T. P.

8129

Design and Operation of Jet-Bit Programs

For Maximum Hydraulic Horsepower,
Impact Force or Jet Velocity

H. A. KENDALL
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME GULF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO.
W. C. GOINS, JR. PITTSBURGH, PA.
MEMBER AIME

ABSTRACT
Original manuscript received in Society of
Petroleum Engineers office July 13, 1959. Re-
vised manuscript received March 28, 1960.
Paper presented at 34th Annual Fall Meet-
ing of SPE, Oct. 4-7, 1959, ill Dallas.
selection of nozzle sizes and by fol-
lowing the rules presented, the maxi-
mum obtainable quantities can be ef-
fectively utilized from surface to to-
tal depth.
Finally, a simple graphical meth-
od of selecting nozzle sizes and flow
rates is presented which can be used
with familiar bit-company hydraulic
tables and calculators to design jet-
bit programs for maximum bit hy-
draulic horsepower, impact or jet ve-
locity, as desired. These programs
make most effective use of the
pumps.
Heretofore, there was no method
available for designing field tests
which adequately separated the ef-
fects of bit horsepower, impact and
jet velocity. The programs and pro-
cedures developed in the paper are
dissimilar and, when used in future
field testing, should demonstrate
which program is the most impor-
tant in obtaining the fastest drill-
ing rate.
INTRODUCTION
During the past decade, rig hy-
draulics has come into increasing
prominence. There has been a defi-
nite trend toward providing higher
horsepower pumps, jet-type bits have
had increased use, numerous inves-
tigators'-U have reported increased
drilling rates as a result of increased
hydraulics, and bit manufacturers
have provided tables 12- " and calcula-
tors",'6 that are now commonly used
to design jet-bit programs.
Opinion has varied as to the hy-
draulic quantity which has the great-
'References given at end of paper.
est effect on drilling rate. Papers and
data have been presented that show
pump horsepower,'o bit hydraulic
horsepower' and jet impact force:
each to be the most significant factor
affecting drilling rate. Examination
of jet-bit programs of the bit com-
panies indicates emphasis on jet ve-
locity. Only pump horsepower can
be eliminated because it can be used
to produce anyone of the bit effects
which, a priori, must be more rele-
vant factors. This contradictory state
of opinion and practice regarding the
bit effects is unfortunate, but sev-
eral published references have been
concerned with making one or an-
other of the factors maximum; and,
because these in each case have given
results applicable to only intervals
of the hole drilled, there seems to be
ample reason to complete the pre-
vious efforts. It also is believed that
the differences in programs for each
effect, where they exist, should be
delineated so that future use may de-
termine which hydraulic effect is the
more relevant.
It is the purpose of this paper to:
(1) show the theoretical maximum
bit hydraulic horsepower, jet impact
force and jet velocity available at
all depths, taking into consideration
all necessary restrictions on operat-
ing conditions; (2.) illustrate proce-
dures by which the maximum avail-
able horsepower, impact force or
velocity may be obtained; and (3)
present a graphical method for rapid
selection of jet-nozzle sizes and flow
rates to be used with conventional
procedures to design jet-bit programs
for maximum bit horsepower, im-
pact force or velocity as desired.

238 1288-G PETROLFl'M TRANSACTIONS. AIME

 THE PROBLEM AND ITS
THEORETICAL SOLUTION
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
The hydraulic limitations in field
use of a jet bit include the maximum
pressure rating of the pump (Pm),
the maximum flow rate available at
the maximum pressure (Q",), the
maximum pressure (P,) at any flow
rate (Q) that the pump can produce
at maximum horsepower (K P,Q),
the maximum flow rate of the pump
(Q' '" ), the minimum flow rate for
adequate cuttings removal (Qa) and,
at anyone depth, the variation with
flow rate of the pressure drop
through the circulating system ex-
cluding the bit (P p). * These may be
conveniently represented on a plot of
pressure vs flow rate, as has been
done in Fig. 1.**
It is evident from Fig. 1 that the
maximum pressure available for use
at the bit (P b ) at any depth and flow
rate (Q) is the difference between
the surface pressure available (Pm
or p.) and the pressure drop through
the circulating system (P p ) .
From basic hydraulic concepts and
as developed in the Appendixes, the
bit hydraulic horsepower available at
any flow rate is proportional to the
bit pressure drop times the flow rate;
the jet impact force available is
proportional to the square root of
the bit pressure drop times the flow
rate; while the jet velocity is propor-
tional to the square root of the bit
pressure drop.
Based on an analysis of the maxi-
mum pump operating conditions and
limitations shown in Fig. 1 and upon
the statement in the preceding para-
':'The assumption is made that all flow
is turbulent which may not be correct for an-
nulus, but this is a small part of Pp and is
of little moment.
"=::'The P sQ curve should be a series of
broken steps for each liner but is drawn as
a smooth curve for convenience.
Pb = MAX. BIT PRESSURE A'3>.llABLE
am = ~~XM:~?~U~~T~R~~A~b~~LE
Q'm : ~:~'D~iOI~E~ATE PUMP
--I
/ / P p • KpO"
~~~__-L__~~
Do,
FLOW RATE (a)
FIG. 1~ FLOW RATE VS PIlESSCHE
PUMP AND DIlILL STIlI],;C.
VOL. 219, 1960
TABLE I-SURFACE EQUIPMENT AND HYDRAULIC Qm, and p, and Pp when Q is greater
DATA FOR EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Surface Equipment than Qm. From the former case, it
Pump: Rating: 850 hp is shown in Appendix A (Eq. A2)
Stroke length: 18 in.
Strokes per Minute: 60 that an optimum flow rate" exists at
Maximum Pressure: 2,954 each depth and that the optimum bit
Standpipe: 4-in. 10 X 45 It
Hose: 3·in. 10 X 55 It pressure drop in this region is 0.66
Swivel: 2';'·in. 10 X 5 It Pm (Eq. A3).'
Kelly, 3'/4·in. 10 X 40 It
When Q is greater than Qm, it is
Ddlling String
4';'·in., 16.60 Ib/lt, IF·TJ shown from Eqs. A5 and A6 that, at
Drill Pipe
Drill Collars: 400 It, 3·in. 10, 7·in. 00 any depth, the bit horsepower de-
Other creases as flow rate is increased.
Minimum Annular Velocity:
171/4-in. hole- 80 ft/min
By applying these results to the
12'/4·in. hole-120 It/min field problem illustrated in Table
8%-in. hole-120 It/min
Drilling Fluid: 10.0 Ib/gal; low viscosity 1 and adding the restriction of mini-
mum flow for adequate cuttings re-
moval Q" Fig. 2 was drawn. It is
graph, it is possible to develop and seen that, when Qa is greater than
specify sets of conditions under Qm (i.e., 12.25-in. hole), the maxi-
which maximum bit hydraulic horse- mum bit hydraulic horsepower is ob-
power, impact or jet velocity is avail- tainable by operating at the mini-
able. For purposes of illustrating the mum flow rate.
significance of the equations and to
develop the technique involved in When the flow rate can be less
than Qm, for example in the 8.75-in.
utilization of the maximum available
bit hydraulic effects, a field problem hole, the maximum bit horsepower is
obtained by operating at Qm for the
is developed throughout the text.
This problem is based upon the first 10,000 ft. This interval has been
designated as Range 1. During Range
equipment and hole conditions of
1, the bit pressure drop must steadily
Table 1.
decrease with depth to allow more
MAXIMUM BIT HYDRAULIC of the available pressure to be used
HORSEPOWER by added pipe.
