9

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 28306 A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport

R.K. Clark, * Shell Development
SPE Member

Co., and K.L. Bickham, BET Development Co.

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

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* Acuttinggeneratedatthebit maybe transported to the surfacaby several different mechemismsas it moves along the wellbore. The specific mecbenism depends on the wellbore angle. For high angles, where a stationery cuttings bed can form, transport is vie a rolling mechanism. In intermediate angles, where a churning, moving cuttings bed can form, transport is via a lifting mechaniem. At near-vertical angles, particle settling determines transport. The model described below combinee fluid mechanical treatments ofthese mecbanisme intoaforrnat for easy analysis of cuttings transport in wells of any configuration. INTRODUCTION Of the many functions that aeperformedbythe drillingfluid, the most important ie to transport cuttinge from the bit up the amndue to the surface. If the cuttinw cannot be removed from the wellbore, drilling cannot proceed for long. Transport is usually not a problem if the well is near verticaI. However, considerable difficulties caa occur when the well is being drilled directionally as cuttings may accumulate either in a station~ bed at hole angles above about 500 or in a moving, churning bed at lower hole ! angles, Drilling probleme that may result include etuckpipe, lost circulation, high torque end drag end poor cement jobe. The severity of such problems depends on the amount smdlocation of cuttings distributed along the wellbore. The problem of cuttings transport in vertical wells has been studied for memyyesm, with the earliest analysis of the problem being that of Pigott.l The transport efficiency in verticrd wells is . .. *References end Table 3 at end of paper.

usually assessed by determining the settling velocity, which is dependent on particle sise, density and shape, the drilling fluid rheology smdvelocity, and the hole/pipe configuration. A recently developed correlation for settling velocity of irragubdy shaped particles in drilling fluids is that of Chien.2 Since the early 1980s, cuttinge traneport studies have focuesedoninclined wellbores, andenex~neivebody ofliterature on both experimental end modeling work has developed. Experimental work on cuttin~ traneport in inclined wellbores haebeenconducted usingflowloopsat the University ofl?ulsas-s and elsewhere.g- 11 Some of the more recent modeling etudies are those of Luo and Bern,12Fordet eL,18Larsen,Pilehvari and Aser,14andRaei.16 LuoandBern12and Fordet al.lspreeentmathematicel modaIsfor determiningt.heminimum fluidvelocityfor trrmsportingcuttings without the formation of a cuttings bed. These are physically based models thathavebaanvalidatedagainst axperimentrddata, Lao and Berns model has also been compared with field data.lq L.emens model is based on empirical correlations derived fi-om experimental data generated in a 35 ft long 5-in. diame~r flow loop.14 Thie model can be used to predict a cuttings bed height if the flow ie sub-critical, i.e., below the velocity required to keep all cuttings moving upward. Rasi assumes that a cuttings bed will form end predicts the height of the bed15and the open area above it. This area is then compsxed with the cross-sectional area of thebit and stabilizers to see if they can pass through the non-bed area without ditlkulty ThemodelsofLaoandBern,12 Larsenetal,,14mdRagi15 mevdd for hole angles greater than 50 or so where a stationary cuttings bed may fofi. The model of Ford et al. can be applied at any

139

,
2

A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT

SPE 28306

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

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.

Wellbore

Cuttings

Mud velocity profile (x and z components)

1
-. J n s -%

7<

U(

Formation

Fig. 1 Schematic of cuttings transport in an inclined wellbore. During laboratory flowlooptests,three si~]cant patterns

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

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

140

 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 stabiMyofthemudlayrflowing e 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

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)

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

where the length of the moment arm for the buoyancy and gravity forces is t = Moreoveq O <as shows Izl(sina + cosa/ten@) (2) the figure

90; likewise, O s @ s 90. Ftily

@ = 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 2UIUOf FDand F~ The other forces are summed in the x-direction; that is, F~ FP+(Fb-F.Jeina = O. (4)

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,

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.

141

-.

