SPE-169451-MS

An Analytical Model Coupled With Data Analytics to Estimate PDC Bit

Wear
Z. Liu, C. Marland, D. Li, and R. Samuel, Halliburton

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Maracaibo, Venezuela, 21–23 May
2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The increasing complexities of wellbore geometry imply an increasing potential of damage resulting from
downhole bit wear. Although the locations of critical bit wear can be difficult to predict, the quantification
of the actual bit teeth/cutter wear is important to achieve reduced cost per foot and predictable bit failure.
There is no acceptable universal mathematical model that describes bit wear accurately because of the
complex nature of downhole conditions. Usually, either analytical models or real-time data analytics are
used separately to estimate and predict bit wear. Combining both methods and using them simultaneously
is an efficient way to address this limitation. This paper presents a new simple analytical bit wear model
coupled with data analytics using real-time gamma ray data to suppress the uncertainties of the interacting
formation properties and other intervening variables. The fractional bit wear of polycrystalline diamond
compact (PDC) bit cutters is obtained from the geometric correlation between height loss and the cutter
volume loss. The volume loss of cutters is assumed to be proportional to weight on bit (WOB), cutter
sliding distance, rock strength, and rock quartz content.
The paper presents a field example to predict and estimate the bit wear using actual data. Gamma ray
and rate of penetration (ROP) data of the initial drilling section are used to train the model to quantify the
influence of formation strength interaction with the analytical model. Then estimation of ROP using the
new bit wear model was carried out using actual field drilling parameters. The calculated ROP profile
closely matched with the actual data within reasonable accuracy of less than 5%. Specific procedures are
proposed for effective prediction of ROP and bit life.
Introduction
Cost reduction during drilling operations is mainly achieved by reducing operation time, which, in turn,
can be stated in terms of increasing ROP. There are many factors that influence the ROP during a
conventional rotary drilling process. These factors have been classified into six groups (Ebrahimi and
Noveiri 2010):
● Bit type.
● Formation characteristics (rock strength, permeability).
● Drilling fluid properties (including mud weight, viscosity. etc.).
2 SPE-169451-MS

Table 1—ROCK STRENGTH COEFFICIENTS (Rampersad et al. ● Bit operating conditions (WOB and rotary
1994)
speed).
Formation Permeable Impermeable
● Bit tooth wear.
Pe Pbh-Pp Pbh
as 0.0133 0.00432 ● Bit hydraulics.
bs 0.577 0.782
All of these variables can be divided into two
major groups— controllable and uncontrollable.
Uncontrollable variables are mainly formation char-
acteristics. Rock strength, permeability, and mineral composition can all have significant effects on ROP.
Appropriate bit type should be selected considering formation characteristics and bit cost. It has been
reported that PDC bits are better suited for soft formations (Ebrahimi and Noveiri 2010). With the advance
of PDC technologies, PDC bits become more popular because of the attraction of a lack of moving parts
and of seals, the erosion resistance of tungsten carbide matrix bodies, the ability to handle high rotation
speeds, the promise of high ROP, and the ability to rapidly manufacture specialty gauge and cutting
structure configurations. It is projected that the PDC bit market share will reach 80% by 2016 (Bellin et
al. 2010).
Bit tooth wear has significant effects on ROP (Rahimzadeh et al. 2010). Despite its importance, this
information is rarely accurately provided because of the difficulty of simultaneously calculating its
constantly changing value with the advance of drilling. Most studies rely on a few fixed preassigned
estimated values to calculate ROP. This, in turn, can greatly reduce the ROP model accuracy. Therefore,
precisely calculating the bit tooth wear instantaneously with drilling and using this ever-refreshed new
information in ROP calculations is the key to improving model accuracy.
There is no acceptable universal mathematical model that describes bit wear accurately because of the
complex nature of downhole conditions. Usually, either an analytical model (Gouda et al., 2011) or
real-time data analytics (Rashidi et al. 2010) are used separately to estimate and predict bit wear.
Combining both methods and using them simultaneously is thought to be an efficient approach. In this
paper, a new simple analytical bit wear model coupled with data analytics using real-time gamma ray data
to reduce the uncertainties of the interacting formation properties and other intervening variables are
presented.

