9

Society of PetroleumEngineers

SPE 28306

A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport

R.K. Clark, * Shell Development Co., and K.L. Bickham, BET Development Co.
SPE Member

A
Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Tfds paper was prepared for presenta$on at tha SPE 69th Annual Tgchniml Conference and Exhlbltion hdd in Now ohms, LA, U. S.A., 25+8 .Septemb.ar 1994,

This papw was SaIected for presentation by an ePE Program Curnmittee following review of lnfomliai cantdnad In an aksfracf silbmitted by the authm($~ contents of the paper,
as presents-d, have nof bee reviewed by the !Mety of Petroleum Engineers and am subjwt to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Sodety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented af SPE meetings are subject 10 publication re.dew by Ed[torial Committees of the Sodety
of Petmle.m Engleers, permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of net ore than SCU words. IIlusttafions may not be copied. The abstract sfm.ld wn!ah conspicuous .Mmwfedgmem
of wher8 and by whom the paper Is preswtod, write Llbrarlan, SPE, P,O. Box 632s!36, Richardson, TX 7503S-3336, U .e,A, Telex, 183245 SPEUT,

ABSTRACT* usually assessed by determining the settling velocity, which is

dependent on particle sise, density and shape, the drilling fluid
Acuttinggeneratedatthebit maybe transported to the surfacaby
rheology smdvelocity, and the hole/pipe configuration. A recently
several different mechemismsas it moves along the wellbore. The
developed correlation for settling velocity of irragubdy shaped
specific mecbenism depends on the wellbore angle. For high
particles in drilling fluids is that of Chien.2
angles, where a stationery cuttings bed can form, transport is vie a
Since the early 1980s, cuttinge traneport studies have
rolling mechanism. In intermediate angles, where a churning,
focuesedoninclined wellbores, andenex~neivebody ofliterature
moving cuttings bed can form, transport is via a lifting
on both experimental end modeling work has developed.
mechaniem. At near-vertical angles, particle settling determines
Experimental work on cuttin~ traneport in inclined wellbores
transport. The model described below combinee fluid mechanical
haebeenconducted usingflowloopsat the University ofl?ulsas-s
treatments ofthese mecbanisme intoaforrnat for easy analysis of
and elsewhere.g- 11
cuttings transport in wells of any configuration.
Some of the more recent modeling etudies are those of Luo
INTRODUCTION and Bern,12Fordet eL,18Larsen,Pilehvari and Aser,14andRaei.16
LuoandBern12and Fordet al.lspreeentmathematicel modaIsfor
Of the many functions that aeperformedbythe drillingfluid, the
determiningt.heminimum fluidvelocityfor trrmsportingcuttings
most important ie to transport cuttinge from the bit up the
without the formation of a cuttings bed. These are physically
amndue to the surface. If the cuttinw cannot be removed from the
based models thathavebaanvalidatedagainst axperimentrddata,
wellbore, drilling cannot proceed for long. Transport is usually
Lao and Berns model has also been compared with field data.lq
not a problem if the well is near verticaI. However, considerable
L.emens model is based on empirical correlations derived fi-om
difficulties caa occur when the well is being drilled directionally
experimental data generated in a 35 ft long 5-in. diame~r flow
as cuttings may accumulate either in a station~ bed at hole
loop.14 Thie model can be used to predict a cuttings bed height if
angles above about 500 or in a moving, churning bed at lower hole
the flow ie sub-critical, i.e., below the velocity required to keep
! angles, Drilling probleme that may result include etuckpipe, lost
all cuttings moving upward.
circulation, high torque end drag end poor cement jobe. The
Rasi assumes that a cuttings bed will form end predicts the
severity of such problems depends on the amount smdlocation of
height of the bed15and the open area above it. This area is then
cuttings distributed along the wellbore.
compsxed with the cross-sectional area of thebit and stabilizers to
The problem of cuttings transport in vertical wells has been
see if they can pass through the non-bed area without ditlkulty
studied for memyyesm, with the earliest analysis of the problem
ThemodelsofLaoandBern,12 Larsenetal,,14mdRagi15 mevdd
being that of Pigott.l The transport efficiency in verticrd wells is
.
.. for hole angles greater than 50 or so where a stationary cuttings
*References end Table 3 at end of paper. bed may fofi. The model of Ford et al. can be applied at any