As stated, the hydraulic horsepow- Below this interval, optimum cir-
er developed across the bit at any culating rates can be established at
depth is proportional to the prod- flow rates less than Qm. When P, has
uct of the bit pressure drop and the decreased in Range 1 to 0.66 p,,,
flow rate. From Fig. 1, it is seen it marks the beginning of the opti-
that this is represented by the mum flow-rate interval, or Range 2.
hatched areas. The bit pressure Po is The bit pressure is held at 0.66 Pm
discontinuous, having for its boun- throughout this range, and the opti-
dary Pm and Pp when Q is less than mum bit horsepower and flow rates
MAX SURFACE HP
600
<r
"'0
'~"
Q.
a:
0
x 400
<.>
::J
::l
<t
"'">-
:J::
200~
I-
in
I
. ,:,1
._>N
~I
I-
I
Do,
(GAL/MIN)
Fon FIG. 2 ~ VARIATION OF BIT HORSEPOWER WITH FLOW RATE AND DEPTH
(BASED ON TABLE 1).
239
decrease with depth until the mini-
mum circulation rate results. To con-
tinue drilling, the flow rate must be
held at Q. (8.75-in. hole), and P b
again is sacrificed in favor of Pp
with increased depth. This has been
called Range 3 and is similar in char-
acter to Range 1.
Appendix B (Eq. B2) indicates
that, in Ranges 1 and 3 and when
Q. is greater than Qm where the
pump pressure and the flow rate are
kept constant, the area of the jet
nozzles must increase as more pipe
is added. When operating in Range
2, Eq. B4 shows that, as depth in-
creases, the area of the jet nozzles
must decrease. From Eq. B3, the
optimum flow rate also decreases
with depth, causing a corresponding
decrease in both bit and required
surface hydraulic horsepower.
It was assumed in the discussion
so far that the nozzle sizes could be
continuously varied to utilize all
available Pb' By cross plotting the
data for the 8.75-in. hole in Fig. 2
and from calculations based on se-
lecting the most appropriate nozzle
sizes and operating conditions, it was
possible to construct Fig. 3. This il-
lustrates that complete utilization of
the theoretical, maximum, available
bit horsepower can be closely ap-
proached. For comparison, the bit
horsepower produced by use of a
conventional jet program, based on
minimum annular velocity of 120 tt/
min and 380 ft/sec jet velocity, is
also shown. A gain of 175 per cent
in bit horsepower is shown over the
conventional program at shallow
depths; though this gain decreases
600
0:
..'"
'"
0
~
0:
400 0
U
0
"u -'
..il "
~ (Eq. Cl3). When the pump is op-
0:
t erating at maximum pressure Pm
~ 0
....
0
v
CONV JET PROGRAM - MIN. FLOW -275 GAl/MIN; VEL.-120 FT IMIN
iii 200
35/16" NOZZLES-JET VEL.-380 FT/SEC
o 5000
DEPTH (FEET)
FIG, 3-BIT HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER OBTAINED BY MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF EQUIP·
MENT As COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL JET PROGRAM (8%-IN. HOLE).
240
RANGE I ==it
24
~
'"!2 I
x
0
I
~
0
0:
J
-.=,
<r
16 ~I
g I
u
i't
I-
U
I
1i:
=!i
=_1'"
~Io
iii
(GAL/MIN)
FIG. 4- VARIATION OF JET IMPACT WITH FLOW RATE AND DEPTH
(BASED ON TABLE 1).
with depth, it remains quite appre- function of the flow rate times the
ciable. square root of the bit pressure. Ap-
The ranges and operating condi- pendix C develops the conditions at
tions for maximum bit horsepower which impact is theoretically maxi-
are tabulated in Table 2. mum. Fig. 4, based on Eq, C2,
shows the variation of (Q Pt') with
While the conditions for Range 2
have previously been specified;,ll the flow rate and depth for the illustra-
tive field conditions.
operating conditions for Ranges 1
and 3 have not been indicated here- For calculations of actual force,
tofore. Fb = 1.73 X lO-'po., Q po.s
MAXIMUM JET IMPACT
where impact force Fb is expressed
in pounds, Q is in gallons per minute,
Impact force has been presented p is in pounds per gallon, and P is
as being proportional to the product in pounds per square inch. This value
of flow rate and jet velocity" How- is based upon an orifice coefficient of
ever, it may also be expressed as a 0.95.
It may be seen in Fig. 4 that the
curves again break at Qm. "Opti-
mum" flow rates exist for Q greater
than or less than Qm. It is shown in
Appendix C that, when the pump is
- --}UTlLlZED BIT operating in the region of maximum
--------- HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER
or constant horsepower (Q greater
than Qm), the optimum flow rate oc-
curs when the bit pressure is 74 per
cent' of the maximum surface pres-
sure available at that flow rate, P,
(Q less than Q m), the optimum flow
rate occurs when the bit pressure is
49 per cent of the maximum surface
pressure (Eq. C6).
In the 17.5-in. hole (Fig. 4), the
mil1imum annular circulating rate
10,000 15,000 20pOO for the illustrative field conditions is
equal to the maximum flow rate of
the pump; the fclaximum jet impact
a-. ailable is at this flow rate. For the
PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME
 TABLE 2 - CONDITIONS FOR MAXIMUM BIT HORSEPOWER TABLE 4 - CONDITIONS FOR MAXIMUM JET
< VELOCITY
Oa > Om Oa Om
lJepth Range Surface to T.D. 1 2 3 O. > Om
Surface Pressure p. P'" P'" Pm Depth Range Surface to T .D.
Flow Rate O. Om Oopt O. Surface Pressure P. Pm
Bit Pressure p, P. 0.66 Pm P. Flow Rate On Oa
Drill·String Pressure* P~ - p" pm-p" 0.34 Pm Pm-Ph Bit Pre!sure Po P.
*Includes pressure to circulate through surface equipment, drill pipe, collars and annulus. Drill-String
Pressure" P.~- Ph Pm - Pb
·lncJudes pressure to circulate through surface
equipment, drill pipe. collars and annulus.
TABLE 3 - CONDITIONS FOR MAXIMUM JET IMPACT
Oa > Om 0. < Om
Depth Range 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
Surface Pressure p, P. p, p. P. Pm Pm Pm
which will utilize all the pressure
Flow Rate O'm Oopt O. Q'm Oopt Om Oopt O. differential between the drill-pipe
Bit Pressure p. 0.74 p, P. p. 0.74 P., P. 0.49 Pm P.
Drill·String Pressure* p, - p" 0.26 P. P, - p" p, - Pb 0.26 p, Pm - Pb 0.51 Pm P,n - Pb pressure loss and maximum avail-
·'ncludes pressure to circulate through surface equipment, drill pipe, collars and onnulus. able pump pressure at that flow rate.
Table 4 summarizes the operating
conditions of maximum jet velocity.
12.25-in. hole, Q. is less than Q~ and the operating conditions of Ranges It should be mentioned that, if
drilling should be commenced with 1, 3 and 5 been previously presented. the procedures prescribed with Ref.