ROP Model and Reported Bit Wear Models

The ROP model (Matahhari et al. 2010) for PDC bit performance, assuming perfect bit cleaning, is
(1)

In the above equation, a, b, and G are model constants; Wf is the bit wear function, discussed in the next
section, N is the rotary speed, and S is the confined compressive rock strength.
(2)

where S0 is unconfined rock strength. Values of coefficient as and bs are shown in Table 1.
Until presently, there has been no widely accepted bit wear model. Rahimzadeh et al. (2010) assumed
a linear relation for the effect of bit wear function Wf, which is given by
(3)

where ⌬BG is the IADC bit dull grade. They used the following equation to calculate the bit dull grade.
(4)
SPE-169451-MS 3

The simulated ROP values using this bit wear model are much lower than actual values. If the ROP
model is correct, then the bit wear effect is significantly overestimated. Rashidi et al. (2010) modified Eq.
3 for real-time bit wear prediction using ROP data.
(5)

where a0 and b0 are constants. ⌬BG was calculated from real-time data of ROP, WOB, rev/min, etc. The
predicted bit dull grades are in good agreement with actual grades. However, this method seems not
applicable for planning before actual drilling.
Motahhari et al. (2010) developed the following equation to estimate wear function of PDC bits.
(6)

Where Aw is the wear flat area underneath of a single cutter, which is a function of wear depth on a cutter
face and PDC layer thickness, n is the number of PDC cutters on the bit face, kwf, ␳ and ␶ are model
constants. The wear flat area and wear depth are geometrically related to the volume of the cutter removed
by friction and formation interaction during the drilling process. Removed cutter volume (⌬V) increases
with the drilled depth and is equal to the sum of infinitesimal volumes removed in each and every foot
of the bit run.
(7)

where Ca is bit wear coefficient and is a function of PDC layer material durability and relative hardness
of the cutter’s tungsten carbide matrix to the PDC layer material, Abr is rock abrasiveness, and C1 and C2
are model constants. This model involves too many constants and coefficients, thus creating difficulties
for real applications.

The New Bit Wear Model

Assuming that the abrasive volume loss (⌬V) of the drill-bit cutter is proportional to the rock quartz
content ␣0, the rock strength S, the drill string axial force Fa applied to bit, and the sliding distance L;
therefore,
(8)

where ␤ is a constant related to the rock and drill bit properties. The rock quartz content is approximately
estimated using the volume percentage of shale and sandstone.
(9)

Here, ␣0 is assumed to be 0.1 for shale and 0.8 for sandstone because the quartz content is ~10% of shale
and up to 80% of sandstone (Yarali et al. 2008). Neglecting the porosity, fractional volume of sandstone
Vsand is approximately calculated from shale volume percentage Vsh,
(10)

Limestone and dolomite is also treated as sandstone in the sense of abrasivity so that virtual “quartz
content” can also be used in other types of rocks. Vsh can be estimated from gamma ray data (Asquith and
Krygowski 2006):
(11)

where shale index, , GRsand is the gamma ray api reading of clean sand, GRshale is the

gamma ray reading of shale, and GR is the gamma ray log reading.
4 SPE-169451-MS

Figure 1—Schematic illustration (a) and spread-out view (b) of the traveling track of a drill-bit cutter.

When the drill bit makes one turn, a cutter’s traveling track is a helical curve on a cylinder surface
(Fig.1a). If spreading out the cylinder surface, the curve becomes the hypotenuse of a right triangle (Fig.
1b). The length of the hypotenuse can be calculated as
(12)

If the drill bit advances X feet, the bit rotates m turns.

(13)

The total length of tooth traveling track is

(14)

In most cases, ROP/(60N) ⬍⬍ ␲Di, then

(15)

One can approximate the average diameter of cutter track cylinder as Di⫽Db/2, where Db is the drill
bit diameter.
The average cutter sliding distance can be approximately calculated as
(16)

where N is the rev/min, factor 1/12 refers to in. to ft conversion.

The ROP can be computed using Eq. 1. Thus, one has
(17)

Assuming a⫽b⫽1, combine Eq. 8 and 17 and substitute the axial force Fa for WOB, then
(18)

where is the confined rock strength, as and bs are constants, and S0 is the unconfined rock
strength. Pe can be approximated as bottomhole pressure Pbh. For vertical wells,
(19)

where X0 refers to the starting depth of the bit run, ␥f is mud specific gravity.
The removed part of cutter is assumed to be a truncated cylinder (blue part in Fig. 2a), which is
approximately treated as an inverse pyramid, as shown in Fig. 2b. Hence, the fractional bit wear is
(20)
SPE-169451-MS 5

Figure 2—Illustrations of a PDC cutter (a) and its inverse pyramid approximation (b).

where V0 is the volume of truncated cylinder with the flat surface through bottom circle center. If volume
loss is more than V0, i.e., ⌬h/h⬎0.5, the approximation becomes much less accurate.
Let y⫽⌬h/h, combining Eq. 20 with 18, one can calculate , that is
(21)