139

2 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT
wellbore angle.la The models are accessible via main frame or
personal computers end uee readily available data as input
parameters.
Laboratory experience indicates that the flow rate, if high
enough, will always remove the cuttings for any fluid, hole size,
and hole angle. Unfortunately, flow rates high enough to
transport cuttings up and out oftheennuluseffectively cannotbe
used in my welis due to limited pump capacity and/or high
eurfeee ordownhole dynamic pressures. Thw ie particularly true
for high angles with hole @eZ@ger then 12?4 in. High rotary
speeds and backreamin g are often used when flow rate does not
suffice.
Drilling fluid rheology plays en important role, _although
often there are exmflicting statements as to whether the mud
should be thick or thin for effective transport. It is common when
drilling high-angle wells for elevated low shem-rate theologies to
be spec~led. Ty@callx the Fmm 6-rpm and 3-rpm dial readings
are set at some level thought to aid in hole cleaning at high angles.
Many settheselowshearreadingz (inlbf/100ft2)equivalenttothe
hole sizeininches. Thisrecommendationas wellazotherrulesof
thumb have been presented by Zamora and Henson.18~17
The model described below was developed to allow a
complete cuttings transport analysis for the entire well, from
surface to the bit. The mechanisms which dominate within
dflerent ranges of weilboreengle areuzed to predict cuttings bed
heights and ,=ukir cuttimgs concentrations as functions of
operating parameters (flow rate, penetration rate), wellbore
conf@ration (depth, hole angle, hole sizeorcasinglD, pipe size),
fluid properties (density, rheology), and cuttings characteristics
(density size, bed porosity angle of repose), Parameters that are
not currently taken iriti account include pipe eccentricity and
rotary speed.
This paper has three major section% (1) the fwst identifies
the modes of trmmport and outlines the mathematical
development of the model, some of which is given intheappendix;
(2) the- model is compared with data generated in flow loop
experiments; and (3) three applications of the model are used to
show its versatility in addressing a variety of cuttings transport
problems.
CRITICAL VELOCITY MECHANISTIC MODELS
When theannulermudvelociiy ishighenough, elldrillcuttimgs in
the wellbore aretransportedupwerd (F@re 1). Moreoveq for the
general case, the annular mud velocity needs only to exeeed the
cuttings bed buildup conditions in the most sensitive spot eio-ng
the wellbore. There, as the annular mud velocity slowly and
continuously is decreased, a state is reached where some cuttings
are lost from the flow.
The notion of a critical transport condition leads to a theory
for czdculating the equilibrium cuttimgsbed height. First, with a
steady mud flow rate, a decrease in the wellbore annular mwa
results in a mud velocity increase. For sub-critical mud velociiy
conditions, the theory is that the cuttings bed will build. As it
140
,
SPE 28306
builds, the mud velocity over the bed increases. The cuttings
buildup process continues until the mud veloeity over the beds
surface eventually reaches the critical value. At that condition,
the bed height remains unchanged. If additional cuttings axe
deposited onthebed, themudvelocityin theneighborhoodofthat
region exceeds the critical velocity As aresr.dt,the stronger fluid
forces will dislodge the protruding outtinge. After these extra
cuttings are moved downstream, the local equilibrium bed height
is then re-established. Thus, the equilibrium bed height is
formulated as a function of the critical mud veloci~.
Furthermore, the critical transport velocity is the critical
velocity that gives a zero cuttings bed height.
7<
1
Wellbore
U(
-.
Cuttings J
n
Mud velocity profile
(x and z components) s
Formation -%
Fig. 1 Schematic of cuttings transport in an inclined
wellbore.
During laboratory flowlooptests,three si~]cant patterns
ofcuttingsmovement were observed. They zrerolling, lifting, and
settling; a different pattern seems to dominate the cuttings bed
formingprocessineachoftbreerangesof wellbore angles. Athigh
angles, the transport pattern is rollinG namely, the cuttings roll
end bounce along the bed surface. At lower wellbore angles where
the wellbores complementary qngle is greater than the cutting%
angle of repose, cuttings are lifted from a churning fluidized bed.
Atnear-verticaltoverticalwellbore angles, thecuttings sreahnost
uniformly distributedthroughoutennular cross setilonendsettle
downhole against the flowing mud.
There me several mechanisms that could possibly play a
major put in the cuttings transport process within a particular
flow pattern. In the following sections, severaI equations are
 SPE 28306 R, H. CLARK AND K L. BICRHAM
derived for the three patterns. However, the governing
mechanism is the one which dominates the flow at a particular
wellbore angle. Two mechanisms are based on the forces required
to displace asingleprotrudingcuttingfrombeds surf-, namely
these equations calculate the velocities that causes acuttingto be
either rolled or lifted from its resting place. The third equation is
basedonthe Kelvin-Hehnholtz stabiMyofthemudlay erflowing
over the fluidizedbed. Finally the fourth equation is baeedonthe
settling velocity of the cuttings, that is, the annular velocity
reqtied to limit the suspended cuttings concentration to five
percent by volume in the flowing mud stream.
Equilibrium Cuttinge Bed Height Models. Figure 2 shows a
stationary cuttingebedthathes formedonthelower wellbore wall
in an inclined well with a wellbore angle, a. At high wellbore
anglee where the wellbores complementary engleis less than the
cuttingsengle ofrepose,~, astationarycuttings bed accumulates
in the lower part of the wellbore cross section. When the wellbore
complemental angle, 90- a, is Iesethsm$, the outtinghae to be
either rolled or lifted from the bed surface in order to move.
Suppose that the cuttings bed height is in equilibrium with the
prevailing conditions. If the dynamic forces acting on the
stationmy cutting can be calculated as a fmction of local mud
velocity, U, then the mud circulation rate needed to dislodge the
cutting can be determined. This notion is en exteneion of work in
other areas, such es sedimentation,18~Ig,zo soil erosion,zl and
slurry transport.zz
Fig. 2 Forces acting on a cutting on a cuttimgs bed.
A number of forces act, on the protruding cuttimg. The
cuttingis assumed to be sphericel with avoid-free interior. It has a
diameter, d, and a material d&eit~ e.. Furth&more, it is held
stationery byareactive force, FR. Thie force acts throughboththe
point contact, a, at an angle, 13,end the cuttings center of gravity.
The cuttiige bed has an angle of repose,+. The mud density is Q,
141
3
end the muds rheology is assumed to be governed by the
Herschel-BuIkley viscosity law. The static forces are the
buoyancy force, F~ gravity force, Fg, and the plastic force, FP,
which is due to the yield stress of the mud. The dynamic forces are
the dragforce, FD,Iiftforce, FL, and pressure gradient force, FAP
Theysxeallzssumedtoaot throughthecenterofgravity. The mud
circulation rata is held constant.
RollingMechaniem. Forthecsaeofrolling, themomentsdueto
forces are summed around the support point, a(x,z); nmnel~
IxI(F. +FJ+ lz\@. -Fp)+g(F, -F,)=O (1)
where the length of the moment arm for the buoyancy and gravity
forces is
t = Izl(sina + cosa/ten@) (2)
Moreoveq O <as 90; likewise, O s @ s 90. Ftily the figure
shows
@ = arctan(z/x). (3)
When the dynamic forces exceed the static forcee, the cuttings
tend to roll along the bed in a moving cutting zone. The dynamic
forces generally increase with mud velocity. Exceptions may be
possible; for example, Coleman20 and Davies and Szmad2s
experimentally observed that the lift force is negative in a smell
range near a particle Reynolds number of 100 and is positive
elsewhere.
Lifting Mechanism. This condition was obsqwed to eccur at
intermediate wellbore angles. Namely the cuttings were not
motig in the z-direction while resting on the wellbore wall. The
cutting would start its motion in thex-direction. It would move up
into the region where the axial mud velocity carried the cutting
downetreem. AS it accelerated up to the mud velocity, it would
start to settle back toward the w.dlbore wall because the slip
velocity between the cutting and the mud was too low to sustain
lift. For the Iiftingcese, FRis aesumed to equal the 2UIUOfFDand
F~ The other forces are summed in the x-direction; that is,
F~ FP+(Fb-F.Jeina = O. (4)
Aethe wellbore angle approaches vertical (00), Equation (4)
predicts that the lift force equals the plastic force. Obviously
enother mechanism must come intQplay since this is contrary to
observation. From vertical driWmgexperience, we bnow that the
annukw mud veloci~ must ezceed the settling velocity of the
cuttings in the axial direction. Consequently, when the wellbore
angles are small, we need to consider the traditional cuttings
transport mechanism that is baaed on the settling velocity.
@MaryEquatione. Several ancillary equations are required
forthesolutionofEquations (l)and(4). !fhesemefunctionsofthe
geometry, kinematics, and dynamics of a particukr wellbore
system. Most are found in fluid mechanics text books (for
example, Blevinsx> Others era derived in the appendix.
 -. . ...

,
4 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

The drag force, and the pressure force,

F~ = C~~@J2, nda
(5) F& = r~, (lo)
the lift force, where
FL = C@ QU9, (6)
(11)
the buoyancy force,
where Dhyd is the hydraulic diameter of the flow area (ses
Fb = gQ~, (7) Equation (16) and Equation (17)), P is the pressure, z~is the wd
and the gravity force, shear stress, end ~ is the mud yield stress.

F. = gQ=~ (8)
Rolling and Lifting Bed Height Equations. Two equations
where CDis the drag coefficient, CLis the lift coefficient, and g is forcriticrdvelocity may beobtainedbysubstitutingEquations (2)
the gravitational constant. end (3) end the ancillary equations (Equations (5)-(11)) into
The following two equations are derived in the appendix Equations (1) and (4). At high wellbore angles, one of these
(Equation (A-1) end Equation (A-4)). The plastic force, resulting equations for critical velocity may govern the flow. For
Fp = =[$ + (Jx/2 - @) Sill@ - cos@sin@], the case of rolling, the geverningequation for the critical velocity
(9)
is

1/2

1
4[3~@ + (rc/2 @) SinzI$ - COS!$Sill@)&n@ + dg(Qc Q)(cosa + 5~ati@) drl
u= 3Q(C~ + CL tan@)
(12)
- [.,

For the csae of lifting, the governing equation for the critical veloci~ is

.. . .
1/2
4[3~@ + (x/2 - @) Sinz@ cos @SkI@) + dg(Qc - Q)Sins]
-u =

..
[
,,-
3QCL

-.. .
1 (13)

Both Equation (12) and Equation (13) give a value for the
critical velocity of a cutting. The velocities calculated by these
equations are the undisturbed velocities, that is, the axial velocity
acting above the cuttings bed at a point that would be occupied by
the cuttings center ifit were in place. These equations calculate
the velocities that would either roll or lift the cutting from its
resting place. In general, these two mkulated vekes will be
different. In such cases, the lower value will be the dominent one
providing that other conditions cmemet.
Kelvin-Helmholtz Stability Model. When the behavior of
the cuttings is observedat low wellbore angles intheflowloop, the
nature of the mud and cuttings slurry is a churning motion. The
process is reminiscent of the behavior of a gas-liquid flow when
its flow pattern is changing from stratfled to slug flow. The
app~ce Oftie fluidized bed is similar to the liquid layer, and
the mud layer flowingover the bed behaves like the gas layer. The
interface between these layers has a wavy churning nature.
Occasionally, wisps of cuttings are swept up into the mud layer.
There, they are carried downstiefi and settle back into the
fluidized bed. The process is persistmt, and it appears to be
random.
Coneiderthestratifiedflow arrangement ehowninFigure 3.
There is a nearly cuttings-flee mud layer flowing over a mostly
cuttinge-fiiled fluid layer. A smell-amplitude wave propagates at
the inter&e as long as the flowing conditions are stable. The
inviscidKeIvin Helmholtz stability theory provides amethodfor
predicting the onset of unstable conditions between inertial and
gravitational forces acting on the interface,z5 that is, the value of
mud velocity that causes the lower layer to disperse cuttings
throughout the entire cross section. Wallis end Dobson20 give a
clear description of the instabili@ condition for stratified
gas-liquid flow. Their result is adopted here as follows:
1/2
Dqg(Qb Q) sina d e
TJmk > (14)
Q l~1w ( )]]
[
@b = Q.(1 (15)
Dq is the equivalent diameter of the area open to flow, end ~b is
the bed porosity. Sometimes, Qbis called the submerged bulk
density Whentheaverage mixturevelocity, Um~, intheopenarea
above the bed exceeds the RHS of Equation (14), the interface
betweenthelayers is unstable. The minimum transition velocity
is when U~ equals the RHS of Equation (14).

