This application claims priority from GB Patent Application, Serial No. 0521693.2, filed on Oct. 25,2005.
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to fixed cutter drill bits for drilling boreholes into the earth for the exploration and recovery of minerals, particularly petroleum and natural gas.
2. Description of the Related Art
Bit whirl has been documented as a major cause of early failure and reduced performance of PDC bits. To date numerous methods have been developed with the aim of eliminating bit whirl. These methods include summing the resultant forces from each PDC cutter on a drill bit and balancing them to give a low net resultant force, known as an Out of Balance force. This was further developed by Warren et al in two related publications (“Bit Whirl, a New Theory of PDC bit Failure”—J. Ford Brett, Thomas F. Warren, and Suzanne M. Behr; Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Paper No. 19571) and (“Development of a Whirl Resistant Bit”—Thomas M. Warren, J. Ford Brett and L. Allen Sinor; SPE Paper No. 19572) such that a high imbalance force typical for bits at the time could be directed at a large low friction pad. This effect is similar to that used in gun drilling. Bits using this technique are commonly known as “Anti-Whirl” bits.
Other ways of controlling bit whirl include various forms of cutting structures mounted upon the body of the drill bit. These were developed such that a larger ridge is produced in the rock between cutters. This technique is typically known as “Tracking” and is detailed by Weaver et al (“A new PDC cutting structure improves bit stabilization and extends application into harder rock types”—G. E. Weaver and R. I. Clayton. SPE Paper No. 25734), and Mensa-Wilmot et al (“Innovative cutting structure improves stability and penetration rate of PDC bits without sacrificing durability”—Graham Mensa-Wilmot, Tony Krepp, SPE Paper No. 39310).
These, and many other related methods have been shown to be effective to an extent, but the effects of bit whirl are still evident in fixed cutter drill bits, and are still a significant cause for poor bit performance. Nonetheless, the understanding of bit whirl has generally improved the performance of fixed cutter drill bits.
In one embodiment, the invention is both a method of calculating the regenerative force of a PDC drill bit and a method of comparing the relative magnitudes of the regenerative forces of a number of PDC drill bits in order to develop more laterally stable PDC bits.
The regenerative force at a selected point on the outer diameter of a drill bit may be expressed at that diametrical location in units of force for a rock type having a known compressive strength at a given lateral displacement of the drill bit. Alternately, the regenerative force may be expressed as a non-dimensional number representative of the above variables. The total regenerative force is the vector sum of all the forces acting on the formation engaging cutters of the drill bit as it is displaced in the rock in this manner. Regenerative force is well known in the industry. To avoid ambiguity, however, the term ‘regenerative force’ in this application is intended to be used as described in the above referenced SPE paper 19571.
The regenerative force of a specific bit may be calculated at a particular location on the outer diameter of the bit and compared during design iterations. Specific characteristics of the cutters on the bits such as cutter back rake angle, cutter side rake angle, cutter diameter, cutter ‘density’, spiral order of the cutters, tracking relationship of the cutter, etc are varied. Also, a number of specific characteristics of the geometry of the bits, such as blade curvature, blade offset, blade start radius, and the number of blades, etc. may be varied. In making these selections, designers must also consider other aspects of the bit design such as durability, aggressivity and steerability, else the resulting bit may not be suitable for drilling a borehole. After each design iteration, the regenerative forces are re-calculated and compared to the previous values. The iteration is repeated until a useful bit design yielding the lowest regenerative forces on the bit is achieved.
Preferably, the regenerative force calculated on at least six spaced locations on the outer bit diameter are used for comparison of the bit designs; more preferably the mean and standard deviation of these regenerative forces are used to compare the bit designs as they are iterated. Preferably the sum of the standard deviation and the mean of the regenerative force are used for comparison. For practical purposes, the diameter range of fixed cutter drill bits according this invention are bits from 3 to 30 inches in diameter.
This results in a fixed cutter earth boring drill bit having very low regenerative forces. The bit has a diameter greater than 3 inches and less than 30 inches and a longitudinal axis, and comprising a pin end, a cutting end and a plurality of formation engaging cutter elements on the cutting end. The regenerative forces divided by the diameter calculated on at least six spaced points of the outer diameter have a mean and a standard deviation. Preferably, the mean plus the standard deviation is less than 120 lbs force per inch of diameter. For bits with a nose diameter at less than 90% of the bit diameter, the mean plus the standard deviation is more preferably less than 50 lbs force per inch of bit diameter. The regenerative force is calculated by displacing the center of the bit 1 mm in a direction normal to the regenerative force, and that the unconfined compressive strength of the rock is assumed, for comparison purposes, to be 11,000 psi.