The fractional bit wear factor yi at measured depth Xi can be obtained by solving the above quartic
equation analytically. But, the exact analytic solution is lengthy and complicated. An alternative way is
to solve Eq. 21 using computer programs employing the cut and conquer method using yi-1 as an initial
guess.
For the sake of simplicity, one can replace yi with yi-1 on the right-hand side of Eq. 21, which should
be a good approximation if the incremental depth Xi is small. Eq. 21 then becomes
(22)

With Eq. 22, one can avoid iterations and calculate the fractional bit wear even faster, which is desired
for downhole automations. Moreover, because no WOB and rev/min data are necessary, a spreadsheet
software can be used to calculate the bit wear during bit run planning, as long as the lithology and the
drill-bit parameters are known.
Once the fractional bit wear yi is calculated, one can calculate the bit wear function of PDC bits as
(23)

Finally, the IADC bit dull grade is

(24)

Case Study
A real bit run from field drilling operations was selected to verify the discussed bit wear model and drilling
optimization approach. Fig. 3a illustrates the gamma ray profile of the bit run. Unconfined rock strength
S0 is related to the gamma ray API. Here, one simply uses the following approximation. From the gamma
ray log data, GRsh⫽140, GRsand⫽40 can be assigned. If API ⬎GRsh, the rock is considered as shale. S0
⫽9000. If API ⬍GRsand, the rock is considered as sandstone (S0 ⫽15000), even though limestone,
dolomite, etc. might also have similar gamma ray log readings. If GRsand ⫽⬍ API ⫽⬍GRsh, the formula
derived from Soroush (2008) rock strength correlation can be used.
(25)

The verification procedure is as follows.

6 SPE-169451-MS

Figure 3—Gamma ray log; (a) simulated ROP (b) and fractional bit wear ⌬h/h (c) of actual PDC bit run.

1. Assuming a⫽b⫽1 and Wf⫽1, the least mean square fit to find G for equation (1) is used.
Depth range: TVD⫽11835-12081 ft
Find G to minimize ⌺(ROPsim-ROPactual)2, G⫽14.3 for the studied case.
2. Use the least mean square fit to find Wc ⫽␤/V0 for Eq. 21.
Data range: TVD⫽11835-12542 ft, Wc⫽6.48E-16.
3. Simulate ROP using Wf correction based on Eq. 1, 22, and 23.
4. Plot simulated ROP and actual ROP together against depth; plot fractional bit wear ⌬h/h vs.
depth.
Figs. 3b and 3c illustrate the simulated ROP and fractional bit wear ⌬h/h. It can clearly be observed
that the simulated ROP line (blue) closely follows the actual ROP profile (pink). Simulated average ROP
over the entire bit run is 84.0 ft/hr. It is within 5% difference from actual average ROP, 80.0ft/hr. Without
the bit wear function Wf, the simulated average ROP would be 96 ft/hr. That is almost 20% larger than
actual. The simulated final bit dull grade is ⌬BG⫽8•⌬h/h⫽8*0.21⫽1.68, which is close to the actual bit
wear Grade 2.
The simulated ROP is in good agreement with actual data. However, there are some areas (11900 to
12000, 13700 to 13800, and 14200 to 14300) where the model deviates either to under or overpredict.
Possible reasons are listed in Table 2.
SPE-169451-MS 7

Table 2—POSSIBLE REASONS OF ROP DEVIATION FROM ACTUAL DATA

Interval (ft) Deviation Possible Reasons

11900 to 12000 Underestimate - High pore pressure

- Softer-than-expected shale layers
- Low cementation degree
13700 to 13800 Underestimate - High pore pressure
- Softer-than-expected shale layers
- Natural/pressure-induced fractures
14200 to 14300 Overestimate - High API from sandstone instead of shale
- Underestimated bit wear
- Lower pore pressure

A very simple model of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) was used. A more accurate UCS
model is reported by Soroush (2008), covering factors such as porosity, cementation extent, quartz
content, clay content, grain size, and grain sorting. However, the data of porosity, grain size, etc. are not
available for this bit run. Gamma ray log data alone for rock strength estimate will certainly yield some
error.
On the other hand, the confined compressive strength (CCS) was calculated according to Eq. 2. In the
equation, Pe⫽(Pbh-Pp) is the differential pressure between bottomhole pressure Pbh and pore pressure Pe.
In the simulation, it was assumed that all rock layers are impermeable and Pe⫽Pbh. This assumption is
not valid when permeable sandstone rocks are involved. If pore pressure is high, the effective confined
rock strength will be low. Consequently, ROP will be underestimated. Besides, high gamma ray API is
not necessarily from shale. Sandstone or dolomite with high API will result in overestimated ROP.
Possible future improvements are to improve the rock strength model and consider pore pressure
prediction.
Considering the notoriously subjective nature of IADC bit dull grade evaluation, it is believed that the
simulated bit dull grade value is in good agreement with the actual value.
Conclusions
A simple analytical PDC bit wear model was established based on the inverse pyramid approximation of
a PDC bit cutter and fixed cutter bit ROP model. The new bit wear model can be used to estimate bit wear
during bit run planning, even without knowing the WOB and rev/min. Coupled with real-time gamma ray
log data, the new bit wear model can improve ROP and bit dull grade predictions, providing direct support
for drilling optimization and trip-out decision.
Compared to actual PDC bit run data, the simulated ROP profile closely follows the actual profile. The
difference between the simulated average ROP and the actual average ROP is within 5%. The simulated
IADC bit dull grade is in good agreement with the real bit dull grade. These results indicated that the new
bit wear model can significantly improve the predictions of ROP and can also be used to estimate real-time
drill bit wear using real-time gamma ray data.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Halliburton for allowing the publication of this article. Additional thanks are extended
to Shengchun Wang for contribution of drilling field data.