142
w SPE 28306 R. K. CLARK ANf) K L. BICl@A.M 5

IT&relationship canbeusedtodetermine thehydraulicdimneter

of the area open to flow above the cuttings bed. For just the
wellbore anmdus, the hydraulic diameter of the weflbore crose
section (with no cuttings present) is
D =D~-DP (17)
where Dh is the wellbore diameter, in., andDPis the driilpipe OD,
in. The equivalent diameter is defined as
De~ = m (18)
where A is the area open to flow. For the wellbore anrmlus, the
equivalent diameter is

% = m ()
The plug diemeter ratio is

Fig. 3 Stratified flow ofmudoverafluidized cuttings

bed.
1

Equations (12), (13), end (14) are theequilibriumbed height cutting ~

equations that calculate a criticef velocily condition. The
relationship between the two different velocities, U and Um~, mm
needs to be emphasized here. The velocity, U, is the local axial !
velocity acting ahove the cuttings bed at a point where the
cuttings center would be if it were in place. The velocity, Uti, is
the average flow velocity in the mea open to flow. Um~ is easily
velocity
obtained from the operating conditions; however, the Iocd profile
v&city, U, is determined from fluid mechanical relationships.
annular ,1,
0
Five Peroent Mrmirnum Coneentrntion Model. For region - -
0:
low-angle conditions, Figure 4 chows a schematic of the cuttings ,,,
plug region - ,.!
transportproeess inaHerschel -Bulldey fluidunderleminerflow
conditions. The area which is open to flow is characterized as a
tube insteadofanenmdus. This simplifies the wellbore geometry
The tube diameterisbaeed onthehydraulicdiameter forpreseure
drop calculations and on the equivalent diameter for velocity
calculations, eo that the equatione derived in this section can be
used whether there ie a stationary cuttings bed or not. mixlure .
:1
Since drilfingmudoften exhibits ayield streee, there maybe velociiy \
profile
a regio~ netw the center of the croes eeotion, where the shear
k*
stress is less than the yield stress. There, the mud will move as a
plug, i.e., rigid body motion. The plug velocity is Up The average
cuttings concentration and velocity in the plug are CPand UcP, Fig. 4- Mixture and cuttings velocity profiles in a
respectively. In the snnularregionaroundtheplug, themudflowe Herschel BuMey fluid under laminar flow.
with a velocity gradient and behaves as a viecous fluid. The
average annular velocity of the mud in this region is Ua, In Flow Conditions. The mixture veloci~ is
addkion, for the cuttings in this region, the average concentration (21)
end velocity are wand U=, respectively.
where Qm is the volumetric flow rate of the mud and Q is the
Croee-Seetional Geometry First, let us define some basic volumetric flow rate of the cuttings which depends on the bit size
wellbore geometry. The hydraulic diemeter is defined es four end the penetration rate. In addition, the mixture velocity can be
times the flow ereadividedby the length of the wetted perimeter; calculated from the average plug end anmdus velocities in the
namely, equivalent pipq namely,
4 X croes-sectional area Umk = U*(1 q + Uplf (22)
Dhyd = (16)
(wetted perimeter)

143
 .
6 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

Cuttings Concentration. The feed concentration isdefmedas relationship, are all used to determine the critical velocity.
follows: However, the predicted velocities from both Equations (12) end
(13) muetbe put onanequivalentbmiswiththosepredictidfiom
(23)
0 & Equations (14)and(33),nsmely theaveregemixturevelocity. The
The average concentration, c, of cuttings in a short segment with critical velocity is determined according to the following
length, Az, and cross-sectional are+ ~ can ha calculated as 1. For near-vertical cases, when the values calculated by
follows Equations (13) and (14) are less than the one fkom
c =c.(1~)+cJ:. w) Equation (33), the critical velocity equals Equation (33)s
value. Ifthecirculation rateexccedsthisvalue, the suspended
The cuttings concentrations in the plug and annular regions are
cuttings concentration will remain less than five percent.
assumed equal. This means that the suspended cuttings are
However, if the mud circulation velocity is less than the
uniformly distributedacroes the ereaopentoflow. Obviously, this
cuttings settlingvelocity, the cuttings willeventuallybuildup
has a major impact, and it probably is a function of wellbore
in the wellbore and plug it
geometry, mud properties, cuttings properties, and operating
2. Forlow-angle cases, where the wellbore complementaxyangle
conditions. It could stand alone as a research topic. Thus, we
is greater then the cuttings angle of repose, the remdts of
obtain
Equations (12), (13), (14), and (33) are ranked emsllest to
u =_.cu.(l c)
.. (25) largest.
c-c.
3. For high-angle cases, where the cuttings angle of repose is
where
greater than the wellbore complementary angle, the restdtsof
u. = U=(I ~) uq~ (26) Equations (12), (13), and (33) are ranked smallest to largest.
is the average settling velocity in the axial direction. The The critical velocity equals the fwst value that exceeds
components of the settling velocities (see appendiz) in the axial Equation (33)svalue. If~here=e none, thenthecriticslvelue
direction are equ-alsthe one calculated from Equation (33).

u= = Fl[c, R~, Uiz ] (27)

COMPARISON WITH EXPEIUIWENTML RESULTS
and

SP = Fz[U~ ,32] (28)

The predictions of the cuttings transport model have been
where

_ 1/2 compared with date from flow loop experiments conducted over
three separate two-week intervals. The first two sets of tests were

1
4dg(QC @
(29) conducted on the 5-in. flow loop at the University of Tulsa. This
u: [
3QCD
equipment has been described extensively by others.3-6 The
1[2
third set oftests was conductedontheUniversity ofTtiasnewer
4 dg(e. - Q)
u~ = iccy cosa, (30) 8-in. flow 100P.7ZS
~3
[{ 1]
Fluids used in the experiments coneistedof water, solutions
dUQ of HEC, xanthan gum and PHPA in fresh water, end bentonite
ReP = (31)
w. slurries before endefteraddition of en exteudmgpolymer. In all,
3ty 158 tests were run on the 5-in. loop end 60 on the 8-in. loop. The
(32)
s = dg(@c Q) tests were run at angles ranging from neer-verticel
CD is the drag coefficient of a sphere, ~ is the yield stress of the (200 minimum) to horizontal (900). The inner pipe in the 5-in.
mud, end Vais the apparent visc6ii@ of the mud at a sheer rate loop was set both concentric end eccentric with the pipe %-in.
resulting from the settling cutting. above the low side of the annulus. The pipe wee concentric in the
The value calculated using Equation (25) is the minimum 8-in. loop tests. Pipe was only rotated in the 5-in. loop tests.
acceptable mixture velocity requiredforacuttingsconcentration, Two types of test results were obtained (1) a visually
c. Plgott recommended that the concentration of suspended determined critical flow rate and (2) the equilibrium annular
cuttings be a value less than five percent.l With this limit cuttings concentration as a function offlow rate. The criticelflow
(C = 0.05),
Equation (25) becomes rate wee taken to be that at wbichnocuttingsbed was formed; i.e.,
all cuttimgs were observed to be moving upward cind no
u mix ==- (33)
0.05- 0 accumulation of cuttings was occurring. The cuttings
where ~ <0.05. This implies that the penetration rate must be concentrationiiithe ennulusisessentially equal totht oftbcfeed
limited h a rate that satisfies this equality. under these conditions. As the flowrate is lowered below critical,
Equations (12) fid(13),thecriticrdvelocityrelationshipsfor cuttings begin to accumulate and form either a moving, churning
rollingendlifting, Equation (14), theKelvin-Helmboltz stabiii~ bed at low angles or a stationary bed at high angles. The dividing
relationship, and Equation (33), the critics3 mixture velocity singleis taken to be the complement of the angle of repose.