Q = Q: for maximum impact 15 are followed, the resulting jet-bit
MAXIMUM JET VELOCITY
(Range 1); then, optimum flow rates program is clearly one of maximum
Increasing jet velocity was found jet velocity, although this seems to
with bit pressure equal to 74 per cent
to increase drilling rate in early jet- be frequently unrecognized. Other
of the surface pressure should be
bit studies' and a test" in the Texas bit-company methods, and any pro-
followed, decreasing the optimum
Gulf Coast showed drilling rate to grams designed with the minimum
flow rate and increasing surface pres-
be continuously increasing at veloci- annular flow rate as a basis, tend
sure at maximum horsepower until
ties as high as a seldom-attained 650 toward the same result but will not
the minimum circulating rate is
ft/sec. The problem of designing pro- produce maximum jet velocity un-
reached. This interval is designated
grams for maximum jet velocity is less maximum surface pressure is
as Range 2. The hole then is drilled
considered in Appendix D, the an- used.
at the minimum annular flow rate.
alysis being based on the fact that
A similar analysis applies to the the jet velocity is proportional to the
8.75-in. hole, or where Q. is less PRACTICAL SOLUTION AND
square root of the bit pressure for a
than Q ... Ranges 1 and 2 theoreti- APPLICATIONS
given-density fluid. Fig. 5 has been
cally could be followed; then, drill- prepared from Eqs. D3 and D5 of Having shown that maximum hy-
ing should be continued at Q m or Appendix D to show the variation of draulic effects may be provided
Range 3. jet velocity with flow rate and depth through judicious selection of oper-
When the bit pressure has de- for the selected field conditions. ating conditions, there remains the
creased wi~h depth to 0.49 Pm, the It may be seen that the velocity is problem of designing and operating
second optimum flow-rate range (or a maximum when the flow rate is a jet-bit programs which effectively
Range 4) is begun, wherein the bit minimum; thus, the flow rate chosen utilize these effects.
pressure is held at 0.49 Pm. The flow should always be the minimum an- Because the discussion so far indi-
rate is sacrificed with increased depth nular flow rate Qu. Maximum ve- cates that for maximum bit horse-
to maintain P. = 0.49 Pm until the locity will be obtained by operating power and jet velocity it is always de-
mlllimum annular flow rate is at Q., irrespective of the size of the sirable to operate at the maximum
reached. Range 5 is drilled at the hole, and choosing the bit nozzles surface pressure possible (irrespec-
minimum circulating rate, with the
bit pressure sacrificed for increased
drill-pipe length.
It has been implied for maximum
impact, as for maximum horsepower,
the nozzles may be selected at all
depths to utilize as nearly as prac-
tical all the available bit pressure and
to cause the pumps to be operated at
maximum pressure (Pm or p.) at
the specified flow rates. The operat-
ing conditions for maximum impact
are summarized in Table 3. Moore'
and Colebrook" previously showed
that the bit pressure should be 74 per
>-
I-

gU
W
> 200
~
L
I

CONVENTIONAL PRo.GRAM_
200 FT ISEC
I
I
I
, ,
cent of surface pressure when the It)~i !;t
pump is operating at maximum
horsepower. However, the authors ~l ~
have found no previous presentation ~IZ ~I
<t
of the conditions necessary (P. = :; "
°0~----------~--~------~4LOO~---L----~~L--------L~oo-0------~

0.49 Pm) for maximum impact when FLOW RATE (GAL/MIN)

the pump is operating at maximum FIG. 5- VARIATION OF JET VELOCITY WITH FLOW RATE A'iD DEPTH
surface pressure (Range 4), nor have (BASED ON TABLE ll.

YOI .. 219, 1960

tive of the flow rate), it is suggested
that the liner size in field use of jet-
bit programs for these effects should
always be the smallest that will pro-
vide minimum annular velocity, re-
gardless of whether maximum bit
hydraulic horsepower or jet velocity
is desired and regardless of depth.
For maximum impact force, the
liner size should be varied to cor-
respond with the flow-rate require-
ments of Ranges 1 and 2. This would
necessitate using all possible liner
changes while drilling Range 2 and
would be clearly impractical. It may
be noted in Range 1 that so little
depth interval is involved as to be
ignorable, and the impact curves in
Range 2 are relatively flat. Little
could be lost by beginning drilIing
at Q" when Q" is larger than Qm
(i.e., 12.25-in. hole) and at Qm when
Qa is less than Qm (i.e., 8.75-in.
hole). This indicates that, for prac-
tical purposes, Ranges 1 and 2 may
be ignored. If done, the liner to use
would again be the smallest that will
give mlf!lmUm annular flow rate, as
for maximum jet velocity and bit
horsepower.
For the selection of nozzle sizes,
bit pressures and flow rates upon
which design of the jet-bit programs
is based, a bit-nozzle chart has been
prepared. This was done by plotting
pressure vs flow rate on log-log paper
for each nozzle combination. The
chart is based on a 10 lbjgal mud,
with the nozzles having an orifice
coefficient of 0.95. Hydraulic horse-
power and jet velocity are also
shown.
Fig. 6 is such a chart, and in-
cluded with this paper is a duplicate
chart (Fig. 9) drawn to a larger
scale and intended for practical use.
Lines drawn on this chart to repre-
sent the necessary operating condi-
tions of Tables 2, 3 and 4 indicate
nozzle sizes, flow rates, surface pres-
sure and bit pressures for the pro-
grams.
BIT HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER
1. Lines la, 1b and 1c of Fig. 6
are drawn to represent the flow rates
required for minimum annular ve-
locity (Q~) in the different-sized
holes to be drilled.
2. A resume of the pump operat-
ing characteristics will provide data
for the following lines: (a) Line 2,
the pressure rating of the smallest
liner Pm; (b) Line 3, the maxi-
mum flow rate of the smallest liner
Qm; and (c) Line 4, the maximum
pump horsepower line, obtainable by
connecting the maximum pressure-
242
40
,
2 the flow rate for the nozzle and by
x
.
-
U)
20
'"::>
Q:
U)
U)
'"
Q:
.. 10
9 It is suggested that a graph be
8 prepared for rig use showing nozzle
7
:3 4 Om 5 6 7 8 a:n
FLOW RATE (GAL/MIN X 10-')
FIG. 6-SELECTIO:'l OF JET NOZZLES AND
FLOW RATES FOR MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC
HORSEPOWER, JET IMPACT OR JET
VELOCITY.
flow rate ratings of all liner sizes
P,Q.*
3. If any of the Q" lines intersect
Line 4 (Qn greater than Qm), the
flow rate for drilling this hole will
always be -Qa and the surface pres-
sure will be the pressure rating of
the smallest liner that will give Qa.
The nozzle sizes to be used start with
the smallest-size combination along
the Qa line below the intersection
with Line 4, and succeeding nozzles
are selected in order along Qa. The
intersection points indicate the pres-
sure drop for the nozzle combination
at the flow rate Qa.
4. If the Q. lines intersect Line
2, all drilling will be done with sur-
face pressure at Pm, and it is neces-
sary to draw Line 5 at 0.66 Pm.
Initially (Range 1), the flow rate will
be Qm; the first nozzle size is the one
intersecting Qm just below Line 2,
and intersecting nozzle sizes down to
Line 5 are used in order. Succeed-
ing nozzle sizes in Range 2 are in-
dicated by the intersections of noz-
zle-size lines with Line 5. These in-
tersections also indicate the optimum
flow rates* * to be used with the noz-
zle sizes while the bit pressure is
held at 0.66 Pm, and the nozzle sizes
decrease with depth. At the mini-
mum flow-rate line (Range 3), the
nozzle sizes again must increase with
depth, the flow rate is mainta;ned at
Qa and the bit pressure is indicated
hy the intersection of the nozzle-size
lines and Qa.
The pressure available to be used
':'If it is considered desirable to avoid a
smail overloading of the pumps, the line
should be drawn step-wise to show the exact
values of rated P. vs Q.
by the surface connections, drill col-
lars and added drill pipe is obtained
for each nozzle size by subtracting
the bit pressure from the surface
pressure. Knowing this pressure and
use of bit-company methods now fa-
miliar to the industry, the depth to
which each nozzle size can be used
without exceeding pump capabilities
can be determined.
sizes, mud density, surface pressures
and pump speed or flow rate vs
depth.
