SPE/IADC 92484

Hydraulics of Drilling with Aerated Muds under Simulated Borehole Conditions

*
L. Zhou , R.M. Ahmed, S.Z. Miska, N.E. Takach, and M. Yu, University of Tulsa; and A. Saasen, Statoil ASA

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
Introduction
Aerated mud drilling has been recognized as having many
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the advantages over conventional mud drilling, such as higher
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
penetration rate, less formation damage, reduced lost
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their circulation, and lower drilling cost. A good prediction of
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or hydraulics of drilling with aerated mud requires knowledge of
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
the flow pattern and determination of the properties of each
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper phase under borehole conditions.
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435. Although several hydraulic studies have been performed to
predict frictional pressure loss in conventional drilling, very
limited numbers of studies have been conducted in the area of
Abstract
aerated mud applications. To our knowledge, no studies are
Maintaining optimum circulation rates is important in aerated
reported in the SPE literature concerning the hydraulics of
mud drilling operations. However, reliable predictions of the
aerated fluids at elevated pressures and elevated temperatures.
optimum rates require accurate modeling of the frictional
Extensive aerated mud flow experiments were conducted
pressure loss at bottom-hole conditions. This paper presents a
by Sunthankar1 in a large-scale flow loop that has a 30-m long
mechanistic model for underbalanced drilling with aerated
annular (200 mm 114 mm) test section. Tests were carried
muds. Extensive experiments in a unique field-scale high
out in a horizontal position with and without drillpipe rotation.
pressure and high temperature flow loop were performed to
Water and an aqueous polymer solution were used as the
verify the predictions of the model. This flow loop has a 150
liquid phase. The effect of drillpipe rotation on the pressure
mm 89 mm (6 3.5) horizontal annular geometry and is
drop for air-water flow was insignificant. However, in the case
22-m long. In the experiments, cuttings were introduced at a
of air-polymer solution, the pressure drop decreased with
rate of 7.5 kg/min, representing a penetration rate of 15m/hr in
drillpipe rotation. A higher pressure drop was observed in the
the annular test section. The liquid phase flow rates were in
case of air-polymer solution flow as compared to air-water
the range of 0.30 - 0.57 m3/min, representing superficial liquid
flow. The phenomenon of turbulent drag-reduction, which
velocities in the range of 0.47 - 0.90 m/s. Gas liquid ratio (gas
occurs in a polymer solution flow, may influence air-polymer
volume fraction under in-situ condition) was varied from 0.0
solution as well. At present, the effect of drag reducers on gas
to 0.38. Test pressures and temperatures ranged from 1.28 to
liquid flow is unknown.
3.45 MPa, and 27 oC to 80 oC, respectively. Gas-liquid ratios
Barnea and Doron2 examined the effect of gas injection on
were chosen to simulate practical gas-liquid ratios under
the flow of solid-liquid mixtures of coarse particles in
downhole conditions. For all the test runs, pressure drop and
horizontal pipes. They suggested that the effect of gas
cuttings bed height over the entire annular section were
injection is due to the formation of gas pockets that reduce the
measured. Flow patterns were identified by visual
pressure drop at low slurry flow rates (flow rates that are less
observations through a view port. The hydraulic model
than the critical flow rate required to clean the pipe
determines the flow pattern and predicts frictional pressure
completely).
losses in a horizontal concentric annulus. The influences of
The motions of sand particles in horizontal pipe flow with
gas liquid ratio (GLR) and other flow parameters on the
aerated fluids were experimentally investigated by Holte3.
frictional pressure loss are analyzed using this model.
Experiments were conducted using different water-air-sand
Comparisons between the model predictions and experimental
mixtures in horizontal pipe. An experimental facility that has a
measurements show a satisfactory agreement. The present
30-m long test section with 100 mm inside diameter was used
model is useful for the design of underbalanced drilling
for the investigation. Gas and liquid limits for the formation of
applications.
sand beds were determined.
Gillies et al.4 presented experimental results obtained from
sand transport tests in a horizontal pipe with air and water.
They investigated the effects of gas injection rate on pressure

* Now with Scandpower Petroleum Technology, Inc. Houston, USA

2 SPE/IADC 92484
gradient. It was observed that the increase in gas injection rate
increases the pressure gradient at high liquid flow rates.
Similarly, experimental investigations on sand transport with
air-water mixture in a horizontal pipe was performed by
Tippetts and Priestman5. At low gas and liquid superficial
velocities, a uniform stationary bed of sand was formed.
Moving dunes were also observed. Based on the experimental
results, they presented a flow pattern map for the movement of
solids in the pipe as a function of the superficial liquid and gas
velocities. Li and Walker6 conducted experiments and
developed a computer program for predicting cuttings
transport in multiphase (gas-liquid-solids) flow. A steady-state
model for three-phase (gas-liquid-solid) flow in pipes was
presented by Sharma and Kamp7. The model accounts for
possible injection of separate streams of gas, liquid
hydrocarbon and water into the flow.
Aerated mud flow with cuttings in horizontal and highly-
inclined annuli was investigated by Vieira8. The experiments
were performed in a unique field-scale, low-pressure flow
loop (200 mm 114 mm, 30-m long) at horizontal and near-
horizontal configuration (80o from vertical). The three phases
were injected into the test section at different combinations of
volumetric flow rates. Pressure drop, annular pressure,
temperature and cuttings accumulations were recorded in each
experiment. The effects of cuttings injection rate, total (liquid
+ gas) flow rate and GLR on frictional pressure drop and in-
situ cuttings concentration were investigated. The total flow
rate and GLR were varied from 0.76 to 2.27 m3/min and 0 to
0.7, respectively. Experimental data obtained for horizontal
configuration indicated that pressure drop decreases with
increase in GLR at a given total flow rate and cuttings
injection rate. Naganama and Oikawa9 conducted an
experimental study on flow of aerated muds with cuttings
using a flow loop (127mm51mm, 10-m long).
Recently, an experimental study on aerated fluid flow with
cuttings particles was conducted by Pereira10. The experiments
were performed in a low-pressure flow loop (200 mm 114
mm, 30-m long) at intermediate inclination angles (30o, 45
and 60 from vertical). Water was used as the liquid phase, air
as the gas phase and gravel particles as drill cuttings. Three
inclination angles were considered with different
combinations of gas and liquid flow rates. The effects of
inclination angle, liquid flow rate and GLR on total pressure
drop were experimentally investigated. The liquid flow rate
and GLR were varied from 0.76 to 1.9 m3/min and 0 to 0.75,
respectively. Experimental data obtained at different
inclination angles indicated that the total pressure drop
decreases with increases in GLR at a given liquid flow rate
and cuttings injection rate. A hydraulic model was proposed
for three-phase flow. Model predictions for pressure drop
showed satisfactory agreements with measured data.
In summary, many researchers have developed methods to
predict the hydraulics of three-phase flow. Some are based on
experimental data and try to establish semi-theoretical
correlations. Others have tried to develop hydraulic models
based on conservation equations. The applicability of these
results for drilling applications, which are commonly under
high pressure and temperature conditions, is uncertain. Hence,
the objective of this study is to investigate the hydraulics of
aerated fluid flow with cuttings in horizontal wellbore at
simulated downhole conditions. A hydraulic model, which is
applicable for drilling with aerated mud, is developed based
on conservation equations and existing two-phase flow
correlations.
Experiment Study
Experimental investigation was performed in a test facility
that has a 22-meter long annular test section with 150 mm
(6) casing and 89-mm (3.5) concentric drillpipe. Figure 1
presents a schematic drawing of the flow loop. Tests were
performed at different pressures, temperatures, gas (air) and
liquid (water) flow rates. For all the experiments, cuttings
were injected approximately at a rate of 7.5 kg/min. The
cuttings have an average diameter of 3 mm, density of 2.61
g/cm3 and porosity of 38%. An experiment begins by filling a
100-bbl storage tank with a requisite amount of water. A
centrifugal pump delivers the water from this tank through a
heat exchanger. After the heat exchanger the water flows
through two parallel paths: one path is through a metering
Compressed Air Tank
Injection
Tower
F1 F3
CV5
Air Compressor
Metering Pump
F2
Multiphase Pump Fracturing Pump
(Mud Pump)
2-inch Pipe Heat
Exchanger
3-inch Pipe
Storage
Air Expansion
Tank
Tank Centrifugal
Pump
V1 DN1 DN2
CV2 V3
Separation Annular Section
Tower
V2
CV3 4-inch Pipe
Fig. 1 A simplified Schematic Drawing of the Flow Loop
pump, which accurately feeds a desired amount of the water to
a multiphase pump. The other path is to a triplex (mud) pump.
The multiphase pump is used for both pumping the liquid
phase (water) and further compression of the gas phase (air).
Compressed air is fed to the multiphase pump by an air
compressor. The compressed air is mixed with the water
coming from the metering pump at the inlet of the multiphase
pump. The multiphase pump can produce an additional
pressure increase of up to 3.45 MPa. The air-water mixture
discharged from the multiphase pump is mixed with the water
coming from the mud pump and flows through a 100-mm
pipe, where the cuttings are injected to the system. A total of
three Coriolis mass flow meters measure the amounts of water
and air injected to the flow loop. The aerated water mixes with
the cuttings and this mixture flows to the annular test section.
Two gamma-ray densitometers measure the mixture density.
Before a steady state is reached, some of the cuttings deposit
in the test section. The fluid carries undeposited cuttings to a
separation tower via a 100-mm pipe section. The separation
tower (Fig. 2) removes cuttings from the fluid. Most of the gas
phase is vented to the atmosphere from the separation tower.
SPE/IADC 92484
Two backpressure valves (CV2 and CV3) down stream of the
separation tower control the test section pressure. After the
separation tower, fluid returns to the storage tanks.
Fig. 2 Test Facility Showing Separation Tower (right) and Injection
Tower (left)
The pressure loss is measured by excluding the entrance
and exit parts of the test section. The entrance and exit parts
have 3-meter-long and 2-meter-long sections respectively.
This is done to minimize end effects on frictional pressure loss
measurements. When steady-state flow conditions are
established, the quick-closing valves (V1 and V2) are closed
simultaneously while opening the bypass valve (V3) to allow
the mixture to flow directly to the return line. This enabled a
certain amount of air, water and cuttings to be trapped in the
annular test section. After trapping the fluid in the test section
(Fig. 3), the air expansion tank is used to estimate the volume
of the trapped air using the PVT and conservation equations.
Fig. 3 Test Section of the Flow Loop Showing the Experimental
Set-up
3
Two nuclear densitometers (DN1 and DN2) are installed on
the annular section to measure local mixture density at a given
time.
Four groups of tests were conducted during the
investigation. Table 1 shows the test pressures and
temperatures for each test group. A total of 39 tests were
performed. The base case (Test Group #1) includes 16 tests.
Other test groups include: eight low-temperature tests, eight
high-temperature tests and seven high-temperature and high-
pressure tests. Detailed descriptions of the test facility,
experimental procedures and test matrix can be found in Zhou
et al.11.
Mathematical Modeling
Aerated mud flow model is developed for a concentric
annulus by adopting the existing two-phase pipe flow model
using the hydraulic diameter approach. Several flow pattern
prediction models are applied to determine the behavior of
aerated mud flows. Conservation equations of each phase are
utilized in the development of the model. The establishment of
steady state flow condition is determined by analyzing forces
and moments acting on a single bed particle. A schematic of
aerated mud flow with stationary cuttings bed, which is based
on experimental observations, is presented in Fig. 4. As shown
in the figure, the aerated mud flow consists of an upper layer
and a stationary cuttings bed at the bottom. The upper layer
contains gas phase and liquid phase together with suspended
cuttings. The gas phase mostly occupies the upper portion of
the annulus due to the gravitational effect. Depending on the
flow conditions, the gas may flow as continues phase or
dispersed phase. The presence of large gas bubbles has the
tendency to make the flow primarily turbulent unless the
droplet size becomes negligible. At the surface of the bed,
particles roll due to hydrodynamic forces. The major forces
acting on a bed particle are hydrodynamic lift and drag forces,
gravity and buoyancy forces.
Gas Pocket Gas Pocket
Aerated Mud Layer
Rolling Cuttings
Equilibrium Cuttings Bed
Fig. 4 Schematic of Flow of Aerated Muds with Cuttings
Experimental investigations mostly indicate the presence
of a stationary cuttings bed at the bottom of the annulus for
practical ranges of gas and liquid injection rates. In some
cases, the cuttings bed forms dunes and ripples. The formation
of non-uniform bed complicates theoretical analysis of the
flow. For the sake of modeling simplicity, often these flows
are represented by an equivalent uniform bed.
Major Assumptions. In order to develop the model, the
following major assumptions were made: i) the flow is steady,
turbulent and isothermal in a concentric annulus; ii) the gas
phase is free of cuttings particles; iii) cutting particles are
assumed to be uniform and spherical; iv) the effect of inner
4 SPE/IADC 92484

pipe rotation is not considered; v) physical properties of air, 4 AG g cos G

water and cuttings in each slug unit are assumed constant; vi) Slug , VL 1 ,......(3)
Si f L L
cuttings bed is assumed horizontal and stationary with uniform
surface along the annulus. 4 AG g cos G
Dispersed .Bubble, VL > 1
Si f L L
Flow Pattern Transition Criteria. Determination of pressure
drop at a given cuttings bed height is the major task of a According to the proposed models, flow pattern transition
hydraulic model. Accurate prediction of pressure drop in boundaries for horizontal flow can be determined by the
aerated mud drilling requires assessment of the flow regime following steps:
occurring under borehole conditions. For a given flow of
aerated mud above the equilibrium cuttings bed, four different 1. Estimating equilibrium liquid level (hL)
flow configurations (patterns) are often considered: stratified 2. Checking stratified to non-stratified transition
flow (smooth or wavy), slug flow, dispersed bubbly flow and boundary (Eq. 1)
annular flow. 3. If flow is not stratified, checking the transition to
annular flow (Eq. 2)
Stratified to Non-Stratified Flow. The criterion for the 4. If the flow is not annular, checking the slug to
transition from stratified flow to Non-Stratified flow is based dispersed bubble transition boundary (Eq. 3)
on Kelvin-Helmholtz stability analysis. It predicts whether a
small disturbance on the surface will lead to the interface Liquid Holdup and Pressure Drop
being stable, wavy, or unstable with wave growth that destroys
the stratification. According to this analysis, the governing Stratified Flow. By assuming stratified aerated mud flow over
mechanisms are the gravity and surface tension forces that a stationary cuttings bed (Fig. 5), the momentum equations for
tend to stabilize the flow; however, the relative motion of the the liquid and gas phases can be expressed as:
two layers creates a suction force that tends to destroy the
stratified structure. Based on this approach the following dp ,... (4)
mathematical criterion can be stated: AL + i Si b Sb L S LD L S Ld AL L g sin = 0
dx

hL ( L G )g cos AG dp ,..... (5)

Stratified , Vg < 1 ,...... (1) AG i Si G SGD G SGd AG G g sin = 0
D G Si dx

Non stratified , Vg > 1 hL ( L G )g cos AG

D G Si G
sGD
sGd Gas Phase
Slug to Annular Flow Transition. When the gas or the liquid
flow rate increases, the stratified flow structure becomes si
unstable and transition from stratified to non-stratified occurs. sLd i
sb sLD b Liquid Phase
It is suggested12 that the transition from slug to annular flow
Stationary Cuttings Bed
depends exclusively on the liquid level above the stationary
cuttings bed. Intuitively, a value of hL/D = 0.5 was proposed
Fig. 5 Stratified Aerated Mud Flow Configurations with Stationary
for this transition. Barnea13 modified this value to 0.35 to Cuttings Bed
account for the fact that the slug body consists of liquid and
gas phases, resulting the following criterion: By eliminating the pressure gradient from Eqs. 4 and 5, the
combined momentum equation for aerated mud flows can be
hL expressed as:
Annuular , D < 0.35 ,.... (2)

h
Slug , L 0.35 S GD S 1 1 S S S
G L LD + i S i + L Ld + G GD b b ,. (6)
D AG AL A
L AG A L AG A L

Slug to Dispersed Bubbly Flow Transition. This transition
occurs at high liquid flow rates. The mechanism is that
turbulent fluctuations in liquid phase are strong enough to
overcome the net buoyant forces which tend to retain the gas
as a pocket at the top of the pipe. Thus, the criterion is
expressed as follow:
( L G )g sin = 0
The combined momentum equation for the stratified flow is an
implicit equation of the liquid level (hL). It combines all the
forces that act on the liquid and gas phases. These forces are
functions of the liquid level, which in turn is determined by
the combined momentum equation. By checking the transition
boundaries for stratified flow the liquid level and liquid
holdup can be determined. Determining the liquid level, hL
from Eq. 6, requires reasonable estimations of wall and
interfacial shear stresses that involve calculations of various
geometric parameters. Formulas for the wall and interfacial
SPE/IADC 92484 5

shear stresses, and the geometric parameters are presented in
previous studies14,15 and Nguyen and Rahman16, respectively.
After determining the liquid level, the pressure drop can be
obtained from Eq. 4 or Eq. 5.
Slug Flow. In slug flows the local pressure gradient is not
constant due to the intermittent nature of the flow. Therefore,
an average pressure gradient across the slug unit is assumed in
the model. A simplified slug flow configuration is presented in
Fig. 6, which includes two zones: i) liquid slug body zone; and
the pressure drop attained its equilibrium value (critical
pressure drop) and became constant. At the equilibrium or
steady-state condition, the rates of cuttings deposition and
resuspension become equal. In practice, the equilibrium or
steady-state values of pressure loss and flow rates are
considered for design proposes. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop a model for determining the equilibrium condition.
60
Measured Differential Pressure in Annuli

ii) film zone. To simplify the model, a uniform liquid film 50

Differential Pressure (inchH2O)

thickness is assumed in the film zone. The pressure drop for a
40
slug unit can be calculated using a global force balance along
a slug unit (i.e. from point A to B). Therefore, the pressure 30
drop in a slug unit can be expressed as:
20

PAB = PAC + PCB ,..(7)

10

The amount of gas phase in slug body zone is insignificant and 0

can be neglected to simplify the model. Then the momentum 200 700 1200 1700 2200 2700 3200

equation for the liquid phase (Eq. 4) can be applied to Time (s)

determine the pressure drop in the slug body zone. In the film
zone, the flow can be treated as stratified and the liquid film Fig. 7 Measured Pressure Drop vs. Elapsed Time
height can be calculated by using Eq. 6. After obtaining the
liquid level, the pressure drop can be estimated using Eq. 4 or Zhou et al.15 presented a mechanistic model that predicts the
Eq. 5. equilibrium condition based on mechanical equilibrium of a
stationary bed particle. According to this model, if the bed
C particles are totally submerged in the viscous sublayer, the
Dispersed Gas Bubble Slug Body Zone, LS Film Zone, LF
critical pressure gradient for a horizontal configuration is
G
obtained by:
Gas Pocket Gas Pocket
Liquid slug Body
4 L
d g S
P 4 L 3 p L , ..... (8)
=
L Liquid Film F x Critical d D C L + 3C D
p hy
Cuttings Bed
A B
Slug Unit, LU For particles that are larger than the thickness of the viscous
Fig. 6 Simplified Slug Flow Configurations sublayer (i.e., when particles are in the overlapped layer or
protrude into the logarithmic layer), the critical pressure
Dispersed Bubbly Flow. This flow pattern has a homogenous gradient for a horizontal configuration is obtained by:
nature. The liquid is treated as continuous phase and gas
*2
bubbles are dispersed in the liquid phase. The in-situ liquid p 4 u , ... (9)
= L C
and gas velocities are approximately equal because the slip x critical D hy
velocity between the two phases is negligible. Therefore, the
flow is treated as single-phase flow with representative where uc* is the critical friction velocity that corresponds to
mixture properties. the critical flow condition and is given by:

Equilibrium Bed Height 4 L

The momentum equations, Eq. 4 and 5, are able to predict d p g S
d p u *C L 3 L , ..... (10)
the pressure gradient, dp/dx, if the bed height is known. In 2.5u*C Ln + 5.5u *C =
L C L + 3C D
practice, when drilling a horizontal well cuttings beds
normally form if the fluid flow rate in the annulus can not
prevent the cuttings particles from deposition. As the bed where CL and CD are hydrodynamic drag and lift coefficients,
grows, the mean velocity and frictional pressure loss increase which are dependant on the pressure loss. An iterative
until an equilibrium condition is reached. Figure 7 presents procedure is necessary to determine the equilibrium bed height
experimentally measured pressure drop in the test section that satisfies Eq. 4 and Eq. 8 or 9 simultaneously15.
while the cuttings were being injected into the system. After
700 sec of test duration, the pressure loss started to increase
while the cuttings were being injected into the system. Finally,
6 SPE/IADC 92484
Results and Discussion
Frictional pressure losses across the annular section were
measured at steady state conditions. A cuttings injection rate
of approximately 7.5 kg/min was maintained during the test.
In addition to the air and water flow rates, the pressure drop in
aerated mud flow is strongly connected to: i) the annular
geometry (i.e. cuttings bed height, pipe and wellbore
diameters); ii) roughnesses of wellbore, drill pipe and cuttings
bed; and iii) the flow pattern. As a result, the pressure loss
shows different trends as the GLR ((gas volume fraction under
in-situ condition)) and liquid injection rate change.
Effect of GLR. Figure 8 shows the measured pressure drop
versus GLR for Test Group #1 (base case). At high liquid
injection rates (0.57 m3/min), the pressure loss gradually
decreases with increase in GLR. For the intermediate liquid
flow rates (0.38 and 0.45 m3/min), as the GLR increases, the
pressure loss slightly increases in the low GLR range and
gradually decreases in the high GLR range. This pattern of
pressure loss variation with GLR depends on inclination angle
and other flow parameters. As previously reported by
Pereira10, experimental data measured at different inclination
angles (30, 45 and 60 from vertical) indicated that the total pressure on the pressure loss at different liquid flow rates. For
pressure drop decreases with increase in GLR at a given liquid
flow rate. In general, the effect of GLR on the pressure drop
was moderate (maximum 25%).
Effect of Liquid Flow Rate. Figure 9 shows the measured
pressure drop as a function of liquid flow rate for different
GLRs. As the liquid injection rate or total flow rate increases
for a given value of GLR, the pressure loss slightly increases
in the low flow rate range (0.3 to 0.45 m3/min) and decreases
in the high flow rate range (0.45 to 0.57 m3/min). This
observation is different from conventional fluid pressure loss
measurements, which normally show decrease in frictional
pressure loss with increase in flow rate due to reduction in
cuttings bed height. For this set of tests, as liquid flow rate
increases, the cuttings bed thickness diminishes, which means
the effective flow area widens as the liquid flow increases15.
One possible explanation for this unexpected pressure increase
while the effective flow area is increasing could be change in
the aerated flow pattern. That is, depending on the aerated
mud flow characteristics above the equilibrium cuttings bed,
different flow patterns may form. In addition, the formation of
dunes in the intermediate liquid flow rate range may cause an
increase in pressure loss. During low liquid rate experiments,
cuttings dunes were observed in the test section. However, at
high liquid flow rates cuttings beds were more or less uniform.
In pressure driven flows such as underbalanced drilling
operations, where the pressure gradient is maintained
approximately at a constant level instead of the liquid rate, the
relationship between liquid flow rate and pressure loss would
be different. In this case the situation where the pressure loss
decreases while the flow rate increases would not be stable.
Therefore, this flow regime would not be found in practice. In
the practical case, the pressure loss will increase with the
liquid flow rate to the maximum value as indicated in Fig. 9. If
the pressure gradient increases more, the flow rate will
abruptly increase to a value higher than investigated in the
present work. Then the removal of cuttings bed will no longer
result in reduction of pressure gradient with increasing liquid
flow rate.
Effect of Temperature. The influence of temperature was
investigated by varying the temperature from 27 to 77C at
two different liquid flow rates (0.38 m3/min and 0.45 m3/min).
The test pressure was slightly varied (between 1.28 and 1.52
MPa), in order to cover wide range of GLRs at a given liquid
flow rate. The effect of slight change in pressure on the
pressure loss is assumed minimal. Figures 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13
present pressure loss measurements as a function of GLR at
different temperatures and liquid flow rates. Careful
examination of the figures reveals that the pressure loss
changes slightly with temperature. This is related to the fact
that with increase in temperature the bed height increases11;
however, the fluid viscosity decreases simultaneously. The
effect of bed thickness on the pressure loss is counteracted by
the effect of liquid phase viscosity.
Effect of Pressure. Experiments were performed at two
different pressures (1.52 MPa and 3.45 MPa) and liquid flow
rates (0.38 m3/min and 0.45 m3/min) to determine the effect of
this set of tests, GLR was varied from 0.0 to 0.3. Results are
presented from Fig. 12 to 15. The figures show slight pressure
loss variations as pressure changes from 1.52 to 3.45 MPa.
This supports our previous assumption that ignores the effect
of small pressure variation on the pressure loss.
Comparisons of Measurements and Predictions. Table 2
presents the measured frictional pressure losses, model
prediction and absolute average differences for the base case
(Test Group #1). The absolute average differences between
measured and predicted pressure losses at QL = 0.30, 0.38,
0.45 and 0.57 m3/min are 27.3%, 4.99%, 7.99% and 13.89%,
respectively. The overall average absolute difference for this
test group is 13.5%.
The experimental pressure loss data and model predictions
for low temperature tests (Test Group #2) are compared in
Figs. 10 and 11. The average absolute difference is 24.8% at
QL = 0.38 m3/min (Vsl = 0.6 m/s) and 14.67% at QL = 0.45
m3/min (Vsl = 0.7 m/s). The figures show that the model
follow the trend of data curves but over predicts the pressure
losses. The overall absolute average difference for this test
group is 19.7%.
Figures 12 and 13 show the measured and predicted
pressures loss with respect to GLR for high temperature tests
(Test Group #3). In this case, the model predicts lower
pressure drop. The average absolute difference between
measured data and model predictions for this test group is
11.31% at QL = 0.38 m3/min (Vsl = 0.6 m/s) and 13.71% at QL
= 0.45 m3/min (Vsl = 0.7 m/s). The overall absolute difference
is 12.5%.
Similarly, Figures 14 and 15 show the measured and
predicted differential pressures with respect to GLR for high
temperature and pressure tests (Test Group #4). At QL = 0.38
m3/min (Vsl = 0.6 m/s), absolute average difference between
measurements and model predictions is approximately 5%;
however, the model predicts lower pressure drop at QL = 0.45
m3/min (Vsl = 0.7 m/s), giving 14.9% absolute average
SPE/IADC 92484 7

difference. The overall absolute difference for this test group LD = liquid phase at the outer pipe wall
is 9.9%. GTB = gas pocket in the film zone
i = liquid-gas interface
Conclusions b = liquid-cuttings bed interface
Experimental and modeling studies were conducted for LLS = liquid phase in slug body
aerated mud flow with cuttings (three-phase flow). Tests were F = film zone
carried out at different pressures and temperatures. A S = slug body
hydraulic model for aerated mud drilling has been developed SL = superficial liquid
to predict frictional pressure loss in horizontal wells. Based on U = slug unit
the experimental results and model predictions the following
conclusion can be deduced: Acknowledgement
This paper was written with support of U.S. Department of
The effect of gas liquid ratio on the pressure loss is Energy under contract No. DE-FG26-99BC15178. The U.S.
moderate; Government reserves for itself and others acting on its behalf a
Liquid flow rate may increase or decrease the pressure royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license for
loss depending on range the liquid flow rate; Governmental purposes to publish, distribute, translate,
The pressure loss changes slightly with temperature and duplicate, exhibit and perform this copyrighted paper. In
pressure; addition, authors would like to thank all JIP members of the
The mechanistic model cuttings concentration predictions ACTS Project at the University of Tulsa for co-sponsoring this
show satisfactory agreement with the measured data. The work.
maximum difference between measurement and
prediction is 19.7%.
References
Nomenclature 1. Sunthankar. A.A.: Study of the Flow of Aerated Drilling
Fluids in Annulus under Ambient Temperature and Pressure
A = area, m2
Conditions, Ms. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 2002.
f = frictional factor 2. Barnea, D., Granica, D., Doron. P. and Taitel Y.: Hydraulic
h = liquid level, m transport of coarse particles with gas injection, 10th
L = Length, m International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of
D = inner diameter of casing, mm Solids in Pipes, October, 1986.
d = outer diameter of drillpipe, mm 3. Holte, S.: "Sand Bed Formation in Horizontal and Near
S = wetting perimeter, m Horizontal Gas-Liquid-Sand Flow," European Two-Phase
V = average velocity, m/s Group Meeting, Trondheim, June, 1987.
P = pressure, Pa 4. Gillies, R.G., McKibben, M.J., and Shook, C.A.: "Pipeline
Flow of Gas, Liquid and Sand Mixture at Low Velocities,"
dp = differential pressure, Pa
The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 39 (9), 36-
P = differential pressure, Pa 42, 1997.
dx = length increment, m 5. Tippetts, J. R. and Priestman, G. H.: "Mobility of Solids in
Ap = project area, m2 Multiphase undiluting pipe flow," Paper presented at the 7
CL = lift coefficient International Conference of Multiphase Production, Cannes,
CD = drag coefficient France 18-20 June, 1997.
dp = particle diameter, m 6. Li, J., and Walker, S.: Sensitivity Analysis of Hole Cleaning
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 Parameters in Directional Wells, paper SPE 74710,
uC* = critical friction velocity, m/s SPE/COTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas,
May, 1999.
P = pressure gradient, pa / m 7. Sharma, Y., Kamp, A., Yonezawa, T., Rivero, M.,
x
Kobayashi, A. and Gonzalez, J.: Simulating Aerated
Drilling, paper SPE-59424, presented at the SPE Asia
Greek Letters Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset
= dynamic viscosity, pa.s Management held in Yokohama, Japan, April 25-26, 2000.
s = solid density, kg/m3 8. Vieira, P.: Experimental Determination of Minimum Air
L = liquid density, kg/m3 and Water Flow Rates for Effective Cuttings Transport in
w = wall shear stress, Pa High Angle and Horizontal Wells, M.S. Thesis, University
of Tulsa, January, 2001.
9. Naganama, S., Atsushi, O., Masuda, Y., Yonezawa, T.,
Subscripts
Hoshino, M., Acuna, P.: "Cuttings Transport in Directional
L = liquid phase and Horizontal Wells While Aerated Mud Drilling," paper
M = mixture SPE/IADC 77195, presented at IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
G = gas phase Drilling Technology, held in Jakarta, Indonesia, September
P = pressure, psi 9-11, 2002.
Gd = gas phase at the inner pipe wall 10. Pereira, E.: Experimental Study of Hole Cleaning with an
GD = gas phase at the outer pipe wall Aerated Fluid at Intermediate Hole Angles, M.S. Thesis,
Ld = liquid phase at the inner pipe wall University of Tulsa, May 2003.
8 SPE/IADC 92484

