IADC/SPE-212508-MS

Facts, Fallacies and Pitfalls of Using Mechanical Specific Energy

(MSE) – Part 1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Robello Samuel, Halliburton; Graham Mensa-Wilmot, XCIDrill Technology

Copyright 2023, SPE/IADC International Drilling Conference and Exhibition DOI 10.2118/212508-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, Norway, 7 – 9 March 2023.

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
Over the years, some researchers have used Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE), which is said to represent
the amount of energy needed to drill a unit volume of rock, to quantify drilling efficiency. MSE was
originally introduced by Teal for the mining industry in 1964. Since then, MSE has taken different forms
for other reasons, based on its interpretation, and intended use. This paper provides a comprehensive review
of MSE in general, discusses its different forms and narratives, and draws the readers' attention to common
(and not so common) facts, pitfalls, and fallacies, of using MSE.
It has been found that these specific energy concepts are held as true for all predictive purposes in drilling,
amended and promoted beyond the original framework. The paper analyzes all the equations presented in
the past and quantifies each component of the equations. The hydraulic terms used alongside the mechanical
terms are also discussed. Extensive simulations have been carried out and will be reviewed in this paper by
quantifying the energy under each term based on rate of penetration effects and implications. We aimed to
demonstrate in this paper, the theoretical grounds for pitfalls and fallacies in using MSE.
MSE is made up of two components: torsional energy and thrust energy. The results have shown that
the thrust term is much smaller than the second torsional energy term and in most of the cases, about 2%
or less. Hence, it could be neglected and thereby the equation results in the form of inverse of the rate of
penetration (ROP) making the calculated MSE value redundant when the actual ROP is available. The results
also have shown that when the hydraulic energy term is subtracted from the MSE equation, it results in
negative rate of penetration and thereby shows a fundamental flaw in the system formulation. The purposed
and merits of MSE use, by some researchers to identify drilling dysfunctions, will also be highlighted.
In this process, it has been shown that nonlinear "torque wedging" causes inaccuracies in dysfunctions
identification and discussions. Also, the field data presented in the paper shows that mechanical energy is
not a ratio of input energy and rate of penetration. Moreover, none of the studies have accounted accurately
for the effects of bit wear and motor wear on MSE. It has been found that overall, the concept relating
to dysfunction quantification is a self-destructive process, which has spread from paper to paper without
the required checks and verifications for accuracy. The underpinning discussions have been backed and
demonstrated with numerical examples.
2 IADC/SPE-212508-MS

The paper provides the pitfalls in the omissions of some of the assumptions in various MSE models used
by engineers. This helps the users to carefully plan, design, engineer and construct the wells.

Introduction
The efficient use of energy available at the bit for drilling has been used widely to quantify the efficiency of
drilling. This has become important, especially in the drilling of complex wells. Different indicators using
mechanical and hydraulic parameters are used to quantify the efficiency of drilling. The specific energy
(SE) concept is one such factor, which measures the energy being expended for drilling. SE is dependent

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

on several operational drilling parameters, including the rate of penetration (ROP).
The original method of analysis using specific energy originated from rock drilling, in the mining
industry. Such techniques may be acceptable for elementary analysis; however, such basic approaches
are considered inadequate for modeling of complex wells. In such cases, the results may significantly
underestimate the energy required to drill and remove the rock. Several studies have examined and analyzed
the specific energy. Rabia (1985) presented the importance of specific energy in drilling. Guerrero, et al.
(2007) and Dupriest, et al. (2005) reviewed the mechanical energy required for drilling, where field data was
used in the analysis. Numerous examples of calculation of specific energy using other drilling methods such
as laser drilling (Xu, et al. 2003), jet erosion Kollé, (1999, 2000) have also been presented in recent years.
Maurer, et al. (1969), Summers, et al. (1972), Kollé (1999, 2000) presented the specific energy purely based
on the hydraulic energy available at the jets. Isbell, et al. (1994]) concluded that the hydraulic configuration
is important to reduce the specific energy.

Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE)

Graves et al. (2002) summarized specific energy equations proposed by various researchers. The equation
below is derived for mechanical conditions. In this paper, we will discuss the reasons and merits of the
modified MSE equation, which has an introduced hydraulic term added to the mechanical energy term. This
discussion is critical, considering the importance of bit hydraulics in drilling operations. The fundamental
reason of including the hydraulic term is claimed to represent how rock drilled using mechanical energy,
is removed from the cutting face using the hydraulic energy. Hydraulic and mechanical energy cannot
be decoupled in the drilling process. However, the effects of hydraulic parameters such as flow rate (Q),
hydraulic horsepower per sq. in (HSI), and drilling fluid weight (MW), on the drilling process has not been
studied adequately for representation. These hydraulic terms have dissimilar effects on different rock types,
different lithologies, different formation hardnesses, different pore pressure conditions, different TVDs etc.
The hydraulic conditions and effects cannot be generalized into a single trend, and so additional research
is needed with this subject. Additionally, the claim that the new equation with the hydraulic term is more
effective at dysfunctions identification is also not supported by the facts and physics, particularly drilling
mechanics. Dupriest et al (2022) suggested the standardization of the names and nomenclature of MSE
equations originally proposed by Teal (1965).
The assertion by some in the industry, that the new hydraulic term included in the specific energy analysis
is the key to correctly determining the amount of energy used to drill ahead is also inaccurate. Extensive
simulations have been carried out and will be reviewed in this paper. The practical usefulness of the theory,
backed by the fundamental analysis, is demonstrated with numerical examples. The energy required to drill
and remove a given volume of rock comes mainly from the applied WOB, generated torque by the bit and
the hydraulic force exerted by the drilling fluid on the formation. Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) is the
amount of work that is used by a bit to destroy a unit volume of rock. Teale (1965) derived MSE, which is
proportional to the ratio between the input energy and output ROP.
(1)
IADC/SPE-212508-MS 3

Where
MSE is given in psi,
WOB in lbf, AB is the bit area in in2,
T is the torque in ft-lbs,
RPM are the revolutions per minute and
ROP is the rate of penetration in ft/hr.
Lab tests performed by Teale demonstrated that if drilling is efficient, defined by the linear zone (noted
as 2) in the ROP versus WOB relationship (Figure 1), MSE should remain relatively constant regardless of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

changes in ROP, WOB or RPM. It is also worth noting that the key to this assertion is in the slope K2 of this
zone, which remains constant in the plot. It was also demonstrated that the numeric value of MSE should
be similar to the compressive strength of the rock at atmospheric conditions (Dupriest 2005). In discussing
Teale's assertion, the specific conditions needed to achieve MSE claims are not highlighted. The authors
have identified that this claim requires the slope in the noted linear region to be of the same value for the
same rock, at similar drilling parameters (same WOB, when RPM and flow rate are also held constant at
the same values).

Figure 1—Weight on bit vs Rate of penetration

It is therefore critical for the drilling industry, realizing the original intent of Teale's work to ask if the
conditions and characterizations of the findings are consistent with drilling operations. The answer is NO,
because the slope changes in the same rock and at similar conditions for different bits. It is evident that
these positions are not supported by the physics of rock failure, particularly drilling mechanics principles.
If the slopes are changing for the same rock when drilled with different bits, and the slope value is a critical
value in the MSE value discussion, which logically will also be changing. If the MSE value is changing
for the same rock, at the same WOB, then the rock strength must be changing. This discussion identifies a
fundamental problem, since the rock's mechanical properties do not change during the tests. Additionally,
Dupriest's position, which builds from Teale's original work needs to be reviewed. These positions are
critical because the current discussions, and new findings from drilling mechanics research, poses several
critical questions that challenge the expected rock strength equalization to MSE.
Samuel et al (2009) introduced the Hydro-Mechanical Specific Energy (HMSE), which combines the
hydraulic, mechanical, and rotational energy. Teale's original equation was modified, and a hydraulic term
was introduced. The inclusion of this new hydraulic term is relevant because the hydraulic energy is required
4 IADC/SPE-212508-MS

to transport the rock drilled away from the cutting face in addition to the MSE. HMSE is given by (Samuel
et al 2009):