. ... ,

A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT

SPE 28306

The drag force, F~ = C~~@J2, the lift force, FL = C@ the buoyancy force, Fb = gQ~, and the gravity force, F. = gQ= ~ (8) (7) QU9, (6) (5)

and the pressure force, F& where (11) where Dhyd is the hydraulic diameter of the flow area (ses Equation (16) and Equation (17)), P is the pressure, z~is the wd shear stress, end ~ is the mud yield stress. Rolling and Lifting Bed Height Equations. Two equations forcriticrdvelocity may beobtainedbysubstitutingEquations (2) end (3) end the ancillary equations (Equations (5)-(11)) into Equations (1) and (4). At high wellbore angles, one of these resulting equations for critical velocity may govern the flow. For the case of rolling, the geverningequation for the critical velocity is
1/2

nda r~,

(lo)

where CDis the drag coefficient, CLis the lift coefficient, and g is the gravitational constant. The following two equations are derived in the appendix (Equation (A-1) end Equation (A-4)). The plastic force, Fp = =[$ + (Jx/2 - @) Sill@ - cos@sin@], (9)

u=
-

4[3~@ [.,

+ (rc/2 @) SinzI$ - COS!$Sill@) n@ + dg(Qc Q)(cosa + 5~ati@) & 3Q(C~ + CL tan@)

drl

(12)

For the csae of lifting, the governing equation for the critical veloci~ is .. . .
1/2

-u =
[ ..

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

(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

TJmk > [

Dqg(Qb Q) sina Q

e
)]]

l~1w (

(14)

@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

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 (18) De~ = m where A is the area open to flow. For the wellbore anrmlus, the equivalent diameter is % The plug diemeter ratio is Fig. 3 Stratified flow ofmudoverafluidized bed. cuttings 1
cutting ~

()

Equations (12), (13), end (14) are theequilibriumbed height equations that calculate a criticef velocily condition. The relationship between the two different velocities, U and Um~, 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 obtained from the operating conditions; however, the Iocd v&city, U, is determined from fluid mechanical relationships. Five Peroent Mrmirnum Coneentrntion Model. For low-angle conditions, Figure 4 chows a schematic of the cuttings 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. Since drilfingmudoften exhibits ayield streee, there maybe a regio~ netw the center of the croes eeotion, where the shear 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, respectively. In the snnularregionaroundtheplug, themudflowe with a velocity gradient and behaves as a viecous fluid. The average annular velocity of the mud in this region is Ua, In addkion, for the cuttings in this region, the average concentration end velocity are wand U=, respectively. Croee-Seetional Geometry First, let us define some basic wellbore geometry. The hydraulic diemeter is defined es four times the flow ereadividedby the length of the wetted perimeter; namely, Dhyd
=

mm !

velocity profile annular region 0: plug region ,,, ,.! ,1,

mixlure velociiy profile

:1

k*

Fig. 4- Mixture and cuttings velocity profiles in a Herschel BuMey fluid under laminar flow. Flow Conditions. The mixture veloci~ is (21) where Qm is the volumetric flow rate of the mud and Q is the volumetric flow rate of the cuttings which depends on the bit size end the penetration rate. In addition, the mixture velocity can be calculated from the average plug end anmdus velocities in the equivalent pipq namely,

4 X croes-sectional area (wetted perimeter)

(16)

Umk = U*(1 q + Uplf

(22)

143

. 6 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

Cuttings Concentration. follows: 0

The feed concentration isdefmedas

relationship, are all used to determine the critical velocity. However, the predicted velocities from both Equations (12) end (13) muetbe put onanequivalentbmiswiththosepredictidfiom Equations (14)and(33),nsmely theaveregemixturevelocity. The critical velocity is determined according to the following 1. For near-vertical cases, when the values calculated by Equations (13) and (14) are less than the one fkom Equation (33), the critical velocity equals Equation (33)s value. Ifthecirculation rateexccedsthisvalue, the suspended cuttings concentration will remain less than five percent. However, if the mud circulation velocity is less than the cuttings settlingvelocity, the cuttings willeventuallybuildup in the wellbore and plug it 2. Forlow-angle cases, where the wellbore complementaxyangle is greater then the cuttings angle of repose, the remdts of Equations (12), (13), (14), and (33) are ranked emsllest to largest. 3. For high-angle cases, where the cuttings angle of repose is greater than the wellbore complementary angle, the restdtsof Equations (12), (13), and (33) are ranked smallest to largest. The critical velocity equals the fwst value that exceeds Equation (33)svalue. If~here=e none, thenthecriticslvelue equ-alsthe one calculated from Equation (33). COMPARISON WITH EXPEIUIWENTML RESULTS

&

(23)

The average concentration, c, of cuttings in a short segment with length, Az, and cross-sectional are+ ~ can ha calculated as follows c =c.(1~)+cJ:. w)

The cuttings concentrations in the plug and annular regions are assumed equal. This means that the suspended cuttings are uniformly distributedacroes the ereaopentoflow. Obviously, this has a major impact, and it probably is a function of wellbore geometry, mud properties, cuttings properties, and operating conditions. It could stand alone as a research topic. Thus, we obtain u where u. = U=(I ~) uq~ (26) .. =_.cu.(l c) c-c. (25)

is the average settling velocity in the axial direction. The components of the settling velocities (see appendiz) in the axial direction are

u= = Fl[c, R~, Uiz ]

and
SP =

(27)

Fz[U~ ,32]

(28)

where

u:

_
[

4dg(QC @

3QCD

1/2 1

1[2

(29)

u~

4 ~3 [{

dg(e. - Q)

iccy 1]

cosa,

(30)

The predictions of the cuttings transport model have been compared with date from flow loop experiments conducted over three separate two-week intervals. The first two sets of tests were conducted on the 5-in. flow loop at the University of Tulsa. This equipment has been described extensively by others.3-6 The third set oftests was conductedontheUniversity ofTtiasnewer 8-in. flow 100P.7ZS Fluids used in the experiments coneistedof water, solutions of HEC, xanthan gum and PHPA in fresh water, end bentonite slurries before endefteraddition of en exteudmgpolymer. In all, 158 tests were run on the 5-in. loop end 60 on the 8-in. loop. The tests were run at angles ranging from neer-verticel (200 minimum) to horizontal (900). The inner pipe in the 5-in. loop was set both concentric end eccentric with the pipe %-in. above the low side of the annulus. The pipe wee concentric in the 8-in. loop tests. Pipe was only rotated in the 5-in. loop tests. Two types of test results were obtained (1) a visually determined critical flow rate and (2) the equilibrium annular cuttings concentration as a function offlow rate. The criticelflow rate wee taken to be that at wbichnocuttingsbed was formed; i.e., all cuttimgs were observed to be moving upward cind no The cuttings accumulation of cuttings was occurring. concentrationiiithe ennulusisessentially equal totht oftbcfeed under these conditions. As the flowrate is lowered below critical, cuttings begin to accumulate and form either a moving, churning bed at low angles or a stationary bed at high angles. The dividing singleis taken to be the complement of the angle of repose.

dUQ ReP = w. 3ty s = dg(@c Q)

(31) (32)

CD is the drag coefficient of a sphere, ~ is the yield stress of the mud, end Vais the apparent visc6ii@ of the mud at a sheer rate resulting from the settling cutting. The value calculated using Equation (25) is the minimum acceptable mixture velocity requiredforacuttingsconcentration, c. Plgott recommended that the concentration of suspended cuttings be a value less than five percent.l With this limit
(C =

0.05), Equation (25) becomes

u mix ==0.050 (33)

where ~ <0.05. This implies that the penetration rate must be limited h a rate that satisfies this equality. Equations (12) fid(13),thecriticrdvelocityrelationshipsfor rollingendlifting, Equation (14), theKelvin-Helmboltz stabiii~ relationship, and Equation (33), the critics3 mixture velocity

144

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

Foralltesta,theannular cuttingeconcentrationwasallowed to reach a steady state, cuttings injection wqs stopped, and the cuttinge were flushed out of the anmdue end weighed. From the cuttinge weight and density a volume percent concentration in the annulus was calculated. This concentration could be converted to a cuttings bed height knowing the cuttings bed porosity end the po~tion of the inner pipe. Critical Transport Prediction. Figure 5 shows the vieually determined critical flow rate, described above, as a function of hole angle foraxanthrmgumfluid with the properties listed with the figure. The hole and pipe size, penetration rate, and cuttings sise ere also listed. The critical flow rates determined with the pipe concentric and with the pipe eccentric are both indicated.
Flow Rste (gpm) Mud Velocily((pm)
o ~

measured data for the large cuttings (0.43-in.) and the model predictions. The quantitative egreement is not so good for the small cuttings, eithough qusditatively the chsnge in cuttings
24

z23a ~
S

,* 16 -

x v

Measur6d Concentric Measured Eccentr?c Predkted PFa&h3d

0.42
0.4S 0.18

0.4s

~ g v

108420 6OW1M13374O1O31SO Flow Rete 2W2222402E02W

(gpm)

(b

Fig. 6S30 9
40
25 -

Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 30.

Plpa Pmiticm + V x v Measured concentric Measured Eccentric Measured Concentric Measur4 Ecmnt,b Predicled Pmdided

~~~& 0.18 0.18 0.4s 0.43 0.18

103 -

gm

eeffle
o~ # ,

~ss ;

0.42

0 +

108?2040=

ev702090 WelboreAngle, deg

Gum Dsnstiy: 8.3,ppg

P 5 E ~ !0 5-

Mud

Pv: YP: YZ
ROP

Xanthan 3.5 Cp

8.0 IM1OOR2 2.5 b/100it2 50.0 fph

PiPeDiet Hole Dla Cuffirsw ,-

2.2 in. .5.0 In. 0.18 Io_

IDI

120

140

160

180

2ZU

240

=0

230

FlowRate (gpm)

Fig. 5 Critical transport comparison. The solid line represents the criticrd transport condition predicted by the cuttings transport model. The angle r~ge for each mode of trensport, eettle, Iii, and roll, is indicated. The predicted criticaj transport flow rate is considerably lower than the visuellydetermined criticelflowrateat ee.chef the fourangles 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 model prediction of the ahmdsr cuttings concentration in the xsnthan gum fluid for various hole angles, pipe positions, and cuttings sizes as a fimction of flow rate. The measured cuttings 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

Fig. 7 Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 50

Pipe PosSiOn + 0 x v Measured Concentric Measured Eccen!ric Measured Concantrio Me&sured Eccenlric Predicted

s~#~ 0.1S 0.1s 0.43 MS

01

24

80 IL-Q la

144 100 !80 m Flow Rate (gpm)

Fig.

8 Cuttings tronsport in a 5-in. flow loop at 70.

145

. 8 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

40 35g ~. -

*
+

Cultrll PipePositbn Size (In Measured Concentrk0.18 Measured Eccentk Measured Concentrb Measured E.xan!rb Predbtd Pred!!t& 0.i8 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.43

0
x v

so %m2A-

gr2 -

[ g 0 ~ g 0

25 20 15 ,0

B 18 ~ g; : ~ 10
E

.s820

580 IW 120 140 180 130 240 220 240 =0 Flow Rate (gpm) 280 1msN3m4cOs10 FlowRate (~m) sm7c08co

Fig.

9-

Cuttings transport in a 5-in. flow loop at 90.

Fig. 11-

Cuttings transport at high englee in en 8-in. flow loop.

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

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 the sea floor mound or away horn the structural pipe. The cuttings transport model was used to examine this problem end to identify corrective action. Table 1 lists the 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 cuttings-laden fluid is also given. If the pressure imposed by the cuttings-laden fluid exceeds the fracture pressure at the base of the 36-in pipe, fluid flow to the mud line may occur. For weak, shallow sediments in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, the fracture gradient may beequivelent to only 30 or 40 psioverhydrostaticor 118 to 128 psi total. 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.

28s -

\,
\

u
+

20. Mea%. 20 Pred.

A
v -

35.Mea,.
30. Pred. 40- Pred.

4W Mess.

~ 30 oil

to 42o 1WSM3W4WX.3 Flow Rate (gpm) -~ w07m8m

ig. 10-

Cuttings transport at low angles in en 8-in. flow loop.

146

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

CUTTINGS LOADING IN 36-in. STRUCTURAL PIPE F1OW DrillwithSeawater DrillwithSweep Rata Pressure Cuttings Pres9ure cuttings (gPm) Concentration at Shoe Concentration at Shoe (psi) (psi) (%) (%) 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 51.0 45.0 39.8 35.3 31.1 27.2 134 129 124 120 116 113 21.8 15.4 12.3 8.6 7.0 4.5 llz 107 104 101 99 97

Table 2 CUTTINGS CONCENTRATION IN A WASHOUT FlowRate (gpm) Annular Velocity (ft/min) 25.8 32.3 38.7 EquilibriumCuttings Concentration (%) Experimental 33.0 24.9 19.5 Predicted 26.8 21.5 16.7

100 125 150

Experimental data from M (Reference No.-27). Redevelopment Drilling. Redevelopment of axistiig fields often involvae reentering an old well, cutting a window, and rhilling out to a newbottomhole location. Such wells czn have compkx directional progrmns. This was the rase in a recent offshore well in which awindow wascut in a curved conductor, the well kicked to an angle of ovar 40, droppad to near-vertical, and then turned sharply and eventually completed as a horizontal wefl. During drilling of the 12]/!-in. hole at an angle near 85, problems were axperiencad on strip out of the hole at ameseured depthof 6710 ft (5700ft TVD). It tookexteneivebackresmingand circulation to compIete the trip out of the hole successftily The output for en analysis of this situation by the cuttings trsmsport model is shown in Table 3. The input parameters include the mud type, the rheology model chosen, the penetration rate, the mud flow rate, the mud properties (density, plastic viscosity,yield point, endyield stress), end the cuttings proparties (density diameter, bed porosity, and angle of repose). The measured depth, hole angle, hole size, and pipe size complete the input data required for conducting the analysis. These data are included in the output es indicatad in Table 3. Note that 133/5-in. easing (12.347-in. ID)hadbean set at 3010 ftmeamu-eddepth, and that 5-in. drill pipe end 180 ft of 8-in. drill collars were used. The results of the emdysis at each depth include the following: the mud velocity in the open area above the cuttings bed, the equivalent circrdating density (ECD), the mud pressure (circulatingwithoutcuttings andtotaIwithcuttinge), thecuttings concentration (in the circulating mud end total in the anmdus), the areaopen to flow, andtheheight of the cuttings bed. Figure 12 depicts much of the same information but in a format that allows the location of cuttings accumulations in the wellbore to be more readily identified. The asterisk in the fa right-hand column of Table 3 indicates that the cuttings accumulations at this location me in a movingbed end will avakmche down the wellbore if the pumps are 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.

Pipe jetted to 200 ft balow the mudline, drilling 31%-in. hole. The model provides guidance on drilling the 26-in. casing interval such that SW1OWwater flow can be minimized. It is obvious from Table 1 that a high flow rata is essential, as are periodic viscous sweeps, to keep the pressure at the base of the structural pipe at a tolerable level. Drilling continuously with a sweep would be succesefid, although the total volume of sweep required for drilling the 31%-in. interval may exceed the rig mixing capability. The cuttings concentration levels shown in Table 1 are essentially unch~ged for each of the two d@rent operational procedures in common practice in deep wate~ (1) drilling a pilot hole to the 26-in. casing point and then opening to 31Ys-in. or (2) drilling a 31%-in. hole in one pass. The sane cuttings loading will eventually occur in the 36-in. ennulus whether or not a pilot hole is drilled before the final hole size is reached. If the cuttings from the pilot hole arecleaned out of the 36-in. snnulus, they will build up again as the pilot hole is opened. Itis ilso interesting to note that the cuttings loading is virtually independent of penetration rates that a-e typical of deepwater operations. If~Ything,the model may underpradict the magnitude of the cuttings btildup, se sugges~d by comparison with the experimental data of Ali shown in Table 2.27 Alis data were generated by placinga 10-in. diameter washout, six feet in length in the verticrd 5-in. flow loop at the University of Tulsa A Carbopol solution was used as the drilling fluid. A similar amdysiscanalsobe-conducted to examine cuttings buildupinalsrge-diameterdri~ingrk~. Theneedforhighermud viscosity, viscous sweeps, end/or additional flow rate by boosting the ricer can all be aasessed end operational practice set as necessary. Monitoring the pressure at the base of the riser is a way of assessing how effective such practices are at keeping the riser clean.

147

10

AMECI-IANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT

SPE 23306

RedevelopmentWell cam.
FLowArec

v. ma

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 both moving and stationery cuttings beds were present 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 Iesstimeepent backreamingat ahighrotary speed, shout the only practical way cuttings can be removed in a large, high-angle hole. Each welliapredicted to have contained about the samevolumeof cuttings in moving beds, outtinge which can be circulated out of 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.

.
Well Cia.
m.

E( PI Mud Pv v!? VZ 12.5 ~g 40.0 Cp 17.0 Ib/looitz 6.0 lb/100f12 ROP

Drillpip Wellbore

1
am
Mu-#el. 50.0 @h 620.0 ~m 0.25 in.

Cko. Rate
Cuttisgs

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

148

. SPE 28306 R.K. CLARKANDK. L. BICKHAM 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Shell Development Company for permission to publish this work. We would also like to thank Dr. J.J. Aser, Dc A Pil.ehvari,Don Richison, and the studentaaud assistants at the University of Tulsa who assisted with the flow loop experiments. NOMENCILWPUR.E A c ca % % CD CL d D D4 Dh D~d DP Fb FD Fg FL FP FAp FR, b e n mea open to flow local cuttinge concentration local cuttings concentration outside the central core of a mud with a yield stress cuttings feed concentration local cuttings concentration in the central core ofa mud with a yield stress dreg coeflkient lift coefficient cutting diameter hydraulic diameter of the wellbore immdus equivalent diameteq see Equation (18) wellbore diameter hydraulic diameter, see Equation (16) drillpipe outside diameter buoyancy force drag force gravity force lift force plastic force pressure force reactive force ,. -~ consistency index

Yp
r e ~ Pp Q Q. @ @b

shear rate peet a sphere pressure gradient, see Equation (11) reaction force action engle plug diameter ratio spparent viecosity of mud surrounding the cutting mud density cutting material density angle of repose bed porosity FACTORS E-o3 =
pfl*S

S1 METRIC CONVERSION CP
ft

x 1.0 *
X X X

3.048 * 8.466667 5.08 *

Eol = m E-05 = Eo3 = E-o5

m/S IdS

fthr
fvmin

gal(U.S)/min in. in? lb/100 ftz lbrn/geJ(U.S.) lbf/in.2 (psi)

X 6.309020 X2,54 * X 6,4516 * X4.788026 X 1.198264

= m8/s

Eo2 = m Eo4 = mz E-01 = Pa E+02 = kg/m3 E+03 = Pa

X 6.894757 * Conversion factor is exact. wFEl@ICES

DPIUg diameter of the central coreof a mud @th a yield stress

1. Pigott,R. J.S.: MudFlowinDrilling, Dtill. andProd.Pratt,, API (1942) 91 103. 2.

Chien, S.l?:Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shzped Pm-titles, paper SPE 26121 (1993).

3. Iyoho,A.W: Drilled-Cuttim@ Transport by Non-Newtonian Drilling Fluids Through Inclined, Eccentric hrm~ Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Tuls~ lldea, OK (1980). 4. Tornre~ PH., Iyoho, A.W, and Azar, J.J.: Ezperimentel Study of Cuttings Transport in Dwectionel Wdls~ SPEDE (Feb. 1986) 43-56. 5. Okrej@ S.S.endknar, J.J.: The Effects ofMud Rheology on #mnulsr Hole Cleaning in Dwectionrd Wells, S~~E (Aug. 1886) 297308. 6. _@sen, T,I.: AStudy of the Critical FluidVelosityin Cuttings Trensport~ MS thesis, U. of N@ T@% OK (1990). 7. Stevenik, B.C.: Design and construction of a Large-Scale Wellbore Simulator and Investigation of Hole Size Effects on .Cfiti~CuttingsTrensportVelocityinHighlyIncdinedWeUs~ MS thesis, U. of l?uls~ Tds% OK (1991). 8. Jalukar, L.S.: A Study of Hole Size Effect on CriticsI and Subcritical DrillingFluidVelocities in Cuttings Transport for Inclined WeIlbores~ MS thesis,ll offuls% Tulsa, OK (1993). 9. Brown, N.E, Bern, EA., and Weaver, A.: Cleaning Deviated Holes: New Experimental and Theoretical Studies, paper SPE 18636 presented at the 1989 SPE/TADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 28MeE 3.

Q. Q.
Rep u U;ix u. U,* U,p x Y. z a ~. ~Y Y

moment arm for the buoyan~ and gravity forces behavior index volumetric cuttings flow rate volumetric mud flow rate p~lcle Reynolds number local veloci~ that would act at the cuttings center in the absence of the cutting averege mixture velocity in the rweaopen to flow average settling velocity in the axial direction settling velocity in the area outside theplughamud with a yield stress settling velocity in the plug-in a mud with a yield stress coordinate normal to the flowing mud yield stress parameter, Equation (22) axial coordhate wellbore angle wall shcxwstress mud yield stress shear rate -.

149

. 12 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

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).

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. The Behavior of Drilled Cuttings in Washout 27. M, h; 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.

Ckemical Engineers 31. Perry, R.H, and Chilton, C.H.: 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).

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)

40.Dodge, D.W?and Metsner, A.B.: Turbulent Flow of NonNewtonian Systems, A.I.Ch.E. J. (1959) 5, No. 2, 189204. 41. Dodge, D.WandMetzner,AB.: No. 1,143. Errat%A,LCh.~iJ (1962)8,

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
Plastic Force Acting in the Stagnfit Mud Beneath the Cutting. Acuttingsittingonthe top surface ofacuttingsbedwill 1ikelybepoeitionedinenintersticeofeeveralneighbonngcuttinge held stationary by the bed. The circulating drilling mud, around the upper portion of the cutting, will be liquid end flowing. In contrast, thedrillingmudin theintereticebeneath thecuttingwill be stagnant end pleeti~ assuming the mud has a yield strees, Slip-1ine field theory provides a method to calculate the resultant force, Fp required to Mt.acuttingfrom astagnent layer of drilling mud. However, several simplifying assumptions are 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 the forces are axieymmetric, the region of interest can be treated ueing a two-dimensional coordinate system. TheSpheres motion is assumed to be incipient. The result is F, =% [Q + (n/2 ~)smz$-- - eos@ sin~]. (A-1) -

u = = U,(I p) -

(A-9)

where ~ is the envelope-to-particle diameter ratio. Beris al SJ.3Z completed a ftita difference study end found that the envelope-to-particle diameter ratio for material with different yield stresses could be determined. The following is a curve fit of their resulti. g = y;o.47. (A-1O)

After combining Equations (A-9) and (A-1O),the following result is obtained u *. F2[U~ >Ys] = U$ (1 ww). (A-11}

Herschel-Bulldey

lZecosity

Law.

For ~pical muds, it is

~gued t~t the Herschel-Bulkb?y viscosity law is a eatiefactory representation. ZmnoraandBleier show experimentally that this viscosity law represents the rheologicei nature of drilling fluide under most steady flow conditione.33 The Herechel-Bulkley viscoeity law is used to express the shear stress as follows: z = ~Y+ khyn (A-12)

Force Due To Pressure Gra&ent. The differential force actimgin the z-direction due to a pressure gradient is dFAp = (Pl P2) ~COS2 ~df3 (A-2)

where ~ is the yield streee, kh is the consistency index, 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 words, the plugs interior behaves es if it were an inelastic solid moving at a velocity of UP) Lift and Drag Coefficient Models. Saffman developed an emdyticel model of the lateral forces acting on a sphere in a uniform shear flow in a Newtonian fluid.w~35Saffinens theory is applied to tie ~ttinge trensportbyutinga%ynolds number that is based on the apparent viscosity of the mud surrounding the cutting; namely, R% where KB =
~Y/YP + %ypl).

where the upstream and downstream pressure difference can be eapressed as PI -Pz = rd sin~. (A-3) PI is the upstreein pressure, PZ is the downstream presswe, d ie the diameter of the sphere, 13 isenenglemeaeured fromthex-axis, and Iis defined in Equation (11). The preesure force can be found by integrating Equation (A-2) from Otcin/2. The result ie Fm = Ilcds/6 (A-4)

SettlingVedocity CorrectiouFactcrs. Perry and Chiltongive aprocedureforcrdculatingthehinderedsettlingeffect @q. 5-224, p. 5-64),s1 They present agraphical method (Fig. 5-82, p. 5-65) for determining the exponent, n in Equation (A-5), as a function of Rep Equations (A-6), (A-7), end (A-8) were chosen to fit their s-shaped curve within 370error. u. = F,[c>R%, U:,] n y and x = =_ UA (1 - C)n =. e0.0811y -1.19