The accompanying method for designing a fixed cutter earth boring drill bit having a diameter greater than 3 inches and less than 30 inches; and a longitudinal axis, and comprising a pin end, a cutting end and a plurality of cutting elements on the cutting end has the following steps. Arranging the cutting elements at locations on the cutting end of the bit. Calculating regenerative forces divided by the bit diameter calculated on at least six spaced points of the outer diameter. Calculating a mean and a standard deviation of the regenerative forces at the minimum of six spaced points on the diameter. Calculating the sum of the mean and the standard deviation. And re-arranging the cutting elements on the cutting end of the bit and repeating the above steps if the sum is greater than a predetermined value. The preferred value of this force is 120 lbs. force per inch of bit diameter. Again, the regenerative force is calculated by displacing the center of the bit 1.00 mm in a direction and taking the vector sum of all the forces acting on the formation engaging cutters normal to the displacement. The unconfined compressive strength of the rock to achieve the less than 120 lbs force per inch of diameter with a 1.00 mm displacement, as expressed above, is again assumed to be 11,000 psi.
Once the optimum combination of bit and cutter characteristics are achieved, the design of the bit may be finalized and proceed into manufacture.
This invention is also a method of comparing the relative lateral stability among drill bits (that is, the tendency for a bit to whirl). This allows improved bit selection in applications where whirl is apparent. Because there will likely be many different acceptable bit designs produced by the above method, the comparison of the regenerative forces among these bits allows a customer to make a more informed choice between stability and other performance features among a range of bit designs.
Also, because there is a limit to the ranges of the above characteristics available to vary by the designer, the final design is usually a ‘best’ compromise to provide the lowest regenerative forces on the bit and to also to provide a bit that will drill a proper borehole with acceptable life and performance.
The fixed cutter drill bit 20 is designed with predictable stability, that is, the bit is designed such that its tendency to ‘whirl’ is predicted in advance so that its properties in operation can be matched to the drilling requirements. Although it is generally believed that the less ‘whirl’ a bit has, the better, there are circumstances where there is a trade off between ‘whirl’ tendency and drilling rate of penetration performance. In these instances, it may be desirable to provide a bit that ‘whirls’ a known amount more than the achievable minimum in order to deliver a better overall drilling performance. There are many forms and sizes of fixed cutter drill bits 20. However, it has been found that the present invention is operable for fixed cutter drill bits 20 typically used in well bore drilling as described above having borehole diameters between 3 inches and 30 inches.
Referring now to
The ‘nose’ of the bit 20 is generally the region between the central portion (or “cone”) and the outer flank of the leading face 24 of the bit body 22. It has a nose diameter 34 typically defined along the mean radius of the region.
Typically, the PCD cutting elements 36 have a body in the form of a circular tablet having a thin front facing table of diamond, bonded in a high-pressure high-temperature press to a substrate of less hard material such as cemented tungsten carbide or other metallic material. The cutting elements 36 are typically preformed and then typically bonded on a generally cylindrical carrier which is also formed from cemented tungsten carbide, or may alternatively be attached directly to the blade.
The PCD cutting elements 36 are typically arranged along the blades 30 of the bit body 22 and typically have a geometric arrangement with respect to the earth 18 being drilled. One part of this geometric arrangement describes the orientation of a cutting element 36 as it is driven in a generally circular path through the earth and include backrake angle, siderake angle, cutter diameter, cutter height, cutter ‘density’, spiral order of the cutter, and tracking relationship of the cutter. Each of these parameters are well known to those skilled in the art of fixed cutter drill bit design, and as described for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,427,792; 6,248,447; 6,151,960; 6,131,678; 6,123,161; 6,092,613; 6,089,336; 6,065,554; 5,992,549 all incorporated by reference herein for all they contain.
Another part of this geometric arrangement is the orientation of the blades 30 upon which the cutters 36 are mounted. These are typically blade curvature, blade offset, blade start radius, and blade number. Again, each of these parameters are well known to those skilled in the art of fixed cutter drill bit design.
One aspect of the present invention is a method of representing the likelihood of a PDC bit to initiate bit whirl.
Referring to
The regenerative force, F, can be utilized in the design of fixed cutter drill bits 20. As shown in
This series of regenerative forces F is then used to compare the likelihood of a PDC bit to commence whirling. This method holds that low overall values of regenerative forces F will result in a bit that is less likely to commence bit whirl, and high overall values of regenerative force F will result in a bit that is more likely to whirl.
In one embodiment of the present invention for a drill bit 20 having a minimum amount of whirling, the regenerative forces F1, F2, F3 . . . FN divided by the bit diameter D calculated on at least six spaced points of the diameter D have a calculated mean and a calculated standard deviation, where the sum of the mean and the standard deviation is less than 120 lbs force per inch of diameter D. Each regenerative force F is calculated by displacing the center of the bit 1.00 mm in the direction normal to the calculated regenerative force, F, and it is assumed for this calculation that the unconfined compressive strength of the rock is 11,000 psi.