IMPACT FORCE
If Qn is greater than Q"" the pro-
cedure is identical to that of select-
ing nozzle sizes for maximum hy-
draulic horsepower. The operating
flow rate is always at Q". When Qa
is less than Q"" Line 6 is drawn at
0.49 r m, and Line 5 at 0.66 p", is
not used. The method of nozzle se-
lection is carried out as beforc_ Note
that only three range;- are used_ Im-
pact Ranges 1 and 2 havi'lg been
dropped from consideration fe. rea-
sons previously discussed.
If it is desired to take advantage
of the increase in impact possible in
Range 2, a line could be drawn at
0.74 P, to indicate the nozzle sizes,
optimum flow rates and bit pressures
to be used, but some method of
averaging would have to be applied
to avoid the many liner changes
necessary. The reader is referred to
Ref. 2 for one approach applicable
to Range 2. It is pointed out that
utilization of Range 2 would not
greatly increase impact, but it would
emphasize flow rate and sacrifice jet
velocity at near the same impact
level.
JET VELOCITY
Irrespective of the value of Q"
whether it is greater than or less
than Qm, the operating flolV rate
is always at Qa. Therefore, only Qa
lines need be dra\\-!'. The first noz-
zle selected along each Qa line is the
one having the maximum possible
bit pressure. Larger nozzles are se-
lected in turn along the line, and
the determination of depth of use is
the same as before.
EFFECT OF DENSITY ON
SELECTION OF NOZZLES
For convenience, the bit chart was
designed for use with a 1O.0-lb/gal
mud. Corrections for the position of
::':;'That optimum ft.ow :rates can be ex-
pressed in terms of nozzle size is shown by
Eq. B4.
PETI'OLEl"!\i TR_\:\"S_\CTIO'lS,\l:llF
the nozzle lines at other densities
are in order. However, use of a dif-
ferent chart for each possible density
would be unwieldly, and a simpler
method is suggested. By applying a
simple correction factor ~ (where
p
p is the actual mud density in use)
to the values of Pm, 0.66 P"" 0.49
Pm and the value of P, (the pres-
sure rating of the liner in this in-
stance when the flow rate is greater
than Qm)", new lines may be drawn
on the chart (Eqs. El to E5 of Ap-
pendix E). The nozzle lines and all
other construction lines now may be
used as before without further cor-
rection. When the pressure available
for use of the circulating system is
determined for each nozzle, the depth
at which the nozzle can be used is
determined on the assumption that a
lO.O-lb/gal mud is in use. As the bit-
company tables and calculators are
also based on lO.O-lb/gal density,
this allows the solution for depth to
be made without the usual correction
of pressure drop of each component
in the drill string for density. It is
pointed out that pressures used for
the component parts at a density
other than 10.0 Ib/gal are not the ac-
tual pressures but, instead, are
pseudo-pressures used as a tool for
simplifying the procedure.
MODUS OPERANDI
The depths determined for each
nozzle are the depths at which the
pump capabilities are completely util-
ized. This would indicate that further
drilling with the nozzle is impossible
without exceeding pump rating.
However, when the flow rate is
greater than Qa, the nozzle may be
used at its determined depth and be-
low by maintaining the surface pres-
sure at the specified maximum val-
ues and by allowing the flow rate to
decrease as drill pipe is added. This
relieves the rig crew of the neces-
sity of controlling flow rate, and all
the driller need be concerned with
after adding each joint is to increase
flow rate until the pressure gauge
reads the value of Pm or P" as ap-
propriate. Flow then is adjusted au-
tomatically and the pump rating is
not exceeded.
When the specified flow rate is Qu,
it cannot be allowed to decrease and
it is suggested that the nozzle sizes
used be one size larger than called
for by the program developed using
the methods so far presented. The
driller still can follow the simple rule
of always increasing the pump speed
YOLo 219, 1960
until the circulating pressure equals
the maximum pressure for the liner
used; the greater flow rate will com-
pensate largely for losses caused by
the larger nozzle. By this system, a
larger nozzle will be specified in the
program before the flow rate de-
creases below Qa.
High-pressure operation is the key
to providing maximum utilization of
the available surface hydraulic horse-
power. That this results in higher
pump-maintenance costs is recog-
nized, but maximum results are ob-
tainable only in this way. If it is
felt that the pump must be operated
at less than maximum pressure, this
value should be substituted for Pm
and the methods presented are still
applicable.
It also is suggested that the pre-
pared bit programs include every
possible nozzle size, and combination
thereof, indicated on the bit charts.
This will require field changes of
nozzle inserts. Although the bits
usually will not be pulled until dull
(and this may cause some specified
sizes not to be used), the nozzle size-
depth chart prepared will indicate
the best choice at any time the bit is
pulled and the change in size be-
comes possible.
EFFECT OF COMPOUNDING PUMPS
Compounding of pumps to gain
greater bit hydraulic effects is indi-
cated and the possibilities of in-
creased bit horsepower are illustrated
in Figs. 7 and 8 for both parallel and
series arrangements. The figures are
0:
- - I PUMP
- - PARALLEL
~ 1000
- - SERIES
~
'"
V>
'"o
'"~
..J
::>
<
a:
c
>-
'"
l-
cc 500
I
o
o
200 400
FLOW RATE
FIG. 7- BIT HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER WITH PUMPS IN SERIES OR PARALLEL FOR
SIMILAR DEPTHS (BASED ON TABLE 1).
based on the same illustrative condi-
tions, equipment and methods hereto-
fore used, except that two identical
850-hp pumps are used.
Figs. 7 and 8 also may be inter-
preted to show the relative impor-
tance of providing high operating
pressures in pumps as compared to
providing increased flow rate or
horsepower, because this is similar
to operating pumps in series vs
parallel.
While the advantages of com-
pounding the pumps in series may
be clearly seen, the practical limi-
tations must be recognized. A prac-
tical method of compounding power
pumps in series at high pressures
and flow rates is not commonly avail-
able-although highly desirable for
the objective of maximum utiliza-
tion. The use of pumps in parallel
is common and can be done for
maximum bit effects.
The representation of the com-
bined capabilities of compounded
pumps on the bit-nozzle chart (Fig.
9) to devise a jet program is fairly
simple, and this is left to the reader.
If the pumps are not identical, the
maximum pressure of the lowest-
pressure pump cannot be exceeded.
COMPARISON OF BIT
HYDRAULIC EFFECTS
From previous discussion it is seen
that, if the minimum circulating rate
is greater than Qm, the surface and
bit operating conditions are the same
for maximum bit horsepower, jet ve-
locity and, for practical purposes,
MAX. SURFACE HP - 2 PUMPS
,
,
- I
I
,I
,,'t--...
,I
I
/
/1
I
600 800
(GAL/MIN)
243
impact; the effects are indistinguish- tional to the product, Q V. These locity emphasizes jet velocity at the
able. This also is true when all three statements indicate that, compara- expense of flow rate, maximum im-
programs are at Qm or at Qa. tively speaking, maximum jet ve- pact force emphasizes flow rate at
When the minimum flow rate is
less than Qm, separation of the ef-
fects is possible. For maximum bit --- -- -----0 __
horsepower and maximum impact,
the initial drilling is at Qm and there
- - --0-.,
-- -0-
--
is no difference in operation until
the bit pressure has decreased to 1000
--- 0__., ___
-0_ --
0.66 Pm. Here, the operating condi- I!. - I PUMP
tions for maximum bit horsepower o- 2 PUMPS, PARALLEL
o - 2 PUMPS, SERIES
and impact diverge. This would be-
- - 8 fHOLE
gin at about 1,500 ft for parallel
- 12 fHOLE
pumps and at about 8,000 ft with a
---- 17 fHOLE
single pump for the field conditions
studied, and a difference would con- 500
tinue to any reasonable total depth.