= QdU/~,

(A-13)

(A-14)

(A-5)

UMherretei. present amethodto celeulatetheaverage sheerrate of a power law fluid flowing past a sphere graphically, The following is a fit of their r.e801k3e

where (A-6)
A-v

p=

Sgn(x) (0.0001 + 0.865 1X1-9V3

.. .,, = -1.24 hl(ReP) 4.59.

%[+351

A-15)
present results

where U is the velocity of the fluid relative to the particle. If the particle is stationary, the velocity is the axial velocity ahove the cuttings bed at a point that would be occupied by the cuttings center if it were in place. E1Samnilg end Einstein and E1Sm@ls

(&8)

A correction for the settling velocity of the, en~elop: that eurro~de a cutting se~tling in: mud tith a yield stress cm be estimated se follows. The settling velocity of the particle and envelope system can be found horn the continuity equatio~ namely, . . . 151

of the dynamic forces due to a flowing stream acting on rocks protmding above a sediment bed. Their studies focused on a turbulent-water stremn flowing over abed of rocks. This end the Saffman models are combined as follows

.14 A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR CUTTINGS TRANSPORT SPE 28306

CL=
where

CLS = CL,E= 0.09

582[~~cLs2cm
B (A-1,) arc length

l-~, (A-18) end

= d cos - l(B), = d ~,

cL,~ cm <

chord length

segment area = ~[(arc length) - B(chord length)]. (A-17) The wellbore Approximate Mixture Flow Model. 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

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

Zdza +*I. +%If - 1

dp

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

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:

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>41 Govier 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

Table

15

CUTTINGS ANALYSIS IN A REDEVELOPMENT WELL Mud Name Viscosity Law Drilling Rate (ft/hr) Mud Flow Rate (galhuin) Fluid Density (ibm/gal) Pv (Cp) YP (lbf/100 ftz) YZ (lbf/100 ftz) Cuttings Density (g/cm3) Cuttings Diameter (in.) Bed Porosity (%) Cuttings Angle of Repose (deg) Program Reeuke Survey Point Meas. Depth (ft) Hole Ang. (deg) Hole Diem. (ii.) Pipe OD (ii.) Mud Vel. (fpm) ECD (Ppg) 12.5 12.7 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13s 13.1 13.1 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.1 13.1 Pressure Circ. Total (psi) (psi) cuttings Circ. TotiJ % % Flow lwea % 69 93 82 81 80 85 87 88 69 99 99 99 99 99 99 98 88 81 78 78 76 68 70 71 74 99 99 99 99 Bed Ht. (in.) Synthetic-Base HerscheIBulkley 50.0 620.0 12.5 40.0 17.0 6.0 2.30 0.25 37.0 40.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

0
915 1575 1660 2165 2915

0.0 12.347
27.5 38.6 43.3 44,0 35.9 33.5 33.5 32.2 25.1 15.9 12.0 6.0 2.2 8.9 20.4 33.8 44.9 48.4 47.1 12.347 12.347 12.347 12.347 12.347 12.847 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 i2.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 i2.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250 12.250

3010
Soil 3195 3750 4320 4560 4875 5250 55543 5700 5865 6010 6105 6245 6275 6310 6360 6435 6525 6526 6610 6709 6710

50.0 52.7 57.2 62.0 70.0 70.0 80.7 84.3 84.3

5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000

120
128 144 147 148 139 136 137 136 1.23 123 123 123 123 123 123 138 149 154 154 154 176 174 170 163 178 178 178 178

0
8 15 18 22 31 32 32 34 40 46 48 51 54 57 59 60 62 63 65 65 66 86 68 69 69 71 73 73

0
606 1002 1158 1315 1698 1752 1752 1858 2180 2522 2675 2679 3126 3325 8423 3525 3608 3656 3723 3737 3753 3774 3801 3830 3831 3851 3864 3864

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.9 4.7
11.0 12.2 12.4 9.4 8.0 7.8 6.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 7.8 11.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 19.8 19.1 18.1 16.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0
1.2* 2.4* 2.6* 2.6* 2.1* 1.9* 1.8* 1.6* o

0 0 0 0 0 0
1.8 2.5* 2.8* 2.@ 2.8* 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.2 0 0 0 0

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

153

.,:.

.,

..

-.

_.