144
 .

SPE 28306 R. K. CLARK* K. L. BICKHAM 7

Foralltesta,theannular cuttingeconcentrationwasallowed measured data for the large cuttings (0.43-in.) and the model
to reach a steady state, cuttings injection wqs stopped, and the predictions. The quantitative egreement is not so good for the
cuttinge were flushed out of the anmdue end weighed. From the small cuttings, eithough qusditatively the chsnge in cuttings
cuttinge weight and density a volume percent concentration in
the annulus was calculated. This concentration could be
24
converted to a cuttings bed height knowing the cuttings bed
z-
porosity end the po~tion of the inner pipe.
23-
a x Measur6d Concentric 0.42
~ ,* -
Critical Transport Prediction. Figure 5 shows the vieually v Measured Eccentr?c 0.4S
S 16 - Predkted 0.18
determined critical flow rate, described above, as a function of PFa&h3d 0.4s
hole angle foraxanthrmgumfluid with the properties listed with
the figure. The hole and pipe size, penetration rate, and cuttings ~ 10-
sise ere also listed. The critical flow rates determined with the g -
pipe concentric and with the pipe eccentric are both indicated. 8-
v
4-

2-
Flow Rste (gpm) Mud Velocily((pm)
0
6OW1M13374O1O31SO 2W2222402E02W

o Flow Rete (gpm)

~ A (b
Fig. 6- Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 30.
S30
- 9
40 Plpa Pmiticm ~~~&
+ Measured concentric 0.18
25 -
V Measured Eccentric 0.18
x Measured Concentric 0.4s
103- gm -
v Measur4 Ecmnt,b 0.43
Predicled 0.18
~ss - Pmdided 0.42
eeffle ;

0
j -
o~
# , I +
0 108?2040= ev702090
WelboreAngle, deg P 5
E
~ !0-
Mud Xanthan Gum Dsnstiy: 8.3,ppg
Pv: 3.5 Cp PiPeDiet 2.2 in. 5-
YP: 8.0 IM1OOR2 Hole Dla .5.0 In.
YZ 2.5 b/100it2 Cuffirsw
,- 0.18 Io_
ROP 50.0 fph w IDI 120 140 160 180 m 2ZU 240 =0 230
FlowRate (gpm)
I
Fig. 5 Critical transport comparison.
Fig. 7 Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 50

The solid line represents the criticrd transport condition

predicted by the cuttings transport model. The angle r~ge for Pipe PosSiOn s~#~
+ Measured Concentric 0.1S
each mode of trensport, eettle, Iii, and roll, is indicated. The 0 Measured Eccen!ric 0.1s
x Measured Concantrio 0.43
predicted criticaj transport flow rate is considerably lower than
v Me&sured Eccenlric MS
the visuellydetermined criticelflowrateat ee.chef the fourangles Predicted

tested. Thedifferencebetween prediction and experiment here is

due to the different criteria used to determine critical conditions.
Thetramsport model prediction is effectively amininmmpreseure
drop condition. The experimental critical flow rate is based on
visual observation and is not amenable to analytical modeling.

Sub-Critical Prediction. Figures 6 through 9 illustrate the

01 \
model prediction of the ahmdsr cuttings concentration in the 24 80 IL-Qla 144 100 !80 m :
Flow Rate (gpm)
xsnthan gum fluid for various hole angles, pipe positions, and
cuttings sizes as a fimction of flow rate. The measured cuttings Fig. 8 Cuttings tronsport in a 5-in. flow loop at 70.
concentrations tweindicatedoneach figure. The data point at the
highest flow rate represents the vieually determined critical flow
rate. The transport model critical flow rate occurs at the sharp
break in the elope of the concentration versus flow rate curve,
Examination of these figures chows good agreement between the

145
 .

8 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

40 Cultrll so
* PipePositbn Size (In %-
+ MeasuredConcentrk0.18
35- 0 Measured Eccentk 0.i8
m-
x Measured Concentrb 0.43
2A-
g ~. -
v Measured E.xan!rb 0.43 gr2 -
Predbtd 0.18
Pred!!t& 0.43
[ 25 - B
~ 18-
g 20 -
0 g; :
~ 15 -
~ 10-
g ,0 .s8-
E
0

5-
80 IW 120 140 180 130 240 220 240 =0
Flow Rate (gpm)
Fig. 9- Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 90.
Figures 10 end 11 compexe model predictions with
experirnenti data from tests on the 8-in. flow loop With an
extended bentonite mud. Agein, the highest flowrate data were
taken to represent ~itical conditions. These are again
considerably above the model prediction. The critical flow rate
prediction in the 8-in. loop is certainly more in line with field
experience then that based on visual observation. Agreement
between experimentendmodelpredictionis quitegoodforeach of
the sixhole angles. Unfortunately insuflicientdatawere takenat
the lower hole anglee to eesese the model predictions fully.
Inflow loop tests with water and other low-viscosity fluids,
the model consistently underpredicted the annular cuttings
concentrations at angles above 50. It appears that the fluid
rheolo~ is given more importance in the transport model than ia
usually seen in high-angle flow loop experiments.6)8
2-
0
280 1msN3m4cOs10 sm7c08co
FlowRate (~m)
Fig. 11- Cuttings transport at high englee in en 8-in. flow loop.
FIELD APPLICATION
The Wttings transport model, in its easy-to-use personal
computer format, has been applied to many different drilling
situations. A number of these are discussed below.
DrillingLarge-Dweter Holes in Deepwater Operations.
Thefwst stringof pipe set duringdeepwater drillingoperetions is
a.SO-in.or 36-in. structural pipejetted several hundred feet below
the mud line. The first interval drilled end cased is for either
20-in. or 26-in. caaing. This interval is usually drilled with
eeawater end viscous sweeps with mud returns to the seafloor.
The large hoIe size smdlow-viscosity drilling fluid (eeawater) will
result in abuildup ofcuttings in the structuraIpipe srmuluswhich
can, if the fracture gradient at the shoe of the structorcd pipe is low
enough, result in loss offluid. This loss is one of several causes for
what ie called shallow water flow, i.e., abreekthrough offluid to

28- \, + 20. Mea%. the sea floor mound or away horn the structural pipe.
s -
\ 20 Pred.
The cuttings transport model was used to examine this
A 35.Mea,.
30. Pred. problem end to identify corrective action. Table 1 lists the
v 4W Mess.
- - . 40- Pred. predicted steady state cuttings concentration in the enmdus of a
36-in. structural pipe (34.75-in. ID) es afimction of flow rate. The
pressureat thebaseofthe 200 ftlong, 36-in. pipegeneratedby this
~ to - cuttings-laden fluid is also given. If the pressure imposed by the
30 - cuttings-laden fluid exceeds the fracture pressure at the base of
oil -
4- the 36-in pipe, fluid flow to the mud line may occur. For weak,
2- -~ shallow sediments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, the fracture
o
1WSM3W4WX.3 w07m8m gradient may beequivelent to only 30 or 40 psioverhydrostaticor
Flow Rate (gpm)
118 to 128 psi total.
ig. 10- Cuttings transport at low angles in en 8-in. flow loop. The two portions of thetable correepondta drillinga31%-in.
hole at 50 Whr with seawater end the use of a viscous sweep
(density = 8.9 lbm/gaI, plastic viscosity = 9 CP,yield point =
40 lbf/100 ft2, yield stress = 15 lbf/100 ft2). The cuttings bulk
density is 2.05 g/cm8 and the she ie 0.25-in. The drillpipe size is
5-in. in thie example.

146
 .