During drilling in the optimum flow-
rate ranges, there is a small constant
difference at the same depths be- ,
\
\
tween the maximum bit horsepower \

and the horsepower at maximum im- '\,

pact, but a greater difference be- oL-~ '. ________ L-~~ ______ ~~ ________L-____ ~~ __L-________ ~

o 4000 8000 12000 16000

tween the flow rates, bit pressures DEPTH (FEET)
and jet velocities.
FIG. 8- COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER AVAILABLE FROM
It is shown in Appendix F (Eq. PUMPS IN SERIES OR PARALLEL.
F5) that, at maximum bit hydraulic
horsepower, the bit horsepower is
8.5 per cent greater than when oper-
ating for maximum impact. Also, it
can be shown that the bit pressure
is 34.7 per cent greater, the flow rate
is 19.5 per cent less and the jet ve-
locity is 14.3 per cent greater. At the
maximum impact conditions, the im-
3000
pact is 7 per cent greater than at
maximum horsepower (Eq. F6).
Comparing the conditions at maxi- 2000
mum jet velocity with those of either
maximum impact or bit hydraulic 400
horsepower in the 8.75-in. hole shows
that the differences in bit effects may 350 ~
(J)
be large. This difference will vary 1000
"-
I-
with depth and, for other field prob- II)
a. 300~
lems, with the difference between Qa
and Qm. Use of parallel pumps will w 700 >-
l-
ll:
increase the difference, and a differ- :::l
II)
II)
250 g
ence exists for the field conditions ...J
W W
Il:
studied from surface to 22,000 ft. At >
"- 400
6,000 ft, the flow rates for the one 200 I-
w
pump would be 275 gals/min at ..,
maximum jet velocity and 419 gals/
min for maximum horsepower, a dif-
ference of 52 per cent. If the pumps 150
are paralleled, the difference is 205
per cent. The difference in jet ve-
locity would be approximately 15 to
20 per cent for the single pump but
several hundred per cent for paral- THE FOLLOWING EQUATIONS:

leled pumps. V 2 : IILI8SP 100

P : 0.000921 ~
It was previously indicated that, I' : 10 LB/GAL 90
for maximum jet velocity, flow rate NOZZLE COEFFICIENT ASSUMED 0.95
must be sacrificed and maintained .!i IS TOTAL AREA OF NOZZLES 80

at the minimum acceptable value for 501ILO-0--------2~00-----3~0-0--4...JOO---50LO--~70-0----,0-0~0------~2~000~--~3~000~~4~000

adequate cuttings removal. Bit hy- FLOW RATE (GAL / MIN)
draulic horsepower is proportional to FIG. 9 - BIT·NoZZLE SELECTION CHART FOR THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF JET-BIT
Q V', and impact force is propor- PROGRAMS FOR MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER, IMPACT FORCE OR JET VELOCITY.

244 PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME

some sacrifice of jet velocity, and
bit hydraulic horsepower is interme-
diate. The question seems to be
whether jet velocity or flow rate
should be emphasized, or whether
the intermediate values of Q and V
at maximum bit hydraulic horse-
power are better.
It was shown in early drag jet-bit
studies'" that drilling rate increases
with both flow rate and jet velocity,
but the data indicate that velocity had
the greater effect. This would tend to
favor hydraulic horsepower or jet-
velocity programs over impact, and
one reference shows an excellent cor-
relation between drilling rate and
bit horsepower. Yet, another shows
correlation with impact.' Undoub-
tedly, the bit-company design meth-
ods emphasizing jet velocity have in-
creased drilling rate in many wells.
The problem of which approach is
best apparently still is a controversial
une.
However, it would seem that the
differences between programs are
large enough to offer a strong possi-
bility of being significant.
CONCLUSIONS
1. To obtain maximum use of the
pumps for bit hydraulic horsepower
and jet velocity, the smallest liner
that will provide adequate annular
velocity must be used. Neglecting a
possible small improvement at greater
flow rates, the smallest liner provid-
ing adequate annular velocity should
be used for maximum jet impact.
2. To obtain maximum bit hy-
draulic effects, the jet nozzles should,
in combination with the remainder
of the circulating system, cause the
pump to be loaded to the rated liner
pressure.
3. When the flow rate for mini-
mum annular velocity is greater than
the maximum flow rate of the small-
est liner and ruling out procedures
which would involve numerous liner
changes, there is no difference in op-
erating conditions for maximum bit
hydraulic horsepower, impact force
or jet velocity; maximum bit hydrau-
lic effects are obtained by operating
always at the flow rate for minimum
annular velocity.
4. When the flow rate for mini-
mum annular velocity is less than
the maximum flow rate of the small-
est liner, there is a choice of oper-
ating conditions to provide either
maximum bit hydraulic horsepower,
impact or jet velocity.
a. For maximum bit hydraulic
VOL. 219, 1960
hor~epower, the flow rate should be
the maximum rate of the smallest
liner until a depth is reached at
which the bit pressure is 66 per cent
of the surface pressure; then, the
flow rate should be decreased with
depth while the bit pressure is held
at 66 per cent of the surface pres-
sure until the flow rate for minimum
annular velocity is attained. The lat-
ter flow rate then should be main-
tained to total depth.
b. For maximum jet impact force,
the flow rates are identical to those
in Conclusion 4a, except the bit pres-
sure is held at 49 per cent of the
surface pressure in the optimum bit
pressure range.
c. For maximum jet velocity, the
flow rate is always that which pro-
vides minimum annular velocity.
5. If maximum bit hydraulic ef-
fects are to be obtained, the nozzle
sizes must be selected as appropriate
to the surface pressure and flow-rate
requirements expressed previously,
and there is a simple graphical meth-
od of doing so.
6. There is a need to determine
through continued field experimenta-
tion which bit hydraulic program has
the greatest effect on drilling rate.
7. There is' a decided advantage
to compounding pumps for maxi-
mum bit hydraulic effects, and the
nozzle sizes and operating conditions
necessary may be selected graphic-
ally in a manner similar to the
method described.
8. The importance of high-pres-
sure operation for maximum bit hy-
draulic effects is evident; because
pump maintenance is a problem un-
der such conditions, there is a need
for pumps that will operate continu-
ously at high pressures without un-
due maintenance.
NOMENCLATURE
P = pressure
p," = maximum surface pressure
available (pressure rating
of the smallest liner)
Q = flow rate
Qm = maximum flow rate of
smallest liner at Pm
Q: = maximum flow rate of larg-
est liner
P, = maximum pressure avail-
able at any flow rate, Q
varying between Qm and
Q:
K G = maximum surface hydrau-
lic horsepower available
such that P.Q = G, for Q
varying between Qm and
Q'm K being a constant
of multiplication for unit
conversion
Qu = minimum flow rate neces-
sary to produce minimum
annular velocity; deter-
mined by hole size, drill
pipe and field conditions;
Qa may have any value,
as indicated by Qalo Qu"
QU3, etc.