In order to visually represent and rank the relative likelihood of a number of PDC bits to initiate whirl, the regenerative forces can be converted into a ranking by the use of a look up table based on the diameter of the bit, as illustrated in
With a displacement P of 1.00 mm and with a rock strength of 11,000 psi the average range of the value of regenerative force F is around 40-50 pounds-force per inch of bit diameter for each of the indices, but this varies somewhat with bit type and diameter. Furthermore, since drill bits tend to be made with discrete groups of features, mappings of the regenerative forces to the index number is not intended to be equal, as is evidenced by the irregularity of the spacings of the indices as shown in
Once the series of values of the regenerative force F has been converted into a ranking series, this series can be plotted on an orbit diagram in the manner shown in
It is intended that the display shown in
Whereas the present invention has been described in particular relation to the drawings attached hereto, it should be understood that other and further modifications apart from those shown or suggested herein, may be made within the scope and spirit of the present invention.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
0521693.2 | Oct 2005 | GB | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1587266 | Zublin | Jun 1926 | A |
2074951 | Zublin | Mar 1937 | A |
2687282 | Sanders | Aug 1954 | A |
2712434 | Giles et al. | Jul 1955 | A |
2931630 | Grady | Apr 1960 | A |
3120285 | Rowley et al. | Feb 1964 | A |
3156310 | Frisby | Nov 1964 | A |
3215215 | Kellner | Nov 1965 | A |
3455402 | Tiraspolsky | Jul 1969 | A |
3851719 | Thompson et al. | Dec 1974 | A |
3923109 | Williams, Jr. | Dec 1975 | A |
4220213 | Hamilton | Sep 1980 | A |
4449595 | Holbert | May 1984 | A |
4463220 | Gonzalez | Jul 1984 | A |
4471845 | Jurgens | Sep 1984 | A |
4499958 | Radtke et al. | Feb 1985 | A |
4515227 | Cerkovnik | May 1985 | A |
4523652 | Schuh | Jun 1985 | A |
4602691 | Weaver | Jul 1986 | A |
4635738 | Schillinger et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4640375 | Barr et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4696354 | King et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
4699224 | Burton | Oct 1987 | A |
4718505 | Fuller | Jan 1988 | A |
4815342 | Brett et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4889017 | Fuller et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4895214 | Schoeffler | Jan 1990 | A |
4948925 | Winters et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4982802 | Warren et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5010789 | Brett et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5042596 | Brett et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5090492 | Keith | Feb 1992 | A |
5099934 | Barr | Mar 1992 | A |
5099935 | Anthon et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5111892 | Sinor et al. | May 1992 | A |
5113953 | Noble | May 1992 | A |
5119892 | Clegg et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5131478 | Brett et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5165494 | Barr | Nov 1992 | A |
5186268 | Clegg | Feb 1993 | A |
5213168 | Warren et al. | May 1993 | A |
5238075 | Keith et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5265685 | Keith et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5314033 | Tibbitts | May 1994 | A |
5377773 | Tibbitts | Jan 1995 | A |
5402856 | Warren et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5423389 | Warren et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5469927 | Griffin | Nov 1995 | A |
5531281 | Murdock | Jul 1996 | A |
5558170 | Thigpen et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5560439 | Delwiche et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5560440 | Tibbitts | Oct 1996 | A |
5568838 | Struthers et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5601151 | Warren | Feb 1997 | A |
5617926 | Eddison et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5649604 | Fuller et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5651421 | Newton et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5678644 | Fielder | Oct 1997 | A |
5697461 | Newton et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5740873 | Tibbitts | Apr 1998 | A |
5765653 | Doster et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5803196 | Fielder | Sep 1998 | A |
5864058 | Chen | Jan 1999 | A |
5873422 | Hansen et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5937958 | Mensa-Wilmot et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5957223 | Doster et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5957227 | Besson et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5979571 | Scott et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5979576 | Hansen et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5992548 | Silva et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6006844 | Van Puymbroeck et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6092610 | Kosmala et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6102142 | Besson et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6109372 | Dorel et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6116356 | Doster et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6123161 | Taylor | Sep 2000 | A |
6158529 | Dorel | Dec 2000 | A |
6164394 | Mensa-Wilmot et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173797 | Dykstra et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6186251 | Butcher | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6193000 | Caraway et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6246974 | Jelley et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6260636 | Cooley et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269893 | Beaton et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6283233 | Lamine et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6290007 | Beuershausen et al. | Sep 2001 | B2 |
6298930 | Sinor et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6302224 | Sherwood, Jr. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6321857 | Eddison | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6321862 | Beuershausen et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6328117 | Berzas et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349780 | Beuershausen | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6371226 | Caraway | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6408958 | Isbell et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6450270 | Saxton | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460631 | Dykstra et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6481511 | Matthias et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6564886 | Mensa-Wilmot et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6568492 | Thigpen et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6595304 | Chen | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6622803 | Harvey et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6659199 | Swadi | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6705413 | Tessari | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6739416 | Presley et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6779613 | Dykstra et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
20040221985 | Hill et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040254664 | Centala et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015229 | Huang | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20070093996 | Cariveau et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2400696 | Oct 2004 | GB |
2422462 | Jul 2006 | GB |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070144789 A1 | Jun 2007 | US |