IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Estimation of Bourgoyne and Young Model Coefficients to Predict

Optimum Drilling Rates and Bit Weights using Genetic Algorithms – a
case study of the Faihaa Oil Field in Iraq
To cite this article: AbdulKareem A Khaleel et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1067 012154

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 187.184.114.149 on 18/10/2021 at 16:50

4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

Estimation of Bourgoyne and Young Model Coefficients to

Predict Optimum Drilling Rates and Bit Weights using Genetic
Algorithms – a case study of the Faihaa Oil Field in Iraq
AbdulKareem A Khaleel1, Mohammed S Adnan2, Salem J Alhamd3
1.2.3
College of Engineering –University of Karbala
1
Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract. Drilling optimization requires maximizing rate of penetration (ROP) by

controlling parameters such as bit weight (WOB) and rotary speed (N) to reduce
drilling time and cost and to mitigate hole problems. The Bourgoyne and Young
model was selected to study the effects of all parameters concerned with oil well
drilling (depth, pore pressure, equivalent circulating density, bit weight, rotary speed,
bit tooth dullness and jet impact force) based on actual bit records for a well in Faihaa
oil field. A multiple regression analysis technique and genetic algorithm procedure
were employed to analyze the field data, with the results used to develop a general
equation relating rate of penetration to all variables. All the constants of the model
were thus determined, and the optimized bit weight calculated for different depths of
well to achieve the optimum penetration rate.

Keywords: Burgoyne and Young model; penetration rate; genetic algorithm;

optimum bit weight

1.Introduction

Optimizing a drilling operation is the paramount objective for operators and drilling contractors seeking to
minimize well costs and maximize drilling performance, One of the most effective solutions for reducing
well cost is to maximize the rate of penetration based upon optimum selection of applied drilling parameters
and tools, and various mechanical specific energy (MSE) and statistical approaches have been implemented
to enhance the rate of penetration (ROP) to drill new wells more efficiently and cost-effectively [1]. In the
oil industry, the cost of drilling operations is very high, especially the cost of renting a drilling rig; one of
the main aims of petroleum engineering is thus to reduce the costs by increasing the speed of drilling or
ROP. Increasing drilling performance and minimizing costs in any drilling operation begins with an
accurate understanding of the lithological characteristics in the wellbore and, perhaps more importantly,
the formation rock strength or “drillability”. An accurate estimation of these parameters is vital to reducing
costs by improving the overall drilling performance of any well [3].
One of the first attempts at drilling optimization was presented by Graham and Muench in 1959 [4]. They
analytically evaluated various weights on the bit and rotary speed combinations to derive empirical
mathematical expressions for bit life expectancy and drilling rates as a function of depth, rotary speed, and
bit weight [5]. In 1963, Galle and Woods [5] produced graphs and procedures for field applications to
determine the best combination of drilling parameters. One of the most important drilling optimization
studies was performed in 1974 by Bourgoyne and Young [6], however. They proposed the use of a linear
drilling penetration rate model and performed multiple regression analysis to select optimal drilling
parameters using a minimum cost formula, showing that maximum rate of penetration generally coincided
with a minimum cost approach if technical limitations were ignored. In the 1990s, various different drilling
planning approaches were developed, along with new techniques to identify the best possible well
construction performance. Later on, Drilling the Limit optimization techniques were also introduced, and
towards the end of the previous millennium, real-time monitoring techniques were emplaced, allowing

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

drilling parameters started to be monitored remotely ሾ͹ሿǤ A few years later, real-time operations support
centers began to be constructed, and some operators proposed advanced techniques for monitoring drilling
parameters at the rig site.ሾͺሿ

1.1. Case study data:

The necessary analyses for this research study were performed using data for a vertically drilled well
(Faihaa-1) in block 9, located in southern Iraq, 25 kilometers north of Basra, on the border of Iran, with the
Majnoon and Sindbad fields to the left and right, respectively. The Faihaa oil field was discovered in 2014.

Figure 1. Location of the Faihaa oil field ሾʹሿ

1.2. Objective of study:
1-To determine the exponents for the Bourgoyne and Young model using multiple regression analysis.
2-To predict the modelled rate of penetration and to compare this with actual field data.
3-Tp determine the optimum bit weight based on the rate of penetration equation and flounder points.