11. Zhou, L., Ahmed, R.M, Miska, S.Z., Takach, N.E., Yu, M. Table 2 Model Prediction and Measured Data for Test Group #1
and Pickell, M.B. Experimental Study and Modeling of QL = 0.30 (m3/min) or Vsl=0.47 m/s
Cuttings Transport with Aerated Mud in Horizontal Wellbore Measured Predicted Absolute
at Simulated Downhole Conditions, SPE 90038, paper GLR Pressure Loss Pressure Loss Difference
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and (KPa) (KPa) (%)
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 2629 September 2004. 0.00 9.00 11.16 23.97
12. Taitel Y. and Dukler A.E.: A Model for Predicting Flow
Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas- 0.12 8.26 12.40 50.15
Liquid Flows. AICHE Journal, Vol.22, No.1, January, 1976. 0.24 9.54 11.66 22.14
13. Barnea D.: Transition from Annular Flow and from 0.38 9.88 11.16 12.95
Dispersed-Bubble Flow - Unified Models for the Whole
Average Absolute Difference (%) 27.3
Range of Pipe Inclinations, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 12,
733-744, 1986. QL = 0.38 (m3/min) or Vsl=0.60 m/s
14. Zhou, L., Ahmed, R.M., Miska, S.Z., Takach, N.E., Yu, M. Measured Predicted Absolute
and Pickell, M.B.: Experimental Study of Aerated Mud GLR Pressure Loss Pressure Loss Difference
Flows under Horizontal Borehole Conditions, SPE 89531, (KPa) (KPa) (%)
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition held 0 10.01 9.92 0.94
in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2324 March 2004. 0.12 9.85 10.42 5.74
15. Zhou, L.: Cuttings Transport with Aerated Mud in
Horizontal Annulus under Elevated Pressure and 0.24 10.01 10.29 2.82
Temperature Conditions, PhD Dissertation, University of 0.38 8.78 9.67 10.11
Tulsa, June, 2004. Average Absolute Difference (%) 4.9
16. Nguyen, D. and Rahman, S.S. A Three-Layer Hydraulic
QL = 0.45 (m3/min) or VL=0.70 m/s
Program for Effective Cuttings Transport and Hole Cleaning
in Highly Deviated and Horizontal Wells, SPE 51186, Measured Predicted Absolute
presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling GLR Pressure Loss Pressure Loss Difference
(KPa) (KPa) (%)
Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 9-11 September.
0 9.37 9.37 0.00
SI Metric Conversion Factors 0.12 10.09 9.72 3.66
ft 0.3048 E +00 = m 0.24 10.54 9.18 12.90
lbm0.454 E +00= Kg 0.38 9.96 8.43 15.38
inch 25.4 E -03 = m Average Absolute Difference (%) 7.99
in3/min 1.6387 E -05 = m3/min 3
QL = 0.57 (m /min) or Vsl=0.90 m/s
gal (US) 3.785 E +00 = liter Measured Predicted Absolute
psi 6.8948 E -03 = MPa GLR Pressure Loss Pressure Loss Difference
(KPa) (KPa) (%)
0 8.31 8.43 1.49
Table 1 Test Parameters 0.12 7.45 8.48 13.77

Group Identification
Number P T 0.24 7.18 8.18 13.99
of Tests (MPa) (oC)
0.38 6.28 7.94 26.33
Group #1 Base case 16 1.38 49 Average Absolute Difference (%) 13.89

Group #2 Low Temperature 8 1.28 27

Group #3 High Temperature 8 1.52 77

High Temperature &

Group #4 7 3.45 80
Pressure
SPE/IADC 92484 9

12
12 Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus

10
Pressure Drop [KPa]

Differential Pressure (KPa)

10

Q =0.30 m 3/m in,Vsl=0.47 m /s 8

6
Q =0.38 m 3/m in,Vsl=0.60 m /s
Q =0.45 m 3/m in,Vsl=0.70 m /s
Q =0.57 m 3/m in,Vsl=0.90 m /s
4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
GLR
Gas Liquid Ratio

Fig. 8 Measured Differential Pressure vs. GLR for Test Group #1 Fig. 11 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR
(T= 49oC, P = 1.38 MPa) for Test Group #2 (QL=0.45 m3/min, T=27oC, P= 1.28 MPa)

S uperficial Liquid V elo city [m /s]

12
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus
12
Pressure Drop [KPa]

Differential Pressure (KPa)

10
10

8
GLR=0

6 GLR=0.12 8

GLR=0.24
GLR=0.38
4 4

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

6
Liquid Flow Rate [m 3/min] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Gas Liquid Ratio

Fig. 9 Measured Differential Pressure vs. Liquid Flow Rate for Fig. 12 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR
Test Group #1 (T= 49oC, P = 1.38 MPa) for Test Group #3 (QL=0.38 m3/min, T=77oC, P= 1.52 MPa)

16 12
Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus

12
Differential Pressure (KPa)

10
Differential Pressure (KPa)

0 6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Gas Liquid Ratio Gas Liquid Ratio

Fig. 10 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR Fig. 13 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR
for Test Group #2 (QL=0.38 m3/min, T=27oC, P= 1.28 MPa) for Test Group #3 (QL=0.45 m3/min, T=77oC, P= 1.52 MPa)
10 SPE/IADC 92484

12
Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Differential Pressure (KPa)

10

6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Gas Liquid Ratio

Fig. 14 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR

for Test Group #4 (QL=0.38 m3/min, T=80 oC, P= 3.45 MPa)

12
Measured Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Predicted Differential Pressure in the Annulus
Differential Pressure (KPa)

10

6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Gas Liquid Ratio

Fig. 15 Measured and Predicted Differential Pressure vs. GLR

for Test Group #4 (QL=0.45 m3/min, T=80 oC, P= 3.45 MPa)