SPE 28306 R. K. CLARK AND K. L. BICKHAM 9

Table 2
CUTTINGS LOADING IN 36-in. STRUCTURAL PIPE CUTTINGS CONCENTRATION IN A WASHOUT

F1OW DrillwithSeawater DrillwithSweep FlowRate Annular EquilibriumCuttings
Rata (gpm) Velocity Concentration(%)
(gPm) Cuttings Pres9ure cuttings Pressure (ft/min)
Concentration at Shoe Concentration at Shoe Experimental Predicted
(%) (psi) (%) (psi)
100 25.8 33.0 26.8
750 51.0 134 21.8 llz
125 32.3 24.9 21.5
1000 45.0 129 15.4 107
150 38.7 19.5 16.7
1250 39.8 124 12.3 104
1500 35.3 120 8.6 101
Experimental data from M (Reference No.-27).
1750 31.1 116 7.0 99
2000 27.2 113 4.5 97 Redevelopment Drilling. Redevelopment of axistiig fields
Pipe jetted to 200 ft balow the mudline, drilling 31%-in. hole. often involvae reentering an old well, cutting a window, and
rhilling out to a newbottomhole location. Such wells czn have
The model provides guidance on drilling the 26-in. casing compkx directional progrmns. This was the rase in a recent
interval such that SW1OWwater flow can be minimized. It is offshore well in which awindow wascut in a curved conductor, the
obvious from Table 1 that a high flow rata is essential, as are well kicked to an angle of ovar 40, droppad to near-vertical, and
periodic viscous sweeps, to keep the pressure at the base of the then turned sharply and eventually completed as a horizontal
structural pipe at a tolerable level. Drilling continuously with a wefl. During drilling of the 12]/!-in. hole at an angle near 85,
sweep would be succesefid, although the total volume of sweep problems were axperiencad on strip out of the hole at ameseured
required for drilling the 31%-in. interval may exceed the rig depthof 6710 ft (5700ft TVD). It tookexteneivebackresmingand
mixing capability. circulation to compIete the trip out of the hole successftily
The cuttings concentration levels shown in Table 1 are The output for en analysis of this situation by the cuttings
essentially unch~ged for each of the two d@rent operational trsmsport model is shown in Table 3. The input parameters
procedures in common practice in deep wate~ (1) drilling a pilot include the mud type, the rheology model chosen, the penetration
hole to the 26-in. casing point and then opening to 31Ys-in. or rate, the mud flow rate, the mud properties (density, plastic
(2) drilling a 31%-in. hole in one pass. The sane cuttings loading viscosity,yield point, endyield stress), end the cuttings proparties
will eventually occur in the 36-in. ennulus whether or not a pilot (density diameter, bed porosity, and angle of repose). The
hole is drilled before the final hole size is reached. If the cuttings measured depth, hole angle, hole size, and pipe size complete the
from the pilot hole arecleaned out of the 36-in. snnulus, they will input data required for conducting the analysis. These data are
build up again as the pilot hole is opened. Itis ilso interesting to included in the output es indicatad in Table 3. Note that 133/5-in.
note that the cuttings loading is virtually independent of easing (12.347-in. ID)hadbean set at 3010 ftmeamu-eddepth, and
penetration rates that a-e typical of deepwater operations. that 5-in. drill pipe end 180 ft of 8-in. drill collars were used.
If~Ything,the model may underpradict the magnitude of The results of the emdysis at each depth include the
the cuttings btildup, se sugges~d by comparison with the following: the mud velocity in the open area above the cuttings
experimental data of Ali shown in Table 2.27 Alis data were bed, the equivalent circrdating density (ECD), the mud pressure
generated by placinga 10-in. diameter washout, six feet in length (circulatingwithoutcuttings andtotaIwithcuttinge), thecuttings
in the verticrd 5-in. flow loop at the University of Tulsa A concentration (in the circulating mud end total in the anmdus),
Carbopol solution was used as the drilling fluid. the areaopen to flow, andtheheight of the cuttings bed. Figure 12
A similar amdysiscanalsobe-conducted to examine cuttings depicts much of the same information but in a format that allows
buildupinalsrge-diameterdri~ingrk~. Theneedforhighermud the location of cuttings accumulations in the wellbore to be more
viscosity, viscous sweeps, end/or additional flow rate by boosting readily identified.
the ricer can all be aasessed end operational practice set as The asterisk in the fa right-hand column of Table 3
necessary. Monitoring the pressure at the base of the riser is a way indicates that the cuttings accumulations at this location me in a
of assessing how effective such practices are at keeping the riser movingbed end will avakmche down the wellbore if the pumps are
clean. turned off without first circulating them out of the well. Where
there are no asterisks (depths from 6310 to 6525 ft), a stationsg.
bed three to four inches in height is predictad.

147

10 AMECI-IANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT
RedevelopmentWell
cam. FLowArec
v. ma
1 while both moving and stationery cuttings beds were present
1
.
Well Cia. E(
m. PI
Mud 12.5 ~g ROP
Drillpip
Pv 40.0 Cp Cko. Rate 620.0 ~m
Wellbore v!? 17.0 Ib/looitz Cuttisgs
VZ 6.0 lb/100f12
Fig. 12- Cuttings analysis in a redevelopment well.
Several pointa can be made flomthis analysis: (1) a buildup
of cuttiige is likelv in two intervak (z) where the hole angle ia50
or less, theseouttingsarein amovingbedandcen becirculatedout
of the well but will avalanche down the well if not circulated out
firs~ (3) cuttings canied in a moving bed contribute to the total
wellbore pressure (ECD); and (4) a stationary bed can exist at
angles above 50 and up hole fkom the drill collars. Table 3 and
Figure 12 show the situation as it occurred. The model input
perametera can be varied to see what action is most likely to
correct the situation. Increasing the flow rate to 800 gal/rein
should be sufficient to remove cuttings effectively at angles less
then 50, but a flow rate graatez then 1000 gal/rein would be
required to remove the stationary bedsat angles greaterthan50.
Sincethemodelisastsady state solution, it cannotbeusedto
determine the circulation time needed to remove cuttings when
they are in a moving bed. The analysis implies that one
bottoms-up time is not sufficient, but how muchlongerthan this
is needed to remove all cuttings is unknown. Cutfmgs in a
stationary bed cannot be removed by circulation alone unless the
mitical flowrate isexceeded. Suchbedscenoften beremovedonly
by mechanical action via pipe rotation and e.xiaImovement. The
work of Raei15indicates that a stationary bed can be tolwated if
the cross-sectional areas of the bottomhole assembly and bit are
lees then the area available for flow. For the exemple in Table 3,
this ereais 66.8 in.2, 68% of the open-hole annuhrareaat 6310 ft.
Extended-Reach Drilling. The world record extended-reach
wells drilled by Statoil in 19912s and 1992/9329have been wall
documented. considerable hole cleaning-related problems were
experienced when drilling the 17Yz-in.interval on the C3 well in
1991. Thisintervalwae drilled from5220 fttoaftidepthof9460
ftfollowingonesidetrack. Theholeanglesrangedfrom 60 to71.
Based on this experience, the 17yz-kI. interval on the next
extended-reach well, the C2, was planned and drilled with lower
.
SPE 23306
angles etartingfrom 5 andbuild@gto84. The drill pipeusedfor
both wells was 66/8-in.
The cuttinge transport model wee used to examine the
17Y2-in.interval in these two wells. The model indicates that,
while drilling the 17%-kI. hole in each well, the extent of the
stationary bed wee far Iesa in the C2 well than in the C3. The
heights of the stationary beds are predictad to have been about
equal in both wells, five to six inches depending on the hole angle,
butthetotalvolome ofcuttingsinthestationarybed intheC3 well
was over four timee the volume in the stetionmy bed in the
C2 well. This reduced cuttings volume in the C2 well resulted in
am Iesstimeepent backreamingat ahighrotary speed, shout the only
Mu-#el. practical way cuttings can be removed in a large, high-angle hole.
50.0 @h
Each welliapredicted to have contained about the samevolumeof
cuttings in moving beds, outtinge which can be circulated out of
0.25 in.
the well given eufticient circulation time.
The cuttings transport model predicts few hole cleaning
problems in the 12%-fi. end 8%-in. intervals in both wells, even
though these interva.lsweredrilledatangles of80ormore. While
some problems were mentioned in the StatOilpapers, they were
not of the same magnitude se experienced in the 17Yz-in.interwd.
One of the objectives of the well path used in the C2 well was to
reduee torque end drag. The cuttings treneport model indicates
that the@eof path eelectadforthe C2 wall ie also bentilcial from
a hole cleaning standpoint. This has also been noted by Raei.15
Thus, one of the uses of the cuttings transport model ie to design
well paths that yield the fewest hole cleaning problems, assuming
the path meets all of the other objectives as well.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Acuttinge transport model has been presented whiohutilizes
fluid mechanical relationships developed for the various
modes of particle transpork aettling,lifting, and rolling. Each
transport mechanism is dominant within a certain range of
wellbore smglee.
2. Themodelpro~desameans ofanslyzingcuttings transportas
a function of operating conditions (flow rate, penetration
rate), mud properties (denei@, rheology), well configuration
(angle, hole size, pipe size), and cuttinge properties (density
size, angle of repose, bed porosity).
3. Model predictions zwein good agreement with experimental
cuttings transport data for flowratesbelowcritical conditions.
Predicted flow rates for cxitica.1 transport, i.e., no bed
formation, are lower then those determined visually in flow
loop experiments.
4. This versatile model. in ita PC format. has been used to
examine several situations where poorcuttinge trsnsporthad
bean reeponsl%lefordrillingproblems. Themodelisuseful for
assessing the problems caused, for identif~ng potential
solutions, and for designing well paths for optimal hole
cleaning.
148
 .
SPE 28306 R.K. CLARKANDK. L. BICKHAM 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Yp shear rate peet a sphere

r pressure gradient, see Equation (11)
We would like to thank Shell Development Company for
e reaction force action engle
permission to publish this work. We would also like to thank
Dr. J.J. Aser, Dc A Pil.ehvari,Don Richison, and the studentaaud ~ plug diameter ratio
assistants at the University of Tulsa who assisted with the flow Pp spparent viecosity of mud surrounding the cutting
loop experiments. Q mud density
Q. cutting material density
NOMENCILWPUR.E
@ angle of repose
A mea open to flow bed porosity
@b
c local cuttinge concentration
ca local cuttings concentration outside the central core of a S1 METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
mud with a yield stress x 1.0 * E-o3 = pfl*S
CP
% cuttings feed concentration ft X 3.048 * Eol = m
% local cuttings concentration in the central core ofa mud 8.466667 E-05 =
fthr X m/S
with a yield stress
fvmin X 5.08 * Eo3 = IdS
CD dreg coeflkient
gal(U.S)/min X 6.309020 E-o5 = m8/s
CL lift coefficient
in. X2,54 * Eo2 = m
d cutting diameter
in? X 6,4516 * Eo4 = mz
D hydraulic diameter of the wellbore immdus
lb/100 ftz X4.788026 E-01 = Pa
D4 equivalent diameteq see Equation (18)
lbrn/geJ(U.S.) X 1.198264 E+02 = kg/m3
Dh wellbore diameter
lbf/in.2 (psi) X 6.894757 E+03 = Pa
D~d hydraulic diameter, see Equation (16)
* Conversion factor is exact.
DP drillpipe outside diameter
DPIUg diameter of the central coreof a mud @th a yield stress wFEl@ICES
Fb buoyancy force
1. Pigott,R. J.S.: MudFlowinDrilling, Dtill. andProd.Pratt,,
FD drag force
API (1942) 91 103.
Fg gravity force
FL lift force 2. Chien,S.l?:Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shzped
Pm-titles, paper SPE 26121 (1993).
FP plastic force
FAp pressure force 3. Iyoho,A.W: Drilled-Cuttim@ Transport by Non-Newtonian
FR, reactive force ,. Drilling Fluids Through Inclined, Eccentric hrm~ Ph.D.
dissertation, U. of Tuls~ lldea, OK (1980).
b consistency index -~
e moment arm for the buoyan~ and gravity forces 4. Tornre~ PH., Iyoho, A.W, and Azar, J.J.: Ezperimentel
n behavior index - Study of Cuttings Transport in Dwectionel Wdls~ SPEDE
(Feb. 1986) 43-56.
Q. volumetric cuttings flow rate
Q. volumetric mud flow rate 5. Okrej@ S.S.endknar, J.J.: The Effects ofMud Rheology on
Rep p~lcle Reynolds number #mnulsr Hole Cleaning in Dwectionrd Wells, S~~E
(Aug. 1886) 297308.
u local veloci~ that would act at the cuttings center in the
absence of the cutting 6. _@sen, T,I.: AStudy of the Critical FluidVelosityin Cuttings
U;ix averege mixture velocity in the rweaopen to flow Trensport~ MS thesis, U. of N@ T@% OK (1990).
u. average settling velocity in the axial direction 7. Stevenik, B.C.: Design and construction of a Large-Scale
U,* settling velocity in the area outside theplughamud with Wellbore Simulator and Investigation of Hole Size Effects on
a yield stress .Cfiti~CuttingsTrensportVelocityinHighlyIncdinedWeUs~
U,p settling velocity in the plug-in a mud with a yield stress MS thesis, U. of l?uls~ Tds% OK (1991).
x coordinate normal to the flowing mud
8. Jalukar, L.S.: A Study of Hole Size Effect on CriticsI and
Y. yield stress parameter, Equation (22) Subcritical DrillingFluidVelocities in Cuttings Transport for
z axial coordhate Inclined WeIlbores~ MS thesis,ll offuls% Tulsa, OK (1993).
a wellbore angle
~. 9. Brown, N.E, Bern, EA., and Weaver, A.: Cleaning Deviated
wall shcxwstress Holes: New Experimental and Theoretical Studies, paper
~Y mud yield stress SPE 18636 presented at the 1989 SPE/TADC Drilling
-.
Y shear rate - Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 28MeE 3.