Nomenclature
a ⫽bit constants, dimensionless
as ⫽rock strength lithology coefficient, dimensionless
␣0 ⫽normalized rock quartz content, dimensionless
Aw ⫽wear area, in2
8 SPE-169451-MS

Abr ⫽relative abrasiveness, dimensionless

b ⫽bit constants, dimensionless
bs ⫽rock strength lithology coefficient, dimensionless
␤ ⫽abrasive constant, dimensionless
ci ⫽model constants, dimensionless
Db ⫽bit diameter, in
Di ⫽average diameter of cutter track cylinders, in
Fa ⫽axial force applied to drill bit, lbf
␥f ⫽mud specific gravity
GR ⫽gamma ray reading, api units
IGR ⫽shale index, dimensionless
X ⫽incremental depth, ft
L ⫽traveling distance of PDC cutter, ft;
N ⫽rotary speed, rpm
Pe ⫽differential pressure, psi
Pbh ⫽bottomhole pressure, psi
Pp ⫽pore pressure, psi
ROP ⫽rate of penetration, ft/hr
S ⫽confined compressive rock strength, psi
S0 ⫽uniaxial compressive strength, psi
Vsand ⫽volume fraction of clean sand, dimensionless
Vsh ⫽volume fraction of shale, dimensionless
WOB ⫽weight on bit, lbf
Wc ⫽vit wear coefficient, dimensionless
Wf ⫽vit wear function, dimensionless
⌬h/h ⫽fractional bit wear, dimensionless
⌬BG ⫽bit wear grade, dimensionless

References
Asquith, G. and Krygowski, D. 2006. Basic Well Log Analysis, 31–35, second edition. AAPG
Methods in Exploration Series, No. 16.
Bellin, F., Dourfaye, A., King, W., et al. 2010. The Current State of PDC Bit Technology: Part 3.
World Oil. (November 2010): 67–71.
Ebrahimi, M. and Noveiri, E. 2010. Cost Per Foot Reduction by Bit Run Optimization: A Simulation
Study. Paper of SPE 133429 presented at the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference, Port of
Spain, Trinidad, 27–30 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133429-MS.
Gouda, G.M., Maestrami-Eni, M., Saif, M.A.A, et al. 2011. A Mathematical Model to Compute the
PDC Cutter Wear Value To Terminate PDC Bit Run. Paper SPE 140151 presented at the SPE Middle East
Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
140151-MS.
Matahhari, H.R., Hareland, G., and James, J.A. 2010. Improved Drilling Efficiency Technique Using
Integrated PDM and PDC Bit Parameters. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. 49(10):45–52.
SPE-141651-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141651-PA.
Rahimzadeh, H., Mostofi, M., Hashemi, A., et al. 2010. Comparison of the Penetration Rate Models
Using Field Data for One of the Gas Fields in Persian Gulf Area. Paper SPE 131253 presented at the
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 6 –10 June. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/131253-MS.
Rampersad, P.R., Hareland, G., and Boonyapaluk, P. 1994. Drilling Optimization Using Drilling Data
SPE-169451-MS 9

and Available Technology. Paper SPE 27034 presented at the SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 27–29 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27034-MS.
Rashidi, B., Hareland, G., and Wu, A. 2010. New Approach in Real-Time Bit Wear Prediction. Paper
SPE 136008 presented at the Abu Dhabi Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1– 4
November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/136008-MS.
Soroush, H. 2008. A Rapid Method for Real-Time Evaluation of Formation Strength. Paper ARMA-
08-155 presented at the The 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS), San Francisco, California,
USA, 29 June–2 July.
Yarali, O., Yasar, E., Bacak, G., et al. 2008. A Study of Rock Abrasivity and Tool Wear in Coal
Measures Rocks. International Journal of Coal Geology. 74(1):53–66.