 indicates that as the flow rate from the
modular nozzle varied from approximately 45 gpm to 127 gpm (Table 6), the area
bounded by the stagnation regions for jet location 1 grew by approximately 22%. This
in itself may be significant, but the more important indicator as to if this unbalance is
producing the desired effect, (i.e. creating a cross flow under the roller cones) is to
examine how far the stagnation region has shifted. With this in mind, Table 7 indicates
that the shift varies from 5
o
to +20
o
, with 120
o
being the nominal cone-to-cone angular
spacing.
95

P
1max
17 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
23 psig P
min
1.0 psig
P
3max
Figure 9.1 Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32) Modular Nozzle
96

P
1max
25 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
22 psig P
min
0 psig
P
3max
97

P
1max
47 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
21 psig P
min
-2.0 psig
P
3max
19 psig Flow Rate 292gal/min
98

P
1max
0 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
24 psig P
min
1.0 psig
P
3max
Figure 9.4 Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet#1
99

Modular Nozzle)

100

Modular Nozzle)

101

Modular Nozzle)

102

Figure 9.8 Pressure Mapping and Lines of Stagnation (Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged
Jet #1)
9.2 Flow Visualization
The flow visualization images presented here are a representative sample of the overall
features of the flow field around the drill bit for each test case. Those images
corresponding to the jet features are shown in Figures 9.9 thru 9.13. Images of the well
bottom flow patterns are shown in Figure 9.15 thru 9.18, while images of the flow field
in the annulus are shown in Figures 9.19 thru 9.22.
103
9.3 Jet Features
The behavior of the jet in the near field will be discussed in this section. The main focus
of this study is the behavior of the flow field with two side port nozzles installed. Figure
9.9 shows both the main jet and side jet emanating from a single side port nozzle. The
jet in the near field is the main jet and the side jet is duly labeled. The orientation of the
side jet is mostly perpendicular to the principal axis of the nozzle. It should be noted
that as the inlet pressure to the drill bit is increased, the orientation of the side jet
become increasingly perpendicular to the nozzle axis. The appearance of the main jet
from this nozzle is well defined and turbulent. Similarly, the side jet appears well
defined and turbulent.

Figure 9.9 Main and Side Jets of a Side Port Nozzle

104
The jet emanating from the 12/32 modular nozzle is shown in Figure 9.10. This jet is
well defined but the core of the jet appears rather weak, when compared to the main jet
of the side port nozzle as described in the above paragraph. The side jet of side port jet
#2 can be seen behind this weak main jet formed by the 12/32 modular nozzle. The
turbulence level exhibited by this jet also appears less than the main jet of the side port
nozzle.

Figure 9.10 12/32 Modular Nozzle Jet

105


The jet emanating from the 16/32 modular nozzle is shown in Figure 9.11. Features of
this jet are a turbulent opaque core with an ill-defined boundary between the
surrounding fluid and the jet. By its very nature, the jet will begin to diffuse into the
surrounding fluid, creating secondary motion of this quiescent fluid. The spreading
rate of this 16/32 modular nozzle jet appears greater than the jet associated with the
12/32 modular nozzle. So although the 12/32 modular nozzle jet was weaker, it appears
concentrated within a smaller footprint on the well bottom. This is clearly evident by
examining the pressure data shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2.
The jet emanating from the 20/32 modular nozzle is shown in Figure 9.12. This jet
features a well-defined core similar to that seen for the 12/32 modular nozzle jet, with a
106
turbulence level within the core which appears less than that in the 16/32 jet, as
described in the preceding paragraph. Both the main and side jets of the side port nozzle
are visible behind this semi-transparent jet. The footprint on the well bottom of the jet
emanating from the 20/32 modular nozzle is smaller than that associated with the 16/32
modular nozzle. This seems to be counter intuitive, but it should be noted that the inlet
pressure to the drill bit simulator was selected as a compromise between the competing
nozzles in this series of tests. It may be that the pressure chosen is not the appropriate
setting for this size of nozzle, leading to a jet that is not properly expanded.

107
In order to complete the picture, Figure 9.13 shows the plugged configuration of the test
series. In this figure, the side jet of the side port nozzle in jet location#2 is visible in the
background.

Figure 9.13 Plugged Jet Location #1

108
9.4 Well Bottom Flow Patterns
The behavior of the flow field on the well bottom will be discussed in this section. As a
consequence of the interaction between the jets, stagnation regions develop under the
roller cones, impeding efficient cleaning and removal of rock cuttings. The location and
size of the observed stagnation regions will be discussed in this section. Orientation of
the jets in the images that follow, Figures 9.15 thru 9.18, has been rotated approximately
90
o
counterclockwise from the previous definition. The new orientation of the various
jets is shown in Figure 9.14. The location of the two side port nozzles remains as before
in jet locations #2 and #3.

Figure 9.14 Orientation Of Well Bottom Flow Visualization Images
109

The flow pattern on the well bottom associated with the 12/32 modular nozzle
installation is shown in Figure 9.15. The three stagnation lines are located directly below
each of the roller cones. The look of the stagnation lines seems to indicate that they are
not a distinct flow structure. They are rather broad in their appearance with the
stagnation line located between the two side port jets slightly thinner. These broad and
diffuse stagnation regions contain slow moving fluid (i.e. low dynamic pressure) not
capable of transporting large rock cuttings from beneath the roller cones. This
unbalanced nozzle configuration does not appear to shift the stagnation lines in a
constructive manner.

Figure 9.15 12/32 Modular Nozzle Installation-Well Bottom Stagnation Lines
110


The well bottom flow pattern associated with the 16/32 nozzle is shown in Figure 9.16.
Three clear and distinct stagnation lines can be seen in this image. Unlike the flow
pattern associated with the 12/32 nozzle, the stagnation lines for the 16/32 nozzle are
thin and appear to be of equal strength, indicating a balanced system. The stagnation
lines appear located underneath the roller cones.

111


The flow pattern associated with the 20/32 nozzle test case is shown in Figure 9.17. The
stagnation region is again broad and diffuse, similar to that of the 12/32 nozzle. Once
again, this is an unbalanced nozzle flow configuration. The well bottom area bounded
by the stagnation lines created between the 20/32 nozzle and the side port nozzles, grew
by approximately 20
o
. This equates to an approximate 10
o
shift of the stagnation line in
each direction, moving the stagnation zone from directly under the roller cone to slightly
askew. The effectiveness of this small shift in the stagnation line maybe offset by the
larger stagnation region associated with this nozzle configuration.
The plugged jet configuration is shown in Figure 9.18. The well bottom flow pattern
indicates a single stagnation line between jet #2 and jet #3. Although the roller cone
112
teeth are evident between jets #1 and #3 and jets #1 and #2 in the image, the associated
fluid stagnation configuration is not evident. This fact seems to indicate that cross flow
under two of the three roller cones is present for this nozzle installation configuration.

Figure 9.18 Plugged Jet Location#1 Installation-Well Bottom Stagnation Lines

113
9.5 Annulus Flow Field Features
The behavior of the flow field within the annulus will be discussed in this section. As a
consequence of the interaction between the jets, as well as the stagnation regions that
develop under the roller cones, the flow from the nozzles is directed up through the
annulus created between the well wall and the drill bit collar. Flow visualization images
of this fluid behavior are presented in Figures 9.19 thru 9.22.

Nozzle Installation

The installation of the 12/32 modular nozzle, along with the side port nozzles, is shown in
Figure 9.19. This nozzle installation creates an unbalanced system. On the left side of the
image, a side port nozzle is installed (jet location #3), while on the right side the 12/32
114
modular nozzle (jet location #1) has been installed. One of the roller cone arms is central
to the image. From this arrangement, a sweeping action is evident in the annulus region,
as indicated by the red directional lines in the image. The interaction of the jets in this
unbalanced system helps direct the fluid away from the roller cones and between the arms
of the drill bit in a constructive relationship (i.e. the jets are working together). This
behavior is only seen within the annulus and not under the roller cones where this
sweeping action would help remove the rock cuttings. This sweeping action within the
annulus is useful in that it may reduce system energy losses associated with the stagnation
and re-circulation regions previously seen within the annulus.
Figure 9.20 displays the flow field within the annulus region for the installation of the
16/32 modular nozzle and the side port nozzles. This configuration can be deemed
balanced, in that the flow rate from each of the three nozzles is approximately equal, as
previously discussed in Section .The image presents a side port nozzle installed to the left
and the 16/32 modular nozzle installed to the right. One of the roller cone arms is central
to the image. The red directional lines shown in the image indicate the flow direction.
The flow from each jet appears to direct the fluid from the open area between their
associated arms to the roller cone arm itself. Furthermore, this flow behavior leads to
large re-circulation zones above the drill bit, further reducing system efficiency, allowing
cuttings to deposit on top of the stabilizer extensions. Clearly, the balanced system
directs the flow from each jet in opposing directions, increasing system energy losses and
hence reducing the ability of the fluid to transport the rock cuttings away from the drill
bit.

115

Nozzle Installation

The installation of the 20/32 modular nozzle, along with the side port nozzles, is shown
in Figure 9.21. This nozzle installation creates an unbalanced system. On the left side of
the image, a side port nozzle is installed, while on the right side the 20/32 modular
nozzle has been installed. One of the roller cone arms is central to the image. The red
directional lines shown in the image indicate the flow direction. The most striking
behavior of this flow field is the reverse direction of the swirl pattern within the annulus
region, as compared to that shown in Figure 9.19. It is clear that the greater flow rate
from the 20/32 modular nozzle, approximately 3 times greater than the 12/32 and 1
times greater than the 16/32 and hence the side port nozzles, dominates the flow
behavior for this configuration. Once again thou, system pressure losses are evident due
116
to the fact that the nozzles do not work as a system. Hence at the fluid interface
between the two side port nozzles, the flow displays a behavior similar to that seen in
Figure 9.20.

Nozzle Installation

117

Figure 9.22 Flow Circulation within the Annulus for the Side-Port & Plugged Jet
Location#1 Installation

The installation of a plugged jet location #1, along with the side port nozzles, is shown
in Figure 9.22. This nozzle installation creates an unbalanced system. On the left side of
the image, a side port nozzle is installed, while on the right side a plug is installed at jet
location #1. The red directional lines shown in the image indicate the flow direction.
The flow emanating from the side port nozzle installed at jet location #3 (left side of
image) creates a swirling flow that sweeps across the roller cone arm. With no opposing
fluid to impede its progress, the nozzle produces a general swirl within the annulus
region. Previous discussion of this configuration indicated that a cross flow also existed
on the well bottom floor. These two observations seem to indicate that by using two
side port nozzles, both a cross flow below the roller cones can be created and a swirl
118
within the annulus region. Both features have been deemed beneficial to improving the
efficiency of rock cutting removal.
119
Conclusion about Side port Nozzles

The focus of this study was to utilize and simulate the fluid injection process from
existing nozzle technologies to improve the efficiency of the rock cuttings removal
process by creating a swirling flow field around a roller cone drill bit. The Drill Bit
Simulator Facility in the Fluid Mechanics and Propulsion Laboratory of the University
of Cincinnati was used to perform these tests. This novel facility allows for the
installation and evaluation of drill bit nozzles within the realistic flow environment of a
12- inch roller cone bit supplied by Security DBS. The current study examined the
behavior of utilizing existing side port and modular nozzle technologies to this end.
This report describes the results from a series of four different nozzle configurations.
The installation of two side port nozzles with a complimentary modular nozzle was the
focus of these tests. The aim of this series of tests was to create the swirling flow field
behavior observed during the previous testing. It is believed that this swirling
behavior shifts well bottom stagnation lines and also reduces system pressure losses
within the annulus region. The shifted stagnation lines allow for better removal of the
rock cutting from under the roller cones, while the swirl within the annulus region
reduces or eliminates stagnation regions above the roller cone arms and stabilizer
extensions. Both actions lead to a reduction in system energy losses.
Overall, the testing provided the following insights. The side jet of the side port nozzles
appear to effectively work to create a flow circulation above the roller cones, most likely
aiding in the prevention of balling. As for the modular nozzles, generally speaking
120
the potential core of the jet is dependent upon the size of the nozzle. For a given inlet
pressure, as the size of the nozzle increased so to did the length of the potential core.
This change in core length is directly related to the measured pressure distributions on
the well bottom. Flow patterns for all modular nozzle installations provided similar
results. Cross flow under the roller cones for these installations was not evident. Swirl
within the annulus was only evident with unbalanced system configurations.
Unfortunately, the extent of the swirl that was created was limited to the region directly
adjacent the roller cone arms. Re-circulation zones around the drill bit were evident.
The current side port nozzle installation proved less than convincing at creating the
strong swirling behavior exhibited by the Vortexx nozzles. The swirl that was created
in this test series was confined mostly to the annulus region. There was little evidence
from the data collected that significant and robust cross flow existed under the roller
cone bits. That is not to say that stagnation lines were not shifted. The side jets from
these nozzles seem to interfere with the modular nozzle jet. Reorientation of the side
jets to create swirl is not possible in that the jet will either hit the adjacent roller cone or
the well wall.
The slight shift in stagnation lines from directly under the roller cones was evident in the
pressure data collected. This shift in stagnation lines, summarized in Table , appears to
favor the 20/32 modular nozzle. Basing success on this parameter alone would not
prove useful; for if one examines the flow behavior within the annulus for the 20/32
nozzle installation, the three nozzles do not work in concert to create the shifted
stagnation lines and swirl. Essentially the superior flow rate from the 20/32 modular
121
nozzle (approximately 1 that of each side port nozzle individually) overwhelms each
side port nozzle to create a reverse swirl effect within the annulus. This effect does little
to reduce system energy losses for this configuration.
With that said, this series of tests did highlight some benefits of unbalanced flow. In
particular, the test case that featured a plugged jet location #1 seemed to display
advantageous flow field behavior for both the flow under the roller cones and within the
annulus region. The well bottom pressure distribution indicates the presents of a single
stagnation line. Combining this fact with the well bottom flow visualization and the
flow circulation within the annulus, as shown in Figures 9.18 and 9.22, this
configuration indicates a cross flow under two of the three roller cones and the
beginnings of a swirling flow pattern around and above the roller cone arms.
Further analytical and computational development is needed to model the various
energy losses in the fluid injection/drilling process. The nozzle discharge coefficient
does not tell the entire story. Losses due to re-circulation can significantly reduce
nozzle performance by hindering the efficient removal of rock cuttings. Utilization of
PIV measurement techniques to record velocity profiles across the annulus region may
help in the development of these models so that the energy lost at various stages of the
process can be quantified and then predicted for new nozzle installations.

122

10 Conclusions
The insight gained from this series of tests concerning the fluid injection process from
the Modular and Vortexx nozzles indicates several additional avenues of study that may
well improve their performance. The following set of recommendations is predicated on
the desire for a collaborative research effort involving Security DBS and the University
of Cincinnati.
By examining the results from this study, it is clear that a correlation between the
pressure distribution on the well bottom and the rate of penetration (ROP) of the drill bit
needs to be developed. This correlation can be developed though a series of tests in the
current facility that utilize known nozzle configurations from field tests that examined
ROP, leading to the development of a database for evaluating the effectiveness of new
nozzle configurations. This database would contain pressure distributions maps along
with the observed flow visualization images and their relationship to the ROP from the
field tests.
The current series of tests highlighted the need to quantify the various energy losses in
the fluid injection/drilling process. From the flow visualization images, it is clear that
reliance only upon the discharge coefficient to determine nozzle performance does not
tell the entire story. Losses due to re-circulation can significantly reduce nozzle
performance by hindering the efficient removal of rock cuttings. By measuring velocity
profiles across the annulus region, the energy lost at various stages of the process can be
quantified.
123
The cross flow created by the Vortexx nozzle under the roller cones helps to reduce
the impact of the stagnation region and may provide the necessary sweeping action to
help remove the cuttings. An exploration of redirecting the jet from this nozzle so as not
to impinge upon the teeth, while maintaining the sweeping action, should be
investigated.
The stable swirl created by the Vortexx nozzles within the annulus region is a very
intriguing characteristic from this nozzle. The near elimination of re-circulation zones
and inherent stability of this flow, while utilizing a current drill bit body design, may
help eliminate the need to re-design the drill body to help reduce flow separation and
their associated system energy losses. Further study in emulating this flow behavior
from other nozzles would be prudent.
Reduction in the flow separation from the drill body would be needed if creating the
swirling flow behavior were not possible. The shape of the body should be altered to
prevent system energy losses. The underside of the body, which holds the nozzles,
should be contoured such that a hydrodynamic shape is produced.
The installation of the center nozzle created new stagnation lines. The appearance of
these lines seemed to reduce further the benefits of the main nozzles. A systematic
study should be conducted to evaluate the minimum required flow rate necessary to
prevent balling and re-circulation, while not impacting the cleaning benefits of the main
nozzles. The use of directed jets should be investigated.
The addition of simulated rock cuttings with drill bit rotation should be pursued to
provide a more accurate representation of the fluid mechanics at the well bottom.
124
The insight gained from this series of tests concerning the fluid injection process from
the Side Port and Modular nozzles indicates several additional avenues of study. The
following set of recommendations is as follows:
Additional tests utilizing existing nozzle technologies should be pursued in order to
provide a clear indication as to their applicability in generating the desired swirling flow
field effect. Various combinations of these nozzles would produce an enhanced picture
of the strengths and weaknesses of current nozzle technology.
The development, construction and subsequent testing of new nozzle designs that
provide the desired cross flow under the roller cones and a stabilizing swirl motion
around and above the drill bit should be implemented.

The rate-controlling process in drilling is, and will likely be for the foreseeable future,
the rate of rock removal by the drill bit. Increasing the efficiency of the rock removal
rate requires a fundamental understanding of how solid rock is fragmented by drill bits
and the numerous factors that control this very inhomogeneous and local process. There
are several areas in which additional research should be most beneficial in improving
rock removal. These are broadly the following:
-In situ characterization of rock. The chemical constitution, physical characteristics,
microstructure, and nature and distribution of preexisting flaws should be measured, and
if these measurements could be used to make adjustments to the drill bit in order to
optimize the rate of rock removal.
Fracture processes for drilling applications, the fracture process should be studied in
greater detail to identify the specific factors affecting both the local driving forces of
125
fracture and the response of the rock to these forces. These processes should be modeled
to obtain useful scaling laws for drilling practice.
Matching the drilling process to the physical environment: The requirements for
effective drilling vary for different environments, for example,large-scale excavation;
porous and fluid-bearing rock; dense rock in the upper crust; and fractured, hot rock in
geothermal reservoirs. The physical conditions and mechanical properties of rocks are
well known in these environments, but there is inadequate information on how to
optimize the drilling process to best suit these different requirements.
Physicochemical effects on rock fracture and tool wear: A potentially important avenue
in the improvement of drilling practice involves the physicochemical aspects of the
mechanical response of rock in surface-active fluid environments,. Every brittle fracture
process is ultimately based on the severance of chemical bonds. There are many
examples of dramatic reduction of the local work of brittle separation in active liquid
environments. Although the mechanistic details of these effects are not fully understood,
they are often well characterized, and some have been tried with some success in
drilling. Because of their attractive potential, these effects should be given special
consideration.
Unconventional methods for rock removal: Rock is a brittle solid with a characteristic
set of strength-impairing imperfections such as pores, weak boundaries,and microcracks.
When confined, or under pressure, as is the case at great depths in the Earths crust,
these imperfections are rendered ineffective by being pressed shut. Under these
conditions, the compressive strength of rock is high and increases with increasing
pressure. Thus, drilling rock at great depth by subjecting it locally to greater pressure is
126
probably an inefficient means of removing material. Efforts should be made to identify
unconventional forms of material removal that capitalize on the low tensile strength of
rocks.A large number of unconventional methods of rock removal has been studied.
Nevertheless, the existing information on them should be reevaluated to reach firm
quantitative conclusions concerning their potential, particularly for use in conjunction
with mechanical drilling.
127

11 Appendix
11.1 Matrix generation

The matrix of pressure is generated that way:
The number of rows depends on the increment chosen.
The increment is such that 30 divided by the increment is an integer called N
For example if the increment is 3 degres, there will be 120 rows
Then the matrix is filled out by row, from R1 to R144.
Once the matrix is full,the columns have to be arranged
The first one does not change , the second one is going to be changed by a circular rotation
of N, and the third one by a 2Ncircular rotation and so one so that each point corresponds
to its right angle and radius in the initial position.
Then the matrix is splitted by putting all the columns in a single vector
From R1 to R144
Separatly the two vectors corresponding to X and Y are generated
The same way X=R cos (theta) and Y=R sin (theta).
So we have 3 vectors in column X,Y and Pressure
From the file generated
It must be added at the beginning of the file this line in order to generate
Zone i=141, j=N, f=point
128
So that tecplot can mesh it and knows how to split the data sheet.
Note: the first line of the matrix is repeated at the end in order to mesh the entire surface
otherwise there would be a mesh missing.
129
11.2 Procedue to start the rig
The software:
Turn on the computer , the servo moter,
Launch flex plus software or hyper terminal .
Type the line of commande :motbuf 1 50 200000 20
Then type go 1
Type motbuf 1 50 0 20
Then go 1
This procedure is just to initialize the servo motor .
Now the labview program can be used (named pressure map 29)
Select the desired input and run it .

The hardware:
Fill the tank up to about 10 cm from the top.
The water has to be at the same temperature as the room (not colder)
Otherwise it can generate stress concentration and leaks.
The valve must be in position so that the water goes through the by-pass.
Then it can be closed in order to increase the flow rate through the system and reach the
desired inlet pressure or flow rate.
Note:Make sure the plate holding the bottom hole is leveled (especially with the plexiglass
bottom hole where the spacers are not used).
130

11.3 Appendix Pressure Transducer Calibrations
Calibration Information for Inlet Pressure Transducer

Filename:c:\windows\desktop\Calib011101.dat
Test Date: 1/11/O1
Static Calibration of AshCroft Transducer (+/- 1 V Range) using AIR
Amux Channel: 22
Start Time: 12:32:02 PM

Requested Actual Transducer Atmospheric
Pressure Pressure Voltage Pressure
PSIG PSIG VDC PSIA
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0025128 14.4302816
10.0000000 9.9700003 0.0087653 14.4302816
20.0000000 19.9899998 0.0149208 14.4302330
30.0000000 29.9899998 0.0211060 14.4300365
40.0000000 40.0099983 0.0272530 14.4298401
50.0000000 49.9900017 0.0333651 14.4296436
60.0000000 59.9500008 0.0394899 14.4235454
70.0000000 70.0599976 0.0456772 14.4292994
80.0000000 80.0000000 0.0518080 14.4290047
90.0000000 89.9800034 0.0579481 14.4287100
100.0000000 99.9800034 0.0643566 14.4253171
110.0000000 110.0000000 0.0708315 14.4279242
120.0000000 119.9899979 0.0820030 14.4276295
130.0000000 129.9799957 0.0905961 14.4273348
140.0000000 140.0000000 0.0972725 14.4271383
150.0000000 149.9600067 0.1038585 14.4270897
160.0000000 159.8500061 0.1103130 14.4269905
170.0000000 169.9799957 0.1167608 14.4269419
180.0000000 179.8999939 0.1231911 14.4266958
190.0000000 189.6499939 0.1295626 14.4265976
200.0000000 198.6600037 0.1338669 14.4263029
190.0000000 189.6000061 0.1295694 14.4261560
180.0000000 180.0299988 0.1232051 14.4260082
170.0000000 170.2700043 0.1168547 14.4260578
160.0000000 160.0399933 0.1103492 14.4259596
150.0000000 150.0700073 0.1041650 14.4260578
140.0000000 140.1600037 0.0973342 14.4262560
130.0000000 130.0500031 0.0906015 14.4262047
120.0000000 120.0000000 0.0820440 14.4262047
110.0000000 110.0999985 0.0709006 14.4260578
100.0000000 100.0800018 0.0644091 14.4259100
90.0000000 90.0299988 0.0579316 14.4257135
80.0000000 79.9800034 0.0518009 14.4254189
70.0000000 70.0000000 0.0456702 14.4251738
60.0000000 60.0099983 0.0395587 14.4249773
50.0000000 50.0099983 0.0334027 14.4248295
40.0000000 40.0299988 0.0272754 14.4248791
30.0000000 30.0200005 0.0211331 14.4249277
20.0000000 20.0100002 0.0149530 14.4248791
10.00000G0 10.0100002 0.0087227 14.4248791
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0024829 14.4248295

Slope = 0.0006812 Volt/Psi
131
Offset = - 0.000146 Volts
Error =0.000004
Average Atmospheric Pressure = 14.427 Psia
Atmospheric Temp: 75.2 F
132
Calibration Information for Scanivalve #1 Pressure Transducer

Filename: c:\windows\desktop\CalibSV1run1.dat
Test Date: 2/10/01
Static Calibration SV1 100 PSIG Transducer (+10/-10VRange)
Amux Channel: 0

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG

0.0000000 0.0000000 -0.0052878 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9899998 0.4935126 0.0000000
20.0000000 20.0000000 0.9947900 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 1.4950225 0.0000000
40.0000000 39.9900017 1.9953781 0.0000000
50.0000000 49.9900017 2.4956350 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 2.9954560 0.0000000
70.0000000 69.9899979 3.4969060 0.0000000
80.0000000 79.9899979 3.9988086 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9899979 4.4992666 0.0000000
100.0000000 99.9800034 5.0016379 0.0000000
90.0000000 90.0100021 4.4993320 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0100021 3.9982266 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0100021 3.4976978 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0000000 2.9960482 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0099983 2.4954042 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9951639 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0100002 1.4951248 0.0000000
20.0000000 19.9899998 0.9946957 0.0000000
10.0000000 10.0000000 0.4931134 0.0000000
0.0000000 -0.0100000 0.0198453 0.0000000

Offset = -0.003 Volts
Error = 0.000
Average Atmospheric Pressure = 0.000 Psig
133

Test Date: 2/10/01
Amux Channel: 1

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG

0.0000000 0.0200000 0.0057794 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9799995 0.5017130 0.0000000
20.0000000 20.0000000 1.0002203 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 1.4991513 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9985688 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0000000 2.4983056 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 2.9976580 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0000000 3.4982944 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0000000 3.9992537 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9899979 4.5005217 0.0000000
100.0000000 100.0000000 5.0019922 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9800034 4.4991884 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0100021 3.9972928 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0100021 3.4941952 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0099983 2.9958351 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0099983 2.4976127 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9983667 0.0000000
30.0000000 29.9699993 1.4986694 0.0000000
20.0000000 19.9899998 0.9996780 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9799995 0.5021558 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0039438 0.0000000

Offset = 0.002 Volts
Error = 0.000
134

Test Date: 2/20/01
Amux Channel: 7

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG
0.0000000 0.0000000 -0.0073291 0.0000000
7.5000000 7.4800000 0.9938635 0.0000000
15.0000000 15.0000000 1.9924970 0.0000000
22.5000000 22.5000000 2.9928918 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 3.9924128 0.0000000
37.5000000 37.4900017 4.9934044 0.0000000
45.0000000 44.9900017 5.9927649 0.0000000
52.5000000 52.5200005 6.9939485 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 7.9916210 0.0000000
67.5000000 67.5000000 8.9952564 0.0000000
75.0000000 74.9800034 9.9931364 0.0000000
67.5000000 67.4899979 8.9961119 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0099983 7.9951997 0.0000000
52.5000000 52.5299988 6.9939866 0.0000000
45.0000000 45.0000000 5.9960222 0.0000000
37.5000000 37.4799995 4.9941063 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 3.9936481 0.0000000
22.5000000 22.5100002 2.9937165 0.0000000
15.0000000 15.0100002 1.9946964 0.0000000
7.5000000 7.4899998 0.9959207 0.0000000
0.0000000 -0.0100000 -0.0052869 0.0000000

Error = 0.000
135

Figure 11.1 2D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle
136

Figure 11.2 3D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle
137

138

139

Figure 11.5 2D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle
140

Figure 11.6 3D Pressure Mapping of Modular Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle

141

Figure 11.7 2D Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle
142

Figure 11.8 3DPressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with Plugged Center Nozzle

143

Figure 11.9 2D-Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center Nozzle
144

Figure 11.10 3D-Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with New Diffuser Center
Nozzle

145

Figure 11.11 2D- Pressure Mapping of Vortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle
146

Figure 11.12 3D- Pressure Mapping ofVortexx Nozzles with PDC Center Nozzle
147
11.4 Appendix Test Data Filenames

Main Nozzle
Type
Size Center Nozzle
Type
Size Filename
Modular 16/32 Std. PDC 11/32 MODPDC1.DAT
Modular 16/32 New Diffuser 11/32 MODNDIFF1.DAT
Modular 16/32 Plugged N/A MODBK1.DAT
Vortexx 16/32 Std. PDC 11/32 VORPDC1.DAT
Vortexx 16/32 New Diffuser 11/32 NEWDIFVOR1.DAT
Vortexx 16/32 Plugged N/A BLANKVOR1.DAT

148
11.5 Appendix Pressure Transducer Calibrations
Calibration Information for Inlet Pressure Transducer

Filename: c:\windows\desktop\Calib011101.dat
Test Date: 2/7/01
Calibration static pressure
Amux Channel: 31

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG
0.0000000 -0.0200000 -0.0593203 0.0000000
100.0000000 99.9899979 0.9995396 0.0000000
0.0000000 -0.0100000 -0.0629530 0.0000000

Error = 0.000
149

Test Date: 6/15/01
Amux Channel: 0

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG
0.0000000 0.0000000 -0.0052878 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9899998 0.4935126 0.0000000
20.0000000 20.0000000 0.9947900 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 1.4950225 0.0000000
40.0000000 39.9900017 1.9953781 0.0000000
50.0000000 49.9900017 2.4956350 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 2.9954560 0.0000000
70.0000000 69.9899979 3.4969060 0.0000000
80.0000000 79.9899979 3.9988086 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9899979 4.4992666 0.0000000
100.0000000 99.9800034 5.0016379 0.0000000
90.0000000 90.0100021 4.4993320 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0100021 3.9982266 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0100021 3.4976978 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0000000 2.9960482 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0099983 2.4954042 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9951639 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0100002 1.4951248 0.0000000
20.0000000 19.9899998 0.9946957 0.0000000
10.0000000 10.0000000 0.4931134 0.0000000
0.0000000 -0.0100000 0.0198453 0.0000000

Error = 0.000
150

Test Date: 6/15/01
Amux Channel: 1

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG
0.0000000 0.0200000 0.0057794 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9799995 0.5017130 0.0000000
20.0000000 20.0000000 1.0002203 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 1.4991513 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9985688 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0000000 2.4983056 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 2.9976580 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0000000 3.4982944 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0000000 3.9992537 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9899979 4.5005217 0.0000000
100.0000000 100.0000000 5.0019922 0.0000000
90.0000000 89.9800034 4.4991884 0.0000000
80.0000000 80.0100021 3.9972928 0.0000000
70.0000000 70.0100021 3.4941952 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0099983 2.9958351 0.0000000
50.0000000 50.0099983 2.4976127 0.0000000
40.0000000 40.0000000 1.9983667 0.0000000
30.0000000 29.9699993 1.4986694 0.0000000
20.0000000 19.9899998 0.9996780 0.0000000
10.0000000 9.9799995 0.5021558 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0039438 0.0000000

Offset = 0.002 Volts
Error = 0.000
151

Test Date: 6/15/01
Amux Channel: 7

PSIG PSIG VDC PSIG
0.0000000 0.0000000 -0.0073291 0.0000000
7.5000000 7.4800000 0.9938635 0.0000000
15.0000000 15.0000000 1.9924970 0.0000000
22.5000000 22.5000000 2.9928918 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 3.9924128 0.0000000
37.5000000 37.4900017 4.9934044 0.0000000
45.0000000 44.9900017 5.9927649 0.0000000
52.5000000 52.5200005 6.9939485 0.0000000
60.0000000 59.9900017 7.9916210 0.0000000
67.5000000 67.5000000 8.9952564 0.0000000
75.0000000 74.9800034 9.9931364 0.0000000
67.5000000 67.4899979 8.9961119 0.0000000
60.0000000 60.0099983 7.9951997 0.0000000
52.5000000 52.5299988 6.9939866 0.0000000
45.0000000 45.0000000 5.9960222 0.0000000
37.5000000 37.4799995 4.9941063 0.0000000
30.0000000 30.0000000 3.9936481 0.0000000
22.5000000 22.5100002 2.9937165 0.0000000
15.0000000 15.0100002 1.9946964 0.0000000
7.5000000 7.4899998 0.9959207 0.0000000
0.0000000 -0.0100000 -0.0052869 0.0000000

Error = 0.000
152

Figure 11.13 Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and (12/32) Modular Nozzle

153

P
1max
17 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
23 psig P
min
1.0 psig
P
3max

154


155

P
1max
25 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
22 psig P
min
0 psig
P
3max

156


157

P
1max
47 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
21 psig P
min
-2.0 psig
P
3max

158

Figure 11.19 Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet Location#1

159

P
1max
0 psig P
CENmax
N/A
P
2max
24 psig P
min
1.0 psig
P
3max
Figure 11.20 3-D Pressure Mapping of Side Port Nozzle Pair and Plugged Jet Location#1

160
Appendix Test Data Filenames

Nozzle
Location#1
Size Center Nozzle
Type
Filename
Modular 12/32 Plugged SIDE121.DAT
Plugged N/A Plugged SIDEBK1.DAT

161

References:

[1] Haskin and others, Z., 1988, The differential scheme and its application to cracked
materials; Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, p.719-734.
Kachanov, 1992

[2] Griffith, A. A., 1924, Theory of rupture; Proceedings of the 1
st
International
Conference on Applied Mechanics, Delft, Holland, p.163-198.

[3] McClintock F.A. and Walsh, J.B. 1962, Friction on Griffith cracks in rocks under
pressure: Proceedings of the Royal Society, p.58-72.

[4] Rudnicki J.W, and Rice J.R., 1975, Conditions for the localization of deformation in
pressure- sensitive dilatant materials: Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
p.371-394.

[5] Jaeger, J.C., and Cook, N.G.W., 1979, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics: New
York, Halsted Press, p.593-598

[6] Goodman, R.E., 1980, Introduction to Rock Mechanics: New York, J.Wiley and
Sons, p.475

[7] Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T., 1980, Underground Excavations in Rock: London,
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, p.138.

[8] Germanovich, L.N., and Cherepanov, G.P., 1987, Fracture criteria for material with
defects: Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, p. 256-264.

[9] Myer, L.R., Kemeny, J.M., Zheng, Z., Suarez, R., Ewy, R.T., and Cook, N.G.W.,
1992, extensile cracking in porous rock under differential compressive stress: Applied
Mechanics Review, p.263.

[10]Wong, T.F., 1992, Effects of temperature and pressure on failure and post-failure
behaviour of westerly Granite: Mechanics of Materials, p.3-17.

[11] Fredrich, J.T., 1989, Micromechanics of the britle to plastic transition in Carrara
marble: Journal of Geophysical Research, p.429-445

[12] Ewy, R.T., and Cook, N.G.W., 1990, Deformation and fracture around cylindrical
openings in rock: International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mineral Science, and
Geomechanical Abstracts, p.387-407
162

[13] Tapponier, P., and Brace W.F., 1976, Development of stress-induced microcraks in
Westerly Granite: International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mineral Science, and
Geomechanical Abstracts, p.103-112.

[14] Rice, J.R., 1965, an examination of the fracture mechanics energy balance from the
point of view of continuum mechanics: Proceedings of the 1
st
International Conference
on Fracture .Japan society of the strength and fracture of materials p.309-346.

[15] Westwood, A.R.C., and Pickens, J.R., 1983, Fracture-applying the breaks: in
atomistics of Fracture: New York, Plenum Press, p.65-91.

[16] Kranz, R.L., 1980, The effects of confining pressure and stress difference on static
fatigue of granite: Journal of Geophysical Research, p.1854-1854.

[17] Mokhel,A.N., and Salganik,R.L., 1994,Development of slip Concept in the theory
of plastic of Materials and rocks: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials.

[18] Paul,B., and Sikarskie,D.L.,1965,A preleminary theory of state penetration by a
rigid wedge into a brittle material :transaction AIME,p.372.

[19] Altiero, N.J., and skarskie, D.L., 1974, Frature initiation and propagation in elastic-
brittle materials subjected to compressive stress fields.an experimental study:
Mechanical Research Communication, p. 225-231

[20] Bourgoyne,A.T.,Applied Drilling Engineering ,Richardson ,Tex.;SPE, 1986.

[21] Porin, Christophe, Proffit, Olivier, Design and Construction of a New Facility for
Testing Oil Well Drill Bit Nozzles, , 2000 University of Cincinnati, Final Year Design
Project

Drilling Engineering

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Drilling Engineering

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

nozzle is shown in Figures 5.9

nozzle installation. Both the cant angle of the

S-ar putea să vă placă și