(2)

Where
WOBe is the equivalent weight on bit with pump-off effect
ΔPb is pressure drop through the bit nozzle in psi,
Q is the flowrate in gpm,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

η is the hydraulic efficiency.
The importance of the hydraulic energy in drilling is indisputable. Samuel's work corrected how the
hydraulic term had been used in the modified specific energy equation. However, the critical applications
and relevance questions raised around the hydraulic term were still not answered. The question is not in how
the hydraulic term should be used in the equation, but rather its relevance based on how MSE is supposed to
be used. The following questions (i) is MSE supposed to be used as an absolute or relative value and (ii) is
the intent to use it for identification of dysfunctions still being pursued – are particularly important, due to
their implications on the drilling process. These conversations and questions will be re-visited in the paper.

Specific Energy Problems

In this section some of the problems related to the quantification are given below:
The mechanical specific energy given by Teale and further modified by other authors is measured as the
pressure exerted by thrust over the cross-sectional area of the hole resulting in dimensional units of pressure
or stress. On the contrary some authors have represented specific energy as

(3)

This expression is further written as:

(4)

This is dimensionally wrong and not equivalent to specific energy's based on the basic definition, the
mechanical specific energy is dimensionally equivalent to
(5)
Some authors have defined MSE as a ratio and related the ratio to be constant for a given rock hardness
with units of pressure (psi), which is also wrong. Another modified specific energy including hydraulic
term was given as

(6)

Where
HPB – hydraulic horsepower
λ – dimensionless bit-hydraulic factor
In this equation, the hydraulic energy is not an input energy. Of the specific energy, it is the total energy
including the hydraulic energy to remove unit volume of rock.
A simple test would be, if the weight on bit and rotation speed are zero, i.e., no mechanical thrust and
rotational thrust, it will result in a negative rate of penetration when there is circulation. This is a fundamental
flaw in the formulation (Appendix A). In addition to the equation's flaws, it is also important to capture
IADC/SPE-212508-MS 5

the relevance of the hydraulic term, as to validity and merits, against the claims that have been reported
by researchers.
In general, the first term, i.e., axial thrust term on the MSE or HMSE equation is very much smaller than
the second term and or the third term and is of the order of 2% or less.
(7)
Although some authors have advocated for the first term (the thrust element) to be neglected because of
its much lower value (Appendix A), this consideration should be discussed in the face of the first term's

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

contributions to drilling system designs, specifically BHA.
Functionally, it is always important to know how much WOB a specific bit needs to fail the rock,
considering the rock's hardness. WOB, found in the first term, is an input parameter that must be planned for
in a project. This is extremely critical, considering WOB's implications on drilling mechanics, vibrations,
ROP, and other known drilling dysfunctions and performance outputs. The identified inverse relationship
between MSE and ROP is still valid, even when the first thrust term is kept in the evaluation. This finding
makes it inappropriate to neglect the first term, because it gives engineers insights into WOB requirements
and thus BHA design and compliance. To some, WOB is the most critical input parameter in drilling. WOB
has the strongest effect on ROP. Additionally, torque is strongly dependent on WOB. In instances of Positive
displacement motor (PDM} use, the operational differential pressure is also strongly dependent on WOB.
The value of the thrust term is small, but WOB is too critical to be neglected. Most important, the reason
why other authors want to drop the WOB term, so the inverse relationship between MSE and ROP becomes
clearer does not change when the WOB term is kept.
When the hydraulic term is considered, it makes the first term less than 1% and the second term less than
7% making the hydraulic term exceedingly high.

(8)

It has to be noted that positive sign is used in front of hydraulic term as this is considered as an input
energy without violating the basic definition of use of energy.

Drilling Efficiency Fallacy

Some authors have expressed drilling efficiency (DE) through MSE, and Confined compressive strength
(CCS) as follows:
(9)
The claim that drilling, when analyzed by MSE is efficient – when MSE value equals Confined
Compressive strength – is not accurate, this can never be considered true.
If MSE is claimed to define drilling efficiency, this consideration poses a critical question – "How is
efficiency defined and measured"?
This discussion presents another critical question: Why does MSE have units of "psi" if it is, is it supposed
to measure efficiency?
MSE's units (psi) is the same that of rock "confined compressive strength (CCS) or unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) – both have units of psi.
Several authors have stated that MSE is constant in the region 2 or the linear zone of ROP vs WOB. This
is not consistent with rock failure processes, mechanics, and physics. There are no concrete fundamentals to
conclude that the MSE is constant because the ROP and WOB is linear. If we take the rate of penetration as

(10)
6 IADC/SPE-212508-MS

Where
k is drillability constant
ROP0 is the initial ROP
Db is the diameter of the bit
a1 and a2 are weight on bit and RPM coefficients
and substituting it in the MSE equation results in

(11)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Some authors have claimed that bits are only 30 to 40 percent efficient and thus using an efficiency factor
of 30% regardless of bit type or weight on bit applied. There is neither an underpinning explanation nor
physics-based substantiation to use this factor, it is basically a fudge factor and could have been of any
value. However, there is reason for its use and that needs to be discussed.
At 100% drilling efficiency (when a bit operates in the liner region of the ROP versus WOB graph), MSE
is claimed to be equal to rock compressive strength. This assertion clearly means that rock strength can be
estimated from MSE. However, even when the drilling stays in the liner region, the calculated MSE value
is usually extremely high and much different from the rock's compressive strength.
Consequently, and with the desire to have the equivalency achieved, which needed MSE values to be
lower, the efficiency factor (0.35) was introduced to reduce the MSE value, so it can possibly be equal to the
compressive strength value. This constant thought introduced in some laboratory settings had no basis at all,
and was not needed in drilling efficiency analysis, except to ensure that MSE and compressive strengths have
the same value. Even with its introduction, the two terms do not have the same values in field operations.
This observation has generated serious concern in the industry where engineers and researchers continue to
ask a simple question: Does the MSE value have any significance, and does MSE really measure efficiency?
If the MSE value is being pursued for the sole purpose of rock compressive strength determination, and
new claims are being made as to that not being possible, even when operating in the linear region, then
clearly MSE's value has no technical significance. With regards to efficiency and knowing the strong inverse
relationship between MSE and ROP, even when the first term (thrust is kept), this same question can be
asked differently, does ROP maximization (which drives MSE minimization) express drilling efficiency.
The answer to this question is NO. It must be noted that this discussion is in absolute terms, where a given
bit is being analyzed for its efficiency, as a standalone. If the analysis changes, where different bits that
have drilled the same rock, under similar conditions are being compared, then the efficiency discussion
changes to a relative one. Is Bit A more efficient than Bits B, C, and D? In this situation, the question can be
answered with MSE. It can be stated that the bit with the lowest MSE, in this relative evaluation, is the most
efficiency. Realizing the MSE versus ROP inverse relationship, another question can be asked. If MSE and
ROP have an inverse relationship, will it be accurate to also state that the bit with the lowest MSE also had
the highest ROP, and the answer is YES. However, the authors would like to create an awareness that high
or highest ROP does not denote efficiency, and by implication MSE does not either. This assessment of
efficiency as discussed, is only mechanical. Drilling must focus on operational efficiency, which introduces
several other factors into the analysis.

Trend Prediction Pitfall

MSE has also been used in drilling optimization as a trending tool. With this approach, some researchers
have claimed that MSE should have similar trends to that of the rock compressive strength, as an indication
of efficiency. Again, this rock compressive strength association, which is based on inaccurate arguments,
creeps up again. It must also be stressed that MSE considerations, with regards to trend analysis needs
critical analysis – based on mechanical and operational considerations.
IADC/SPE-212508-MS 7

These discussions (above trend interpretations) must be held in their totality and not in these specific
elements. On a more realistic note, with regards to the MSE trend – it is also worth noting that this behavior
is remarkably similar to ROP trends. When MSE goes up, ROP always goes down and when MSE goes
down, ROP always goes up (Figure 2). Consequently, and for trending purposes – MSE and ROP have
similar effects. For trending purposes, ROP and MSE can be interchanged in all discussions.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Figure.2—MSE and ROP Trends

In this regard, when MSE trends down, drilling is good, does not mean efficient – based on operational
considerations. Also, when MSE trends up it does not automatically mean that drilling is bad, or inefficient.
This assessment must always be tied to operational expectations. A project and/or section to be drilled,
must always have execution strategies, based on system applications risks, implied limiters, and anticipated
dysfunctions. If MSE is deviating from an expected trend line, and that is being caused by something that is
being done for operational reasons, that is a measure of efficiency. If the operations team reduces WOB due
to BHA directional behavior, even while using a rotary BHA and ROP goes down, leading to higher MSE,
and the directional issues are addressed to ensure that drilling continues (no tripping), that is efficiency. If
flow rate is reduced with corresponding reductions in WOB due to possibility of entering a loss circulation
zone and ROP goes down, again with MSE increase, that is also a measure of efficiency. The job is to drill
the section in the shortest possible time, where cycle time is being managed and optimized, not drill fast,
get MSE minimized, and have to spend days on other operational issues.

Dysfunctions Prediction Pitfall

MSE is also claimed to identify drilling dysfunctions. It is important to note that dysfunction awareness
and identification are totally different. MSE alerts awareness, but never identification. Identification of
dysfunctions requires analysis of several other parameters – some of which are part of the MSE equation.
MSE alone, as claimed, does not identify any dysfunction. The reduction of ROP due to cuttings
accumulation at the bottomhole is hypothetical in nature. Most of the cases presented by several authors
were not compared with other wells of similar nature.
Prediction of dysfunction by way of quantifying the increase of MSE is difficult as the variation in the
MSE value may be due to vibration, or bit balling or inefficient weight transfer to the bit or stabilizers
8 IADC/SPE-212508-MS

hanging in ledges. It is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between the dysfunction due to bit response,
BHA response, bit-formation interaction, and BHA-bit-formation interactions.
The non-linear relationship between the weight on bit and torque known as the "torque wedging" will
result in the wrong downhole dysfunction quantification as several authors have claimed.
Several claims have been made, with regards to MSE and dysfunctions. This is an important discussion
and so the authors are currently preparing a follow-up paper, which will focus primarily on this subject. This
next paper will also address MSE interpretation and deployment in specialized applications with reamers
and hole-openers.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Conclusion
Based on the study with the operational data and analysis with various well profiles, the following can be
concluded:
1. For trend analysis, MSE equation results in the form of inverse of the rate of penetration (ROP) making
the calculated MSE value redundant when the actual ROP is available.
2. The results also have shown that when the hydraulic energy term is subtracted from the MSE
equation, it results in negative rate of penetration and thereby shows a fundamental flaw in the system
formulation. It is seen that nonlinear "torque wedging" will result in the wrong downhole dysfunction
quantification. Moreover, none of the studies have accounted the effect of bit wear and motor wear
on MSE.
3. The pursuit of an accurate MSE value, based on the requirement to equalize MSE and rock
compressive strength when drilling is supposedly efficient, is flawed.
4. It has been found that overall, the concept relating to dysfunction quantification is a self-destructive
concept that has spread from paper to paper.
5. The paper provides the pitfalls in the omissions of the some of the assumptions in various MSE models
used by the engineers. This helps the users to carefully plan, design, engineer and construct the wells.

References
Altindag, R. 2003. Correlation of Specific Energy with Rock Brittleness Concepts on Rock Cutting. Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 103 (3): 163-171.
Armenta, Miguel: "Identifying Inefficient Drilling Conditions Using Drilling- Specific Energy," SPE 116667 (September
2008).
Brown, E.T., Green, S.J., Black, A.D., and Tibbitts, G.A.: "The Influence of Jet-Bit Hydraulics on Drilling Performance
in Shale," SPE 11283 (July 1982).
Dupriest, Fred. E., and Koederitz, William. L. : "Maximizing Drill Rates with Real-Time Surveillance of Mechanical
Specific Energy," SPE/IADC 92194 (February 2005).
Fred Dupriest; Paul Pastusek; Stephen Lai; Bob Best; Michael Behounek; Bryan Cook; Wendell Basarath; Chris
Cutts; Jared Collins; Mohammadreza Kamyab; Dennis Moore; Eric Pulpan; Austin Jeske; JJ Wilson; Jamie Sheets,
"Standardization of Mechanical Specific Energy Equations and Nomenclature," SPE-208777-MS, Paper presented at
the IADC/SPE International Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Galveston, Texas, USA, March 2022,
Graves, R., Araya, A., Gahan, B.C., Parker, R.: "Comparison of Specific Energy between Drilling with High Power Lasers
and Other Drilling Methods" SPE 77627, 2002
Guerrero, Christine. A. and Kull, Bobbie. Jo.: "Deployment of an SeROP Predictor Tool for Real-Time Bit Optimization,"
SPE/IADC 105201 (February 2007).
Hussain Rabia.: "Specific Energy as A Criterion For Bit Selection" J Pet Technol 37 (07): 1225-1229.Paper Number:
SPE-12355-PA, https://doi.org/10.2118/12355-PA
Isbell, M.R., Besson, A. Torgerson, T.A.: "Unique Roller Cone Improves Economics of Soft Formation Drilling" IADC/
SPE 27469, 1994
Kollé, J. J.: "A Comparison of Water Jet, Abrasive Jet and Rotary Diamond Drilling in Hard Rock" Tempress Technologies
Inc. 1999
IADC/SPE-212508-MS 9

Kolle, J.J. and M. Marvin: "Jet-Assisted Coiled Tubing drilling with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide," paper ETCE2000/
DRILL-10097, proceedings of ETCE/OMAE 2000 Joint Conference, New Orleans, ASME, New York, Feb. 14-17
2000.
Maurer, W.C. and Heilhecker, Joe K.: "Hydraulic Jet Drilling" SPE 2434, 1969
Pessier, R.C and Fear, M.J.: "Quantifying Drilling problems with Mechanical Specific Energy and a Bit Specific
Coefficient of Sliding Friction," SPE 24584, 1982.
Reddish, D.J. and Yasar, E. 1996. A New Portable Rock Strength Index Test Based on Specific Energy of Drilling.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 33 (5): 543-548.
Samuel, Robello G.: "Downhole Drilling Tools: Theory and Practice for Engineers and Students," Gulf Publishing
Company (2007) p. 33-100.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Summers, D.A, Henry, R.L.: "Water Jet Cutting of Sedimentary Rock," Journal of Petroleum Technology 1972 / 7 Vol.
24; Iss. 7 … 10.2118/3533-pa
Teale, R.: "The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling," Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. (1965) 2, 57-73.
10 IADC/SPE-212508-MS

Appendix A
MSE equation can be generically given in the form of all related variables as below

(A.1)

So MSE can be modified as below

(A.2)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Or
(A.3)
Where

This equation shows the effect of weight on bit in the MSE equation in which axial force is in the first
and second terms. So, classifying first part is the axial thrust and rotational thrust itself is flawed. However,
the first term is exceedingly small compared to the second term as seen in the figure below

Figure A.1—Weight on Bit vs Percentage of first and second terms

In the same argument for HMSE it can be written as

(A.4)

or

(A.5)
IADC/SPE-212508-MS 11

This equation A.4 shows the effect of weight on bit in the HMSE equation in which axial force is in the
first, second and third terms. So, classifying first part is the axial thrust, rotational and flow thrusts itself is
flawed. However, the first term is very small compared to the second term and third terms as seen in the
figure below. It can also result in negative efficiency as per defined explanation.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/23DC/2-23DC/D021S010R002/3069089/spe-212508-ms.pdf/1 by Gbenga Aderobaki on 02 March 2024

Figure A.2—Weight on Bit vs Percentage of first, second and third terms