2. Theory
Several drilling factors influence drilling operations, some of which are controllable, and others of which
are not [7], as shown in figure 1. Some of these factors may thus be tightly controlled in order to obtain the
required speed during drilling to break the rock formation, in addition to avoiding problems that may arise
during the drilling process [7]. Controllable operational factors that may affect the rate of penetration
include the weight on bit (WOB), rotations per minute (RPM), the type of bit used, jet impact force, and bit
hydraulics. A parametric sensitivity analysis was performed, as discussed later, to investigate which
controllable operational parameter most significantly affect the developed ROP model.

2
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

Figure 2. Factors Affecting ROP (7)

The permeability and the strength of the formation affect the rate of penetration, as do various drilling fluid
properties such as fluid density, rheology, viscosity, chemical composition, solid content, and filtration
characteristics [3]. ROP tends to decrease on increases of fluid viscosity, fluid density, and solid and
lubricant content, and increase on increases in filtration rate. Other factors such as torque, cuttings transport
and the equivalent circulating density (ECD) also influence the rate of penetration; for example, ROP tends
to increase as ECD decreases [7].
In order to maximize rates of penetration and minimize drilling costs, both quantitative and qualitative
assessments are required to enhance drilling process efficiency [7]. The classic drilling curve , which is
divided into three regions as shown in figure 3, is used for this purpose.

Figure 3. The classic drilling curve (ROP vs. WOB) [1].

Many mathematical models have been proposed in an effort to describe the relationship of several
drilling variables with the penetration rate. According to previous studies ሾͳ͵ǡͳͶǡͳͷሿǡ such models analyse
the parameters, describe their relationship to the rate of penetration, and find solutions that offer control
over them. Several named models are thus now used in the field [4]:
a) MSE (Mechanical Specific Energy)
b) Burgoyne and Young Model
c) Warren Model
d) Modified Warren Model

3
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

e) Real-Time Bit Wear Model

f) Hareland and Rampersad Model
g) Maurer Model.

3. Methodology and model

Burgoyne and Young’s model may be the most important among the models named earlier, as it is based
on statistical analysis of previous drilling parameters [6]. A linear penetration model is then introduced and
multiple regression analysis over rate of penetration is conducted.
The model proposed by Burgoyne and Young has thus been adopted for this project in order to derive
equations to perform ROP estimation using the available input data. This model was selected as the most
complete mathematical drilling model in use in the industry for roller-cone type bits. Burgoyne and Young
proposed the following equation to model the drilling process when using roller cone bits:
ఴ
݀f/݀‫ ݁ =ݐ‬ሾ௔ଵାσೕసమ ௔ೕ௫ೕሿ  (1)
where
݀f/݀‫ ݐ‬- rate of penetration
ܽଵ െ ଼ܽ - ܿ‫ݏݐ݊ܽݐݏ݊݋‬
‫ݔ‬ଵ െ  ‫ ଼ݔ‬-݀‫ ݏݎݐ݁݉ܽݎܽ݌ ݈݈݃݊݅݅ݎ‬or functions

3.1. Model equations

The model can therefore be expressed as ሾ͸ሿ
ܴܱܲ=݂1‫݂כ‬2‫݂כ‬3‫݂כ‬4‫݂כ‬5‫݂כ‬6‫݂כ‬7‫݂כ‬8 (2)

The first term (f1) expresses the effect of rock drillability

݂ଵ = ݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔భ (3)
ܽଵ െ Formation type parameter

The second term (f2) models the compaction effect and is given by
݂ଶ = ݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔మሺଵ଴଴଴଴ି஽ሻ (4)
ܽଶ െNormal compaction parameter
‫ݔ‬ଶ = (10000-D) (5)
݂ଶ = ݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔మ௫మ (6)

The third term models (f3) under-compaction due to differential pressure as

݂ଷ =݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔య ஽଴Ǥ଺ଽሺ௚௣ିଽǤ଴ሻ (7)
ܽଷ -Under compaction parameter
‫ݔ‬ଷ =‫ܦ‬0.69 (݃௣ − 9) (8)
݂ଷ =݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔య௫య (9)
where ݃௣ is the pore pressure gradient in pounds per gallon equivalent.