Pp = pressure drop in the entire
drill stem, such that Pp
= KpQ"; Kp is determined
by the mud density, hole
size, size of drill pipe and
drill collars, surface con-
nections and depth; n is
approximately 1.9 if all
flow is assumed turbu-
lent
d = depth of hole
k" = pressure drop of the drill
stem per unit length and
unit flow rate, such that
Kp = d k p
P, = pressure drop across the bit,
such that P, = Pm - Pp
or P b = P, - Pp , depend-
ing on whether Q is less
than or greater than Qm
K, = pressure drop across the bit
per unit flow rate, such
that P, = K,Q', where K,
is dependent upon the
mud density, nozzle area
and orifice coefficient
A = total area of bit nozzles,
such that Kb = kbA-'
HP b = hydraulic horsepower of the
nozzles at any flow rate,
such that HP b = K PbQ
HP, = available surface horsepow-
er at any flow rate, such
that HP, = K PmQ or
HP, = KG, depending
upon whether Q < or>
Qm
Fb = impact force of jet
K, = conversion constant for jet,
such that Fb = K,Q P".'
F, = surface impact force avail-
able from the pump, such
that F, = KQ P"~ or F.
= K ,Q po;" depending
upon whether Q < or
> Qm
V = velocity of jet stream, such
that V = Q/A
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their
appreciation to the management of
Gulf Research & Development Co.
for permission to publish this paper.
245
 REFERENCES
I. Nolley, J. P., Cannon, George E. and
Ragland, Douglas: "The Relation of
Nozzle Fluid Velocity to Rate of
Penetration with Drag·Type Bits",
DrilL and Prod. Pmc., API (1948)
22.
2. Nolley, J. P. and Eckel, John R.:
"An Analysis of Hydraulic Factors
Affecting the Rate of Penetration of
Drag-Type Rotary Bits", Drill. and
Prod. Pmc., API (1949) 9.
3. Moore, Preston L.: "Five Factors
That Affect Drilling Rate", Oil and
Gas Jour. (Oct. 6, 1958) 56, No.
40, 141.
4. Bielstein, W. 1. and Cannon, George
E.: "Factors Affecting the Rate of
Penetration of Rock Bits", Drill and
Prod. Pmc., API (1950) 6l.
;). Eckel, J. R. and Bielstein, W. J.:
"Nozzle Design and its Effect on
Drilling Rate and Pump Operation",
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1951)
28.
6. Hellums, Earle c.: "The Effect of
Pump Horsepower on Rate of Pene·
tration", Drill. and Prod. Pmc., API
(1952) 83.
7. Thompson, Gene D_: "A Practical
Application of Fluid Hydraulics to
Drilling in California", Drill. and
Prod. Pmc., API (1953) 123.
8. Keating, T. W., Clift, W. D. and
Cutrer, John P.: "A Study of Pene-
tration Rates in Rotary Drilling",
Drill. and Prod. Pmc .. API (1956)
163.
9. Wardroup, W. R. and Cannon, George
E.: "Some Factors Contributing to
Increased Drilling Rate", Drill. and
Prod. Pmc., API (1956) 274.
lO. Speer, John W.: "A Method for
Determining Optimum Drilling Con-
ditions", API Paper No. 936·31 (Feh.
28, 1958).
11. Colebrook, Ross W.: "How to Get the
Most Hydraulic Power at the Bottom
of the Drill String in Rotary Drill·
ing", ASME Paper No. 58-Pet-6, pre·
sented at ASME Petroleum Confer-
ence, Denver, Colo. (Sept. 21-24.
1958) .
12. "Hydraulics In Rotary Drilling",
Hughes Tool Co. (April, 1954).
13. "Hydraulics for Jet Bits", Hughes
Tool Co. (Jan., 1956).
14. "Drilling Hydraulics", Chicago Pneu·
matic 1'001 Co.
IS. "Hydraulic Calculator", Reed Roller
Bit Co., Houston, Tex.
16. "Hydraulic Calculator", Security En·
gineering Division, Dallas, Tex.
17. Unpubished: "Test of Effect of In·
creasing Nozzle Velocity in Drilling
Rate", Houston Production Div., Gulf
Oil Corp.

APPENDIX A hence,
1.9 k pd Qt;;t = k b A "Q'op, (B4)
MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC HORSEPOWER

CASE 1 APPENDIX C
(0 < Q < Qm; Pm = constant)
HP, = K P.Q = K(P m - Pp)Q JET HYDRAULIC IMPACT
= K(P", - KpQ19)Q = K(PmQ - KpQ' ')
(AI) F, = Wa = W (V, - V,)
(CI)
d(HP.) g g t
d(Q) = K(P", - 2.9 KpQI9) = 0;
where W is the mass flow rate of liquid, a is the ac·
hence, celeration, and g is the constant of gravity. V, - V, is
Pm = 2.9 KpQ~:, = 2.9 P v ovt . (A2) the change in jet velocity normal to the surface in
time t.
Ph opt = Pm - Pp opt = P,,, - 0.34 Pm
Assume
= 0.66 P", _ (A3)
= _ . W . _ rQ' p V' .
HP. opl K P.Q"Pt = K(0.66 PmQovt) V, - 0, t = pQ, Ph - K AY7 = KC' ,
K(0.66 P,/")
(2.9 Kv)"'" = 2.9 K(0.66 KpQ:,:,) hence,
= 0.66 HP, opt (A4) V = K' P hO., where p is constant.
Therefore,
CASE 2
W,n < Q < Q'm ; P ,Q = constant) (C2)
HP. = K P.Q = K(P, - Pp)Q

= K ( ~ - KvQl')Q = K(C
CASE
- K1,Q'''). (A5) (0 < Q < Qm; Pm = constant)
d(HP.) F. = K,Q Pt· = K,Q(P m - Pp)05
d(Q) = K( - 2.9 KvQ") = 0, Q = 0; = K,Q(P,,, - KpQ")05 = K,(PmQ' - K"Q"t'
hence, (C3)
HP. is maximum when Q = 0 (A6) d(F.) K(2P mQ - 3.9 KpQ")
= 0;
d(Q) 2(P m Q' - KpQ''')O''
APPENDIX B hence,
2P mQ'PI = 1.95 KpQ:,:, (C4)
RELATION BETWEEN DEPTH, NOZZLE
SIZE AND FLOW RATES Pm = 1.95 KpQ:,;:, (C5)

Pm or P, = p. + P"
Po opt =:Pm - Pp opt
(Bl)
= K.Q' + KvQ'9 = Pm - 0.51 P'" = 0.49 P'" (C6)
= k.A-'Q' + kv d QU
Also,
(B2) o
-,opt
= (0.51
Kp P"')"" (C7)

P,. = 2.9 Kv Q~:, = 2.9 k vd Q:,:, ; (B3) F, = K; Q P m O. 5 (C8)

PETROLEI',\! TRA'iS \CTIO'iS, \I!V!E

 where pI = standard density of K. and K p , and
p2 = actual density.
Therefore,

= 0.506 K,p .. ,·03 K p-O. 53 (CIO)

Qop' = (~~
lJ2 K.
)0.
1 066 P )0"
CASE 2 = ( :2 T. (hydraulic horsepower) . (E2)
(Q .. < Q < Q~ ; P,Q =constant)
1 049 P )0.5
F. = KiQ P.o· = K,Q (P, - Pp)0.5 =
( pP2 'K • m (jet impact) ... (E3)

= K,Q( ~- KpQLO)O' PRESSURE DROP IN PIPE

= K,(CQ - KpQ3')0. .... (Cll) Pp = p .. - p. = p .. - K.Q' = KpQ' . . (E4)
d(F.) K,(C - 3.9KpQ'9) p2 p2
d(Q) = 2(C Q _ KpQ3')0' = O. ---prPp = Pm - prP.
3.9 KpQ:';, = C =P, op,QQP' = 3.9 Pp op,Qop,; pI
Pp = p2 Pm - p •.