149

12 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT
10. Ford, J.l!, et al.: Experimental Investigation of Dr_~ed
Cuttings Transport in Inclined Borehole, paper SPE 20421
presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference end
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 2326.
11. Siffermen, T.R.sndBecker,T!E.: HoieClecminginFull-Scale
Incliied Wellbore, SPEDE (June 1992) 115 120.
12. Luo, Y. end Bern, F!A.: Flow-Rate Predlctione for Cleaning
Deviated Wells, paper IADC/SPE 23884 presented at the
1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
Feb. 1821.
13. Ford, J., et al.: Development of Mathematical Models
Describing Drilled Cuttinge Transport in Deviated Wells,
paper 93-1102 presented at the 1993 CADE/CAODC Spring
Drilling Conference, Calgary Apr. 14-16.
14. Lcitseri,T.I.,Pilehvari,A.A., and~ar, J.J.: Development
. . ofa
New Cuttin@ Trensport Model for High-hgle Wellbores
Including Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 25872 presented at
the 1993 SPE Racky Moumtein Regiourd/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Apr. 12 14.
15. Rasi, M.: Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores~
paper IADC/SPE 27484 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Drdlaa,Feb. 1518.
16. Zemor% M. ,md Hanson, F!: Rules of Thumb to Improve
High-AngleHole Cleaning,Pet. Eng, Intl. (Jan. 1991)4446,
48,51.
17. Zamora,M, end Henson, F!:MoreRulesofThumb to Improve
High-Angle Hole CIeaning,Pet. Eng. Zntl.(Feb. 1891) 22,M,
2627.
18. Einstein, H.A. rindEl=Samni, E.A.: Hydrodynamic Forces
onaRough Wrdl,Reviews ofModernPhysics (1949) 21, No. 3,
520524.
19. E1Semni, E.A.: Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on Particles
in the Surface of a W,resm Bed, PhD disseti-ation,
U. California, Berkeley, CA (1949).
20.Coleman, N.L.: A Theoretical and Experimented Study of
Drag and Lift Forces Acting on a Sphere Resting on a
Hypothetical Stresmbed, Proceedings 12th Congress of the
InterrsationalAssociatwn forHydraulicResearch, FotiCo1lins
(1967) 3,185-195.
21.Chepil, W?S.: The Use of Evenly Spaced Hemispheres to
Evaluate Aerodynamic Forces on the Soil Surface, Trans.,
American Geophysical Union (1958) 39, No. 3,397-404.
22. Wicks, M.: Transport of Solids at Low Concentration in
Horizontal Pipe, iddvances in SolidLiquidFlaw in Pipes
andItsApplicotwn, I. Zandi (cd.), PergamonPress, New York.
(1967) 101-124.
23. Davies, T.R.H. end Samad, M.WA.~Fluid DynamicLift on a
ParticlqJ. HydraulicsDiv&ion, ASCE, (1978) 104,No. HY8,
11711182. -
24. Blevins, R.D.: Ap~lied Fluid Dvnumics Handbook. Van
Nostr~d Reinhofi-Company, Ne{York (1984)
,.. .
.
SPE 28306
25. Milne-Thomson, L.M.: Theoretical Hydrodynamics, 4thad.,
The Macmillan Compsmy New York (1960) 404405.
26. Wallis, G.B. end Dobson, J.E.: The Onset of Slugging in
Horizontal Stratitied Air-Water Flow, Intl. J. Mzdtiphaae
Wow (1973) 1,173-193.
27. M, h; The Behavior of Drilled Cuttings in Washout
Sections, MS thesis, U. Ms% Tulsa, OK (1979).
28. Njaerheim, A. and Tjoettq H.: New World Record in
Extended-Reach Drilling From Platform Statfjord C,
paper IADC/SPE 23349 presented at the 1992 L4DC/SPE
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 1821.
29. Alfsen, T.E., et al.: Pushing the Limits for Extended Reach
Drilling: New World Record tlom Platform Stut~ord C,
WellC2, paper SPE26350 presentedat the 1993 SPEAnnual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
30.Hill, R.H,: Tha Mothemutiad Tkeo~ of Plasticity,
1986 Reprint, Oxford Urdvereity Press, New Yorlq (1950)
128-160.
31. Perry, R.H, and Chilton, C.H.: Ckemical Engineers
Handbook, 5thcd., McGraw-Hill Book Company New York,
NY (1973).
32: Beris, A.N., et sd.: dreeping Motion of a Sphere Though a
Bingham Plastic, J Fluid Mesh. (1985) 158, 219244.
33. Zemora, M. end Bleier, R.: Prediction of Drilling Mud
Rheology Using a SimpM,ed Herechel-Bulkley Model, J.
PressureVesselTech,, Trans. ASME, (Aug. 1977)88,485-490.
34. Seffmen, PG.: The Lift on a Small Sphere in a Slow Shear
Flow, J, Fluid Mechanics, (1965) 22, Part 2,385-400.
35. SefTman,PG.: Corrigendum~J. FluidMechanics, (1968) 31,
Pert 3,62%
36. UMherr, I?H.T., Le, T.N., rmd Tiu, C.: Characterization of
InelasticPower-Law Fluids Using Falling Sphere Da@ The
Canudian J. Chem. Eng. (Dec. 1976) 54, 497502,
37. Clii, R., Grac+ J.R., sad Weber, M.E.: Bubbles, Drops, and
Particles, Academic Pres~ New York (19781. -
38. Beyer, WH., cd.: CRC Standard Mat~emuticol Tables, 25th
Edition, CRC Press Inc., W Palm Beach, FIorida, (1978) 143.
39. Benedict, R.F!: Fundamentals of Pipe Flow, John Wiley &
Sons, New York (1980).
40.Dodge, D.W?and Metsner, A.B.: Turbulent Flow of Non-
Newtonian Systems, A.I.Ch.E. J. (1959) 5, No. 2, 189204.
41. Dodge, D.WandMetzner,AB.: Errat%A,LCh.~iJ (1962)8,
No. 1,143.
42. Govier, G.W and Asiz, K.: Tke Flow of Complex Mixtures in
Pipes, van Nostrand Reinhold Compeny, New York (1972).
43. Torranca, B.McK.: Friction Factors for Turbulent
Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow in Circular Pipes, Tks South
&can Mech. Eng. (1963) 13, No. 3, 8991.
150
,
SPE 28306 R. K. CLARKANDK, L, BICKHMI 13

APPENDIX u = = U,(I- p) (A-9)

Plastic Force Acting in the Stagnfit Mud Beneath the where ~ is the envelope-to-particle diameter ratio. Beris al SJ.3Z
Cutting. Acuttingsittingonthe top surface ofacuttingsbedwill completed a ftita difference study end found that the
1ikelybepoeitionedinenintersticeofeeveralneighbonngcuttinge envelope-to-particle diameter ratio for material with different
held stationary by the bed. The circulating drilling mud, around yield stresses could be determined. The following is a curve fit of
the upper portion of the cutting, will be liquid end flowing. In their resulti.
contrast, thedrillingmudin theintereticebeneath thecuttingwill g = y;o.47. (A-1O)
be stagnant end pleeti~ assuming the mud has a yield strees,
After combining Equations (A-9) and (A-1O),the following result
Slip-1ine field theory provides a method to calculate the
resultant force, Fp required to Mt.acuttingfrom astagnent layer is obtained
of drilling mud. However, several simplifying assumptions are u *. F2[U~ >Ys] = U$ (1 ww). (A-11}
needed to make the calculation tractable. HWgivesamethodthat
can beusedto calculate themesn compressive preseureand shear
stress acting on a yield surface based o.nslip-line theory.30 Since Herschel-Bulldey lZecosity Law. For ~pical muds, it is
the forces are axieymmetric, the region of interest can be treated ~gued t~t the Herschel-Bulkb?y viscosity law is a eatiefactory
ueing a two-dimensional coordinate system. TheSpheres motion representation. ZmnoraandBleier show experimentally that this
is assumed to be incipient. The result is viscosity law represents the rheologicei nature of drilling fluide
under most steady flow conditione.33 The Herechel-Bulkley
F, =%
[Q + (n/2 ~)smz$-- - eos@ sin~]. (A-1)
- viscoeity law is used to express the shear stress as follows:

Force Due To Pressure Gra&ent. The differential force z = ~Y+ khyn (A-12)
actimgin the z-direction due to a pressure gradient is where ~ is the yield streee, kh is the consistency index,

dFAp = (Pl P2) ~COS2 ~df3 (A-2) t= dtidr is the shear m~ (YsO), and n is the behavior index.
(When T s ~ y = Oend the strtis are equal to zero. In other
where the upstream and downstream pressure difference can be words, the plugs interior behaves es if it were an inelastic solid
eapressed as moving at a velocity of UP)
PI -Pz = rd sin~. (A-3)
PI is the upstreein pressure, PZ is the downstream presswe, d ie Lift and Drag Coefficient Models. Saffman developed an
the diameter of the sphere, 13isenenglemeaeured fromthex-axis, emdyticel model of the lateral forces acting on a sphere in a
and Iis defined in Equation (11). The preesure force can be found uniform shear flow in a Newtonian fluid.w~35Saffinens theory is
by integrating Equation (A-2) from Otcin/2. The result ie applied to tie ~ttinge trensportbyutinga%ynolds number that
Fm = Ilcds/6 (A-4) is based on the apparent viscosity of the mud surrounding the
cutting; namely,
SettlingVedocity CorrectiouFactcrs. Perry and Chiltongive
aprocedureforcrdculatingthehinderedsettlingeffect @q. 5-224, R% = QdU/~, (A-13)
p. 5-64),s1 They present agraphical method (Fig. 5-82, p. 5-65) for where
determining the exponent, n in Equation (A-5), as a function of
KB = ~Y/YP + %yp- l). (A-14)
Rep Equations (A-6), (A-7), end (A-8) were chosen to fit their
s-shaped curve within 370error. UMherretei. present amethodto celeulatetheaverage sheerrate
of a power law fluid flowing past a sphere graphically, The
u. = F,[c>R%, U:,] =_ UA (1 - C)n (A-5) following is a fit of their r.e801k3e
where
n =. e0.0811y
Sgn(x)
-1.19

(A-6) p= %[+-351 A-15)
where U is the velocity of the fluid relative to the particle. If the
y = (0.0001 + 0.865 1X1-9V3 - A-v
particle is stationary, the velocity is the axial velocity ahove the
and .. .,, cuttings bed at a point that would be occupied by the cuttings
x = -1.24 hl(ReP) 4.59. (&8) center if it were in place.
A correction for the settling velocity of the, en~elop: that E1Samnilg end Einstein and E1Sm@ls present results
eurro~de a cutting se~tling in: mud tith a yield stress cm be of the dynamic forces due to a flowing stream acting on rocks
estimated se follows. The settling velocity of the particle and protmding above a sediment bed. Their studies focused on a
envelope system can be found horn the continuity equatio~ turbulent-water stremn flowing over abed of rocks. This end the
namely, Saffman models are combined as follows
. .