The fourth term (f4) is the effect of differential pressure

݂ସ =݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔ర஽ሺ௚೛ ିఘ೎ሻ (10)
ܽସ െPressure differential parameter
‫ݔ‬ସ = D(݃‫݌‬−ߩܿ) (11)
݂ସ =݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔ర௫ర (12)
where (ߩܿ) is the mud weight in pound per gallon.

4
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

The fifth term (݂5) models the effect on ROP caused by changing the WOB

ܹܱ‫ܤ‬ ܹܱ‫ܤ‬
ܽͷ
൬ ൰െ൬ ൰
ܾ݀ ܾ݀
‫ݐ‬
݂ହ ൌ ቎ ܹܱ‫ܤ‬ ቏ (13)
ͶǤͲെ൬ ݀ ൰
ܾ ‫ݐ‬
ܽହ െ Weight on bit (WOB) parameter
ೈೀಳ ೈೀಳ ଵ
൬ ൰ି൬ ൰
೏್ ೏್
೟
‫ݔ‬ହ = ln ൥ ೈೀಳ
൩ (14)
ସǤ଴ି൬ ൰
೏್
೟

݂ହ = ݁ ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔ఱ௫ఱ (15)

The sixth term (݂଺) models the effect of rotary speed (RPM) on the ROP and is given by
ே ௔ల
݂଺= ቀ ቁ (16)
଺଴

ܽ଺ െ RPM parameter
ே
‫ = ଺ݔ‬ln ቀ଺଴ቁ (17)
ଶǤଷ଴ଷ௔ల ௫ల
݂଺ = ݁ (18)

The seventh term (݂7) models the effect of bit wear on the ROP; this depends on bit type and formation
type and is given by
݂଻ =݁ ି௔ళ ௛ (19)
ܽ଻ െTooth wear parameter.
‫ = ଻ݔ‬-h (20)
݂଻ = ݁ ௔ళ ௫ళ (21)

The last term (଼݂) is the effect of bit hydraulics on the ROP, given as
ிೕ ௔ఴ
଼݂ = ቀଵ଴଴଴ቁ (22)
଼ܽ െ Hydraulics parameter
ఘ௤
‫ܨ‬௝ = ଷହ଴ఓௗ (23)
೙
ఘ௤
‫= ଼ݔ‬ [ଷହ଴ఓௗ ] (24)
೙
௔ఴ ௫ఴ
଼݂ = ݁ (25)
where (‫ܨ‬௝ ) is the hydraulic jet impact force beneath the bit
and
D - True vertical depth (ft)
݀௕ - Bit diameter (in)
‫ܨ‬௝ - Jet impact force (lbf)
݃௣ - Pore pressure gradient (lbm/gal)
h - Fractional bit tooth wear
ߩ௖ - Equivalent mud density (lbm/gal)
N - Rotary speed (rpm)
WOB - Weight on bit (1000 lbf)
(WOB/݀௕ ) t -Threshold bit weight per inch

Thus, the general equation is

5
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

ௗி
ௗ௧
= ሾ݁ ௔భ ݁ ௔మ ௫మ ݁ ௔య ௫య ݁ ௔ర ௫ర ݁ ௔ఱ ௫ఱ ݁ ௔ల ௫ల ݁ ௔ళ ௫ళ ݁ ௔ఴ ௫ఴ ሿ (26)

as shown in figure 4.

3.2. Genetic algorithm

Burgoyne and Young recommended a multiple regression method to determine unknown coefficients.
However, applying multiple regressions leads to physically meaningless values in some situations, and
while new mathematical model methods have recently been developed to reach meaningful results, in order
to develop a more accurate prediction and physically meaningful coefficients, a genetic algorithm was used
to determine the coefficients in the current work ሾͳͳሿǤ

3.3. Optimum weight on bit

Optimum weight on bit can be calculated as ሾͳʹሿ:

ೈೀಳ ೈೀಳ
௔ఱ ுభ ൬ ൰ ା௔ల ൬ ൰ 
ௐை஻ ೏್
೘ೌೣ
೏್
೟
ቀ ௗ ቁ ൌ ௔ఱ ுభ ା௔ల
(27)
್ ௢௣௧
where
(WOB/݀௕ ) opt. - optimized weight on bit to bit diameter (1000Ib/in.)
‫ܪ‬ଵ - Constant that depend on bit type
(WOB/݀௕ ) max. - Maximum weight on bit to bit diameter (1000Ib/in.)