P, op' = 3.9Pp op' (CI2)
At optimum flow rates,
p. op' = P, op' - Pp op' = P, "1" - 0.26 p., "I"
pI
=0.74P. QP' (C13) Pp = p2 Pm - Po op' . . . . . . (E5)
_ (0.26 P, op1 )0.53
Qop, - K .... (C14)
p

F, = K,Q p,o.• = K,(C Q)o •. (C15) APPENDIX F

F. op' = K,Qop,(P. op,)0.5
COMPARISON BETWEEN OPTIMUM
= K iQop,(0.74 P, op,)OO
CONDITIONS OF BIT HYDRAULIC
= 0.84 K,(CQop,)o,
HORSEPOWER AND JET IMP ACT FORCE
= 0.84F, . . (C16)
(Q. < QoP,<Qm; P = Pm; depth = d)
(HP.) op'; p. = 0.66 Pm
APPENDIX D
Pp hp = Pm - Pp = 0.34 Pm = Kp(Qop,)~; . (Fl)
MAXIMUM JET VELOCITY (F.rop,; p. = 0.49 Pm

CASE 1 Pp , = Pm - p. = 0.51 Pm = Kp(Qov')/" (F2)

(0 < Q < Qm; Pm = constant) Hence,
K'C'
V = ( -- Po"'.
)0.• (DO Kp(Qop,)~;
p
K p (Q o V')""
= KvP.o .• = Kv(P m - Pp)o .•
= Kv(P m - K pQ'·9),". . . (D2) (Qop,),P = 0.805(Qop.), (F3)
d(V) Kv( - 1.9 KpQo,) (P. ov')'v = 1.347(P. oP')" . (F4)
d(Q) = 2(P .. _ KpQ'9)05 = 0, Q = 0;
hence, COMPARISON BETWEEN BIT HYDRAULIC
V is maximum when Q = O. . . . . (D3) HORSEPOWER AT CONDITIONS OPTIMUM FOR
CASE 2 HORSEPOWER AND THE HORSEPOWER
(Q .. < Q < Q'.. ; P, Q = constant) AVAILABLE AT OPTIMUM JET-IMPACT
V = KvP:" = Kv(P. - Pp)0.5 CONDITIONS

= Kv( ~ - KpQl·r5 (D4)

(HP. op,).p = K(P. op,).p (Qop,).p
=K 1.347 (P. oP'.) , 0.805(Qop,),
d(V) Kv( - C Q-' - 1.9 KpQo,) = 1.085 K(P. op,) f (Qop,) f
d(Q) = 2(C Q 1 _ K/9)05 = 0; = 1.085 (HP. op,), . . . . (F5)
- C Q-2 - 1.9 KpQ09 = 0, Q = 0;
hence, COMPARISON BETWEEN IMPACT FORCE
V is maximum when Q = 0 . (D5) AVAILABLE AT CONDITIONS OPTIMUM
FOR IMPACT AND THE IMPACT AVAILABLE
APPENDIX E AT OPTIMUM HORSEPOWER CONDITIONS
CORRECTIONS FOR MUD DENSITY (F. op,) , = K,(Qop,)AP. oP,)Oi'
OPTIMUM FLOW RATE = K, 1.242 (Qop,).p 0.86 (P. oP.) o~~
._ p2 , = 1.07 K,(Qop,),P (P. oP'):;
p. op' - prK.Q op' . . . . . . . . (E1)
=1.07 (F.op,),P • . . . • • (F6)

VOL. 219, 1960 247


The significance of a set of rules
aimed at maximizing either the ve-
locity, the impact or the power of
the jets at the nozzle exits depends
on whether or not these quantities
are valid as criteria for optimum util-
ization of the rig's hydraulic sys-
tem and, if so, whether or not it is
possible to select from these quanti-
ties the proper one for given operat-
ing conditions.
Some evidence for the validity of
the assumption that velocity, impact
and power may be critical quantities
in jet-bit hydraulics is found in the
literature on the subject. The data
show that the drilling rate often in-
creases if anyone of these quanti-
ties is increased and that it may
reach a maximum coinciding with
the maximum of the velocity, im-
pact or power, depending on the
conditions under which the experi-
ments are performed. This last qual-
ification is important; its omission
has led to the erroneous conclusion
that velocity, or impact or power
should be "the criterion". It is easy
to show, however, that none of the
three quantities can lay claim to
this title. Suppose, for instance, that
the power of the jet were "the cri-
terion". This would imply that a
larger power is always preferable
to a smaller power, irrespective of
the manner in which this power is
made available. The power is pro-
portional to AV', where A is the
total area of the nozzles and V is
the velocity of the jet at the nozzle
exits. A V' could be held constant for
two different sets of nozzles of dif-
ferent areas by adjusting the velocity.
If one such set of nozzles had ex-
tremely small diameters, it would be
illogical to assume that the jets is-
suing from these small nozzles
would affect the drilling rate in ex-
actly the same way as would jets of
larger diameter. Hence, the power
criterion cannot be valid for all noz-
zle sizes. The general validity of the
velocity and impact criteria can be
disproved by the same reasoning.
The term "extremely small diameter"
is used loosely, as an illustration. It
does not signify that such nozzles
would be outside the range of prac-
tical interest. (Ref. 10 shows an ex-
ample where the drilling rate de-
248
DISCUSSION
H. D. OUTMANS UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA
MEMBER AIME BREA, CALIF.
creased as the nozzles were de-
creased from 3 X 9/16-in. to 3 X
1/2 -in. even though the power was
increased. )
A general idea of the actual cri-
terion, which also puts the velocity,
impact and power "criteria" in their
proper place, may be formed from
a study of the role of the jets in the
drilling mechanism.
Consider a drilling system where
the jet velocity and the total area
of the nozzles are the only inde-
pendent variables. If it is conceded
that the jets affect the drilling solely
by their capacity to control the ac-
cumulation of drilled particles at the
bottom of the hole and on the bit
teeth, the work required for the
removal of these drilled particles has
to be supplied by the kinetic energy
of the jets. To minimize the accumu-
lation and, thus, improve the pene-
tration of the bit in virgin rock, the
cuttings have to be removed rapidly.
For rapid removal, the work has to
be done at a fast rate; hence, ade-
quate power should be available for
this purpose. Therefore, it would ap-
z pact criterion" z = AV' = HPI'A'/3
_A
FIG. DI-GENERALIZED POWER CRITERION.
z z
HP3
HP2
L __
-A
-====== HP I
-A
"VELOCITY CRITERION" "IMPACT CRITERION"
FIC. D2 - THE VELOSITY, IMPACT AND POWER "CRITERIA" WHICH
COMPRISE THE FUNCTION.
pear that the quantity to be maxi-
mized is the power of the jets; but,
as shown previously, power alone
cannot be the complete criterion.
The power also should be distributed
effectively, in such a way that a max-
imum fraction of it is used directly
for the removal of the cuttings. This
optimum condition obviously will ex-
ist for one specific nozzle size, and
it may be expected to vary with the
power of the jets. Therefore, the
quantity to be maximized is not just
the power but, rather, is a function
of the power and the nozzle area.
The general shape of this function
(z) can be determined from the
knowledge that it must approach
zero for small nozzles, reach a maxi-
mum at a larger nozzle size and then
decrease as the nozzle size increases
(Fig. Dl). As, for a constant nozzle
size, an increase in power will always
produce an increase in Z, it follows
that curves for constant power do
not intersect (except at the origin).
The z-function, which might be
called a generalized power criterion,
contains the velocity, impact and
power "criteria". To demonstrate
this, write these three as special
forms of the generalized power cri-
terion. The "velocity criterion" be-
comes z = V = (HP / A )'/', the "im-
and the "power criterion" z = HP.