.
151
 .-
.

14 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

582[~~cLs2cm
B = l-~,

CL= [ CLS = (A-1,) arc length = d cos - l(B),

1 CL,E= 0.09 cL,~
< cm
where
(A-17)
Drag Coefficient. Clitl et rd. present the best models for
calculating the dreg coet%cient of spherical particle in a
Newtonian fluid.37
Wdlbore Geometry Model. Figure A-1 shows that the regions
of the wellbore cross section maybe iderWzedusing a mmbination
of arcs, chords, andsegmentsofcircular m-eea.Moreover, it shows
that the regions may have different shapes depending on the
position of the chords defining the top end bottom surfaces of the
moving zone and the top sun%ce of the stationmy bed. Their
shape depends on whether these top surfaces exist, and then, if
they are below, touching, or above the drillpipe. The boundaries
that separate these regions are hI and hII.
~ moving cuttings zOnO -
~ Ststionatyc.ttings bed
!--
1- D,--
Dh
Fig. A-1 Wellbore cross section with a cuttings bed.
Relationships for the arc end chord lengths smd for the
segment ereaz can be found in any mathematical handbook (e.g.,
Beyer38). The following mathematical anaIysis leads to a set of
relationships based on the segment height, h, end on the circle
diameter, d. The analysis stsxts with the following basic
relationships:
.
(A-18)
chord length = d ~, end
segment area = ~[(arc length) - B(chord length)].
Approximate Mixture Flow Model. The wellbore
cross-sectional areawhichisopen to flow is characterized asa tube
instead of as an irregularly shaped channel. This decision was
made primexily to keep the calculations manageable at the
perzonaIcomputer level. The development ofamore physically
accurate flow model would be the basis of a maior research
progikm. Further, a more physically accurab model should be
pursued only after the approximate model is proved inadequate.
The mud rheology is calculated using the Herschel-Bulkley
viscosity law. For both the kaninar end turbulent flow cases, the
velocity profde end the pressure drop equations are required.
The pressure grdlent is sum of three component; namely
dp
Zdza
- 1 +*I. +%If A-)
where z is the natursl coordinate in the direction tlom the well
bottom to its top. The first term on the right is called the
accelerational component it is negligible for this study The next
two terms m-ereferred toes the elevationdange and fictional
pressure-gradient terms, respectively.Practicallyspesking, atlow
circulation rates the frictional term is negligible compared with
the elevation term. However, some of the important results
obtained when calculating the frictional pressure-gradient term
m-e used to celcukate the cuttings concentration, namely, the
velocities, U, U@ end Up, end the plug diameter ratio, kP,for the
case when the flow is leminer.
Since no general enrdyticfd solution exists for a
Herschel-Bulldey fluid flowingin en eccentric enmdus with the
drillpipe both rotating and trsnzlating axially and laterally the
approximate fiictiond pressure gradient is calculated from a
combination of methods. The combination accounts for both the
cemplex cross-sectional geometry of the wellbore and the nature
of the non-Newtonien fluid flowing in either a Iaminar or
hubulent state. The methods are obteined from several sources,
e.g., Benadict,3gDodge and Metzneq40>41Govier and Aziz,42 and
Torrance.g
Although this approach is a practical one, it leads to
situations ofuncertainty. For instance, thearmularflowgeomeiry
is treated as flow in a tube with a regidsr circular cross section.
The tube diameters chosen differently depending on the purpose
of the calculation. Ifit is desired to calculate the velocity profile,
thed@neter is chosen toequsl the annulus equivalent diametar.
On the other hand, it is equal to the hydraulic diameter if the
ptiposeis to predi% tie average shezwstreis actingon the wetted
per~eter~ fiother words, to predict the pressure gradient.

152
 .,
SPE 28306 R.K.CLARK AND K.L.BICKHAM 15

Table 3

CUTTINGS ANALYSIS IN A REDEVELOPMENT WELL

Mud Name Synthetic-Base
Viscosity Law HerscheIBulkley
Drilling Rate (ft/hr) 50.0
Mud Flow Rate (galhuin) 620.0
Fluid Density (ibm/gal) 12.5
Pv (Cp) 40.0
YP (lbf/100 ftz) 17.0
YZ (lbf/100 ftz) 6.0
Cuttings Density (g/cm3) 2.30
Cuttings Diameter (in.) 0.25
Bed Porosity (%) 37.0
Cuttings Angle of Repose (deg) 40.0
Program Reeuke

Survey Meas. Hole Hole Pipe Mud ECD Pressure cuttings Flow Bed
Point Depth Ang. Diem. OD Vel. Circ. Total Circ. TotiJ lwea Ht.
(ft) (deg) (ii.) (ii.) (fpm) (Ppg) (psi) (psi) % % % (in.)

1 0 0.0 12.347 5.000 120 12.5 0 0 0.9 0.9 69 0

2 915 27.5 12.347 5.000 128 12.7 8 606 0.9 4.7 93 1.2*
3 1575 38.6 12.347 5.000 144 12.9 15 1002 0.9 11.0 82 2.4*
4 1660 43.3 12.347 5.000 147 12.9 18 1158 0.9 12.2 81 2.6*
5 2165 44,0 12.347 5.000 148 13.0 22 1315 0.9 12.4 80 2.6*
6 2915 35.9 12.347 5.000 139 13.2 31 1698 0.9 9.4 85 2.1*
7 3010 33.5 12.847 5.000 136 13.2 32 1752 0.9 8.0 87 1.9*
8 Soil 33.5 12.250 5.000 137 13.2 32 1752 0.9 7.8 88 1.8*
9 3195 32.2 12.250 5.000 136 13.2 34 1858 0.9 6.9 69 1.6*
10 3750 25.1 12.250 5.000 1.23 13.2 40 2180 0.9 0.9 99 o
11 4320 15.9 12.250 5.000 123 13s 46 2522 0.9 0.9 99 0
12 4560 12.0 12.250 5.000 123 13.1 48 2675 0.9 0.9 99 0
13 4875 6.0 12.250 5.000 123 13.1 51 2679 0.9 0.9 99 0
14 5250 2.2 i2.250 5.000 123 13.0 54 3126 0.9 0.9 99 0
15 55543 8.9 12.250 5.000 123 13.0 57 3325 0.9 0.9 99 0
16 5700 20.4 12.250 5.000 123 13.0 59 8423 0.9 0.9 98 0
17 5865 33.8 12.250 5.000 138 13.0 60 3525 0.9 7.8 88 1.8
18 6010 44.9 12.250 5.000 149 13.0 62 3608 0.9 11.3 81 2.5*
19 6105 48.4 12.250 5.000 154 13.0 63 3656 0.9 13.7 78 2.8*
20 6245 47.1 i2.250 5.000 154 13.0 65 3723 0.9 13.7 78 2.@
21 6275 50.0 12.250 5.000 154 13.0 65 3737 0.9 13.7 76 2.8*
22 6310 52.7 12.250 5.000 176 13.0 66 3753 0.9 19.8 68 3.7
23 6360 57.2 12.250 5.000 174 13.0 86 3774 0.9 19.1 70 3.6
24 6435 62.0 12.250 5.000 170 13.0 68 3801 0.9 18.1 71 3.5
25 6525 70.0 12.250 5.000 163 13.0 69 3830 0.9 16.3 74 3.2
26 6526 70.0 12.250 8.000 178 13.0 69 3831 0.8 0.8 99 0
27 6610 80.7 12.250 8.000 178 13.0 71 3851 0.8 0.8 99 0
28 6709 84.3 12.250 8.000 178 13.1 73 3864 0.8 0.8 99 0
29 6710 84.3 12.250 8.000 178 13.1 73 3864 0.8 0.8 99 0

*Cuttinge bed may avelanche when circulation stops if hole angle is less than 50 degrees.

I 153
 .

.,:. .,

. ..

-.

_.