Figure 4. Burgoyne and Young Model parameters (9)

6
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

4. Results and discussion

Field data were taken from Faihaa well 1 as shown in table 1. The primary drilling variables required for
the regression analysis are depth, penetration rate, bit weight per inch of bit diameter, rotary speed,
fractional tooth wear, jet impact force, mud density, and pore pressure gradient.

Table 1. Field data for Faiha 1 well

Data Depth (ft) ROP RPM Pore ECD W/d H Impact

entry (ft/hr) Gradient (ppg) (1000lb/in) tooth force
(ppg) dull. (lbf)
1 1977.84 9.0854 100 9.33893 9.3296 0.461538 0.5 1.86
2 3512.88 29.534 110 9.33893 9.3296 0.461538 0.25 1.82
3 4165.60 31.838 110 9.75584 9.7461 0.461538 0.25 2.35
4 4555.92 45.820 100 10.00596 9.9960 0.384515 0.25 1.77
5 7002.80 42.700 100 10.08937 10.0793 0.857143 0.375 1.85
6 8019.6 55.396 100 10.25614 10.2459 0.857143 0.25 2.16
7 8583.76 74.595 100 10.33952 10.3292 0.857143 0.25 2.0
8 8918.32 164.3644 100 10.7564 10.7457 0.85714 0.125 1.96
9 9184.00 212.5898 110 11.1733 11.1622 1.46938 0.125 2.22
10 9971.20 189.1154 100 11.1733 11.1622 1.22449 0.25 2.24
11 10850.24 157.7752 100 11.2567 11.2455 1.22449 0.125 1.88
12 11076.56 191.8943 100 11.2567 11.2455 1.22449 0.125 2.18
13 11319.28 151.2346 100 11.2567 11.2455 1.63265 0.25 1.69
14 13198.72 66.1812 110 13.5081 13.4946 1.63265 0.125 2.15
15 13448.00 1204.356 50 14.1752 14.1610 0.59701 0.125 2.37
16 13612.00 339.5423 90 14.5087 14.4942 1.79104 0.126 2.40
17 14491.04 171.3342 90 14.5087 14.4942 1.19403 0.127 2.16

The parameters ‫ݔ‬ଵ through ‫ ଼ݔ‬were calculated using Equations 5 through 23 for each data entry shown in
table 2 and uniform formation imposed. To calculate the best values of the regression constants ܽଵ through
଼ܽ using the data shown in the table 2, eight equations with the eight unknowns, ܽଵ through ଼ܽ ǡ were
obtained from ‫ݔ‬ଵ through‫ ଼ݔ‬. Using the values of ‫ݔ‬ଶି଼ shown in table 2 for the relevant data points in table
1 in the general equation for rate of penetration gives:

185.9634 = ܽଵ +1057.562‫ܽכ‬ଶ +1447.931‫ܽכ‬ଷ + 106.6964‫ܽכ‬ସ + …….

…….. +5.555‫ܽ כ‬ହ +0.480083‫ ଺ܽכ‬−0.21341‫ ଻ܽכ‬−6.18955‫଼ܽכ‬ (28)

Table 2. Values of Parameters‫ݔ‬ଶ െ ‫଼ݔ‬

࢞૛ ࢞૜ ࢞૝ ࢞૞ ࢞૟ ࢞ૠ ࢞ૡ
8064.80 62.79865 18.05464 4.880719 0.510826 -0.5 -6.28718
6529.76 93.96315 32.37595 4.880719 0.616138 -0.25 -6.30892
5877.04 236.0085 40.18278 4.880719 0.606136 -0.25 -6.05334
5486.72 334.3458 45.11475 4.69818 0.510826 -0.25 -6.33678
3039.84 488.1872 70.15354 5.500258 0.510826 -0.375 -6.29257
2023.04 618.4547 81.73113 5.500258 0.510826 -0.25 -6.13765
1458.88 691.3491 88.22294 5.500258 0.510826 -0.25 -0.621461

7
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

1124.32 930.8803 95.37539 5.500258 0.510826 -0.125 -6.23481

858.64 1175.519 102.0377 6.039498 0.606136 -0.125 -6.11025
71.44 1244.468 110.8246 5.587108 0.510826 -0.25 -6.10128
-807.6 1370.111 121.5369 5.587108 0.510826 -0.125 -6.27648
-1033.92 1389.844 124.0819 5.587108 0.510826 -0.125 -6.12843
-1191.36 1403.498 125.8524 6.144892 0.510826 -0.25 -6.38303
-3070.8 3120.625 176.3852 6.1144892 0.606136 -0.125 -6.14229
-3247.92 3615.811 187.6036 5.138341 -0.18232 -0.125 -6.04487
-3411.92 3881.659 194.3951 6.237512 0.405465 -0.126 -6.03229
-3792.4 3957.311 199.9098 5.831907 0.405465 -0.127 -6.13765

The eight equations were solved for the eight unknowns and the constants, a1 through a8, thus obtained. A
rate of penetration model was then constructed for the field. The prediction of rate of penetration using the
constructed model and the actual rate of penetration taken from the actual drilling report are shown in
figure 5 and the values of Actual and Predicted ROP are shown in table 4.

Figure 5. Actual vs. Predicted ROP for Faihaa-1 well

Table 3. Values of constants ƒଵ to ƒ଼ from regression analysis

Parameters Constant Value

Formation strength a1 29.6151
Normal Compaction a2 -0.00284
Under compaction a3 0.006345
Pressure differential a4 -0.32809
Weight on bit a5 1.239237
Rotary speed a6 -4.80025
Tooth wear a7 5.463498
Jet impact force a8 -0.06485

8
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

Table 4. Values of actual and predicted ROP

Dataset numbers Actual ROP Predicted ROP

1 9.085446 11.68409
2 29.53396 25.19321
3 31.83753 30.07397
4 45.8201 43.27922
5 42.70037 44.08499
6 55.39556 79.42219
7 74.59493 74.78371
8 164.3644 167.6999
9 212.5898 231.7731
10 189.1154 119.5773
11 157.7752 191.9705
12 191.8943 177.8083
13 151.2346 124.4362
14 66.18127 108.5359
15 120.4356 131.6141
16 339.5423 281.8025
17 171.3342 133.1121

While a multiple regression method may result in negative or zero values, such negative or zero values for
coefficients are physically meaningless. Applying a genetic algorithm using the trust-region method
allowed the computed coefficients gained to all be physically meaningful and in recommended bounds, as
shown in table 5.

Table 5. Values of constants (using a genetic algorithm)

Parameter Constant Value

Formation strength a1 30.7
Normal compaction a2 0.00025
Under compaction a3 0.00059
Pressure differential a4 0.0157
Weight on bit a5 1.1877
Rotary speed a6 4.023
Tooth wear a7 8.2355
Jet impact force a8 5.0548

In terms of optimization of the WOB, the prediction results for data numbers 7, 9,13, and 15, as shown in
table 1, can be optimized by applying equation 25; the results are shown in table 6.

9
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

Table 6. Optimized Value of Weight on Bit

Data Depth-ft Rotary speed- Actual WOB- Optimized

number rpm lb WOB-lb
7 8541.12 100 15000 2304.711
9 9141.36 110 18000 16000
13 11191.36 100 20000 16000
15 13247.92 50 5000 10000

Figure 6 illustrates the simulation of weight on bit versus rate of penetration for a depth of 8541.12 ft. The
increase of weight on bit varies linearly with rate of penetration, and thus cannot be predicted for an
optimized WOB. The optimized weight on bit value for this depth is thus 23047.11 lb, as calculated using
equation 27; however, this value occurs after the flounder region and thus cannot be applied to datasets 1
to 8.

Figure 6. WOB VS. ROP @ 8541.12 ft

Figure 7 illustrates the relationship of weight on bit with rate of penetration at a depth of 13,247.92 ft where
the actual weight on bit equals 5,000 lb and the optimized weight on bit equals 10,000 lb; this value occurs
before the flounder region, and can be used to eliminate the flounder region.

10
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

Figure 7. WOB VS. ROP @ 13,247.92 ft

As shown in figure 8, another two points for actual weight on bit 18,000 and 20,000 lb, at 9,141.36 ft and
11,191.36 ft, respectively were selected. The optimized weight on bit was 16,000 lb, which can thus be
identified as the optimum value to enhance performance after the flounder region.

Figure 8. WOB VS. ROP @ 9,141.36 ft

5. Conclusion
Determination of optimum weight on bit is very important in drilling operations, as this parameter can
be changed during drilling operation to improve efficiency.

11
4th International Conference on Engineering Sciences (ICES 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1067 (2021) 012154 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1067/1/012154

1. The optimization of weight on bit can help optimize the whole drilling operation, increasing the rate of
penetration and thus reducing the time needed for drilling, which reduces the overall cost of drilling
operations.
2. The constants ܽଵ to ଼ܽ , which represent the effects of different drilling parameters, can be estimated using
Multiple Regression analysis; this was done for the first time for the region used in this study.
3. The Bourgoyne and Young Model produces a reliable Rate of Penetration (ROP) model. On datasets
9,10,12,15,16, and 17, it predicted accurate ROP as compared with the actual ROP obtained from the field.
4. Optimization of Weight on Bit (WOB) showed that, for a depth of 8,541.12 ft, the optimal WOB was
23,047.11 lb, compared to 15,000 lb. at 9,141.36 ft; similarly, the optimized value of WOB was 16,000lb
at 13,247.92 ft .
5-The results of this research provide guidance for further drilling operations close to the observed well in
Faihaa Field, as these optimal values can be used as reference to obtain optimum drilling performance and
reduce drilling cost.

References
[1] Fear M J 1999 How to Improve Rate of Penetration in Field Operations IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
New Orleans USA March pp 12-15
ሾʹሿhttp://Kuwait energy/mees.com.
[3] Galle, E. M., and Woods, A. B 1963 Best Constant Weight and Rotary Speed for Rotary Rock Bits pp
1-25.
[4] Graham J.W. and Muench N.L1959 Analytical Determination of Optimum Bit Weight and Rotary
Speed Combinations SPE 1349-G, Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX,
October.
[5] Betairi E A, Moussa M, and Al-Otaibi S 1985 Multiple Regression Approach to Optimize Drilling
Operations in the Arabian Gulf Area SPE 13694, Middle East Oil Symposium, Bahrain.
[2] Eren, T 2010 Real-Time-Optimization of Drilling Parameters during Drilling Operations.
[7] Burgoyne A.T. Jr., Young F.S 1974 A Multiple Regression Approach to Optimal Drilling and Abnormal
Pressure Detection SPE 4238, August pp 1-14.
[8] Husvæg M A, 2015 ROP modeling and analysis University of Stavanger, Norway.
ሾͻሿ Yavari P, Hosseiniara R 2018 Increase Drilling Efficiency with Accurate Mathematical and Physical
Calculations International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering.Vol.6 Issue-4 Apr. pp 1-3.
[10] Azar J J, and Samuel G R 2007 Drilling Engineering Pennwell Corporation.
[11] Falode O A and Agbarakwe C J 2016 Optimization of Drilling Parameters for Directional and
Horizontal Wells Using Genetic Algorithm Journal of scientific Research and Reports.1-No.JSRR 27061
pp1-10.
[12] Meatier 1971 Optimum Rotary Speed and Bit Weight for Rotary Drilling MS thesis Louisiana State
U., Baton Rouge.
ሾͳ͵ሿAkgun F. 2007 Drilling rate at the Technical Limit International of Petroleum Science and Technology
ISSN 0973-6328. 1 pp 99-118.
ሾͳͶሿNascimento A, Kutas D T, Elmgerbi A, Thenhauser G. and Mathias M H 2015 Mathematical Modeling
Applied to Drilling Engineering : An Application & Bourgoyne and Young ROP Model to a Presalt Case
Study Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Mathematical problems in engineering pp 1-9.
ሾͳͷሿ Dupriest F E, and Koederitz 2005 Maximizing drill rates with real-time Surveillance of Mechanical
Specific Energy in proceeding of the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference Amsterdam.

12