These various "criteria" have been
plotted in Fig. D2, and it becomes
evident why different "criteria" seem
to govern the problem of jet-bit hy-
draulics. * At small nozzle sizes, the
actual criterion may appear to the
experimenter as a "velocity criter-
ion", for intermediate nozzles as a
"In both figures, HP,>HP,>HP,.
~-------------HP3
z
f------------H P2
1------------ HP I
-A
"POWER CRITERION"
PETROLEUM fI'RANSACTIONS, AIME
"power criterion", and for larger noz-
zles as an "impact criterion".
Although actual z-curves could be
plotted by varying nozzle sizes at
constant power, such curves would
be of little practical value because
they would only be valid for the con-
ditions under which the experiment
was performed. Changing rotary
speed, bit size, bit type or other drill-
ing variables would change the flow
pattern beneath the bit and, hence,
the drill-cutting removal. For in-
stance, if two series of experiments
were made at different rotary speeds
AUTHORS' REPLY TO H. D. OUTMANS
H. D. Outmans' questioning of
the validity of velocity, impact and
power as critical quantities is well
founded, illuminating and worthy of
discussion. The first papers'·2 on jet-
bit usage showed increasing drilling
rate with increasing flow rate at con-
stant jet velocity. Drilling rate also
increased with increasing jet velocity
at constant flow rate, jet velocity hav-
ing the larger effect. * The two var-
iables studied are fundamental, and
these statements still constitute the
best bases for jet-bit program de-
sign. It should be noted that the
statements do not infer an increase
in drilling rate with an increase of
one variable if the other is decreased.
It is generally accepted that increas-
ing jet velocity is of little value be-
low 200 ft/sec, and it readily can be
• AlI at maximum effective bit weight.
at IN.{Oa)
600 r MIN. FLOW
~t~;;;;;::::::2!,r-MAX.
MAX. FLOW AT
PRESSURE (Om)
t)
w
(f)
......
f-
u..
':400
f-
t)
o...J
W
> producing loading at some arbitrar-
f-
W
-:>
MIN.
200
400
FLOW RATE, (GAL/MIN)
FIG. IA - FLOW RATES AND JET VELOCITIES OF MAXIMIZED PROGRAMS.
VOL. 219. 1960
then, for the same range of nozzle
sizes and the same power, z could
increase with nozzle size in one series
of experiments and decrease in the
other. To the investigator, it would
appear that the "impact criterion"
was valid in the first, and the "ve-
locity criterion" in the second case.
Considering the complexity of the
problem and the unreliability of "cri-
teria" suggested in the literature
(none of which could be valid for
anyone well), it seems that, at the
present time, the best advice to be
given to the operator faced with
reasoned that very high jet velocities
would be of little value at very low
flow rates. Therefore, it is not at all
unreasonable to expect that, at some
values of V and Q, drilling rate
would be less than at others, even
though power or impact were held
constant or even increased! Speer'·
apparently found such a case, al-
though the preponderance of data in-
dicates an increase in drilling rate
whenever power"s". or impact'·2,4 is
increased in the range of velocity
and flow rate producible on rigs. As
Outmans indicated, each of the cri-
teria may appear to be correct, de-
pending upon the conditions of the
experiment; but, from a field-use
view, the question is not the over-all
validity of the criteria but, instead
whether or not correlation exists in
the range of flow and velocity pro-
_ . - MAX. VEL. PROGRAM
- - - MAX. HP. PROGRAM
- - MAX. IMPACT PROGRAM
~MIN. FLOW 12t IN. (Oa)
SOo 800
the problem of designing a jet-bit
program is that he should maximize
pump pressure or pump power-
no matter what the rate of circula-
tion and the jet velocity may be. In
the actual choice of the rate of cir-
culation, which then determines the
jet velocity, he shOUld be guided by
the drilling progress observed at the
well. The flexibility of such a pro-
gram would give him a chance to
take maximum advantage of the rig's
hydraulic system, a chance he would
forfeit had his program been based
on a velocity, impact or power "cri-
terion".
ducible under field restrictions - a
possibility illustrated in his analysis.
The use of impact factor (QV)
originated,,2 not from fundamental
considerations but, rather, from the
need to take advantage of the effects
of both increased flow and velocity
on drilling rate in jet-bit programs.
Use of the factor allowed maximiza-
tion under the rig conditions of lim-
ited pump capability where increases
in the variables can only be produced
at the expense of energy loss in the
circulating system. Use of a power
factor (QV') serves the same pur-
pose. Use of a velocity criterion al-
lows maximization of velocity at con-
stant, minimum annular flow rate.
It would be possible also to maxi-
mize velocity at any other selected
flow rate. There appears to be no
reason, from a design viewpoint, of
volunteering reductions in Q and/or
V below the limited values obtain-
able under field restrictions, and this
is an inevitable result of attempts to
use jet bits without selection of some
arbitrary criterion upon which to
base pump loading.
For example, take the suggestion
of the discussor, wherein either
pump pressure or power would be
maximized and flow rate varied un-
til the maximum drilling rate was
found. The pump could be loaded
only by selecting one nozzle size,
ily selected flow rate. Flow rate could
not be increased without increased
power and pump overloading; and,
if flow rate were decreased, jet ve-
locity and flow rate would be rapidly
reduced. Probably the fastest drill-
ing rate would occur at the arbitrar-
ily selected flow rate.
Therefore, program design in-
249
eludes the necessity of incorporat-
ing arbitrary criterion; until the role
of hydraulics in cutting is better un-
derstood, programs will need to be
designed accordingly.
It may be of interest to some to
point out that, comparatively, maxi-
mum-impact (QV) programs em-
phasize flow, maximum-velocity pro-
grams produce maximum velocity
under the restriction of minimum
annular flow, and maximum bit-
power (QV2) programs place inter-
mediate emphasis on velocity and
flow. This represents a range of em-
phasis that can be field-tested if
pumps are operating in the constant-
pressure region; however, it was in-
tended to show in the paper that, in
the constant-horsepower region of
pump operations, this largely loses
significance and that the same pro-
grams tend to result from each de-
sign objective. It is conceivable that
with one set of rig equipment or
conditions one program will appear
250
best, and another will be best under
other conditions. The authors did
not intend to present a brief for any
or all of the programs; but, because
of the extensive but incomplete ef-
forts of others to maximize the cri-
teria and utilize pump horsepower,
it was felt that it would be valuable
to show how this could be done com-
pletely.
Fig. lA shows possible variations
in velocity and flow for the field
problem of the paper, under condi-
tions of maximum pump loading and
the restriction of minimum annular
flow rate. Values resulting from use
of each arbitrary criterion are illus-
trated. Maximum drilling rate prob-
ably occurs in some interval along
each depth line, and it would be
most helpful if this could be defined.
Possibly this is the intent of Out-
mans' recommended procedure; but,
to keep the pumps loaded and vary
flow, variable-sized nozzles would be
required.
A line has been drawn in Fig. lA
to illustrate an interesting possibility
of very conveniently designing a pro-
gram that takes advantage of maxi-
mum pump-pressure operation (or
maximum economic pressure) and
tends to average the velocities and
flow rates of the three maximum pro-
grams. A single nozzle size can be
selected that loads the pump at Qm
(or at maximum flow at maximum
economic pressure). This one nozzle
size could be used at constant sur-
face pressure, letting flow rate de-
crease as pipe is added until total
depth or minimum flow rate is
reached. The results of such a se-
lection on bit horsepower are illus-
trated by the 3 5/16-in. nozzle line
of Fig. 3. In view of the uncertain-
ties of each maximized program, this
may be just as good a choice. It
should be remembered that this is
applicable only in the constant-pres-
sure region of pump operation. ***
PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME