Development of a New CuttingsTransport

Model for HighAngle Wellbores Including

Horizontal Wells
T.I. Larsen,* SPE, Unocal Corp., A.A. Pilehvari,* SPE, Texas A&M U., and J.J. Azar, SPE, U. of Tulsa

Summary
This paper presents a new design model that will enable the drilling
engineer to select the proper hydraulics for problem-free drilling in
high-angle holes (from 55 to 90 from vertical). Empirical correlations have been developed after carrying out an extensive experimental study of cuttings transport in a 5-in. full-scale flowloop. The model
predicts the required critical transport fluid velocity (CTFV), the average cuttings travel velocity (CTV), and the annular cuttings concentration under most given sets of drilling operating conditions.
Introduction
The majority of the previous studies on cuttings transport have been
qualitative examinations of the effects of different variables.1-6 A
few attempts to model the rather complex nature of cuttings transport have been made.6,7 This study focused on combining the experimental results with basic theoretical principles to develop an empirical predictive model for cuttings transport.
First, an extensive experimental test program investigated all
variables believed to control annular hole cleaning for angles of inclination from 55 to 90. The experimental part of this study focused
on the annular fluid velocity needed to prevent cuttings from depositing in the wellbore, a concept that has been used in horizontal pipe
flow in slurry transport. In addition, lower fluid velocities such that
a cuttings bed would form in the annulus were also investigated.
Secondly, an empirical model based on the experimental results
was developed to predict the minimum fluid velocity needed to keep
all cuttings moving, the average CTV, and the cuttings concentration in the annulus for any fluid velocity lower than the minimum.
Definitions
Critical Transport Fluid Velocity (CTFV). The CTFV is defined
as the minimum fluid velocity required to maintain a continuously
upward movement of the cuttings. In other words, at CTFV and
higher no cuttings will accumulate on the low side of the wellbore.
Subcritical Fluid Flow (SCFF). If the annular fluid velocity is lower than the CTFV, cuttings will start to accumulate in the wellbore.
Any flow rate corresponding to an annular velocity below the CTFV
is referred to as SCFF.
Experimental Setup
The experimental testing was conducted in a 5-in. diameter annulus,
which was 35 ft long with a 2.375-in. rotating inner (drill) pipe. The
drillpipe eccentricity varied from negative (*62%) to positive
(+62%). The cuttings were injected into an annulus through an auger system, while the fluid was pumped from a mud tank. After exiting the annulus, all cuttings were weighed on a scale.
Summary of Experimental Work
The experimental results used to develop the model were part of a
study of more than 700 tests designed to investigate the CTFV and
*Previously with U. of Tulsa
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 26 July 1993. Paper peer approved 12 March
1997. Paper (SPE 25872) first presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, 2628 April.

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

the SCFF while evaluating the effect of the following variables:

flow rate, angle of inclination, mud rheology, mud density, cuttings
size, drillpipe eccentricity, and rate of penetration (ROP).
The model presented in this paper was developed based on the
data gathered at angles of inclination ranging from 55 to 90 from
vertical. Table 1 shows the rheological properties for the three unweighted and two weighted water-based muds that were tested in
addition to water.
The three cuttings sizes, by mean weight distribution, were 0.275
in. (large), 0.175 in. (medium), and 0.09 in. (small), and the cuttingsbed porosities (f) were 41, 36, and 39% respectively.
The CTFV and the SCFF were found experimentally using a positive (+62%) drillpipe eccentricity, corresponding to the pipe resting
on the tool joints 0.5 in. above the low side of the annulus. This was
done to simulate the worst condition in terms of cuttings transport.
Three cuttings injection rates of 10, 20, and 30 lbm/min, which
correspond to a ROP of 27, 54, and 81 ft/hr in a 5.0-in. hole, were
investigated. The results showed that the effect of rev/min was negligible for the experimental setup used in this study (drillpipe limited to only rotate around its own axis by centralizers). The pipe was
rotated at 50 rev/min throughout the experiments.
The effect of the above variables will be presented when comparing the model predictions and the experimental results in the Results and Discussion section of this paper.
Development of Equations To Predict the CTFV
The CTFV is found by adding the average CTV to the equivalent
slip velocity (ESV), as shown in Eq. 17. The ESV is defined as the
velocity difference between the cuttings and the drilling fluid.
Cuttings Transport Velocity (CTV). It can be shown that the CTV
can be expressed through a simple mass balance on the cuttings as
M g d + M tm , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
g cut Q inj + V cut A ann C concf r g cut , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
and V cut +

Q inj
;
A annC concfr

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

converting from Qinj (volumetric injection rate) to ROP, as in

3, 600hr secA

ft 3
R p ft + Q inj sec
hr

1
hole

ft 2

. . . . . . . . . (4)

substituting for Qinj , from Eq. 4, into Eq. 3, while expressing concentration in percent, as in
V cut +

Rp

A pipe
36 1 *
A hole
or V cut +

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

C conc

Rp

D pipe
36 1 *
D hole

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

conc

It was found from the experimental data that the annular cuttings
concentration, by volume, at CTFV can be expressed as a function
129

TABLE 1RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES GIVEN BY DIAL RANGES

FOR THE FANN VISCOMETER
At 600 rev/min,
At 300 rev/min,
At 200 rev/min,
At 100 rev/min,
At 6 rev/min,
At 3 rev/min,
10-second gel, lbf/100 ft2
10-minute gel, lbf/100 ft2
Yp , lbf/100 ft2
mp , cp
Mud weight, lbm/gal

Mud 1

Mud 2

Mud 3

Mud 4

Mud 5

20 to 24
13 to 16
11 to 13
7 to 9
2 to 3
1 to 2
3 to 4
4 to 5
6 to 8
7 to 10
8.57

41 to 46
27 to 31
22 to 25
14 to 17
4 to 5
3 to 4
5 to 7
8 to 10
14 to 16
13 to 16
8.65

72 to 76
48 to 52
39 to 41
27 to 29
12 to 13
11 to 12
16 to 18
45 to 50
24 to 26
24 to 27
8.7

46 to 50
29 to 33
24 to 26
14 to 16
3 to 4
2 to 3
3 to 4
11 to 12
14 to 16
15 to 17
11.0

70 to 74
41 to 44
31 to 33
20 to 22
4 to 5
3 to 4
5 to 6
20 to 22
14 to 16
27 to 29
15.0

of the ROP for angles of inclination from 55 to 90. Fig. 1 shows the
cuttings concentration vs. ROP for water, three bentonite muds
(muds 1, 2, and 3), two weighted muds (muds 4 and 5), and three
different cuttings sizes. Fig. 1 can be expressed in terms of cuttings
concentration and ROP by the equation
C conc + 0.01778 R p ) 0.505.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)

The CTV can, by combining Eqs. 6 and 7, be expressed as

V cut +

(0.64 ) 18.16
R )

D pipe
1*
D hole

. . . . . . . . . . . (8)

Eq. 8 shows that the CTV at a flow rate corresponding to the CTFV
is independent of mud rheology, mud weight, and angle of inclination
between 55 and 90. This simply confirms that the experimental tests
were performed according to the definition of the CTFV (minimum
fluid velocity required to maintain cuttings movement). Note that if
the average cutting is not traveling at this velocity, the slowest-moving cuttings will start to accumulate in the annulus.
ESV and Its Correction Factors. The ESV can be predicted by calculating the apparent viscosity (from Eq. 11), as shown in Fig. 2.
The figure was generated by using Eq. 8, Eq. 17, and the experimental results of water and muds 1, 2, and 3 with the large cuttings size.
Using linear regression, Fig. 2 can be represented by

where the apparent viscosity is given by8

ma + mp )

5 Y p(D hole * D pipe)

.
V crit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)

To generalize these equations, correction factors for angle of inclination, cuttings size, and mud weight have been introduced. Note
that the Vcrit (CTFV) used in Eq. 11 is the velocity we are looking
for and is not yet known. Therefore, an iterative procedure will be
required. Vcrit needs to be estimated initially. (Refer to Appendix A
for a sample calculation.)
Angle of Inclination Correction Factor. The angle of inclination
correction factor was found by dividing the experimental CTFV
mean for the individual angles (90, 75, 65, and 55) by the average
of all angles, as shown in Fig. 3 (which shows that angles ranging
from 65 to 80 are slightly harder to clean) or the equation
C ang + 0.0342q ang0.000233q 2 ang0.213. . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
Cuttings-Size Correction Factor. The cuttings-size correction
factor, shown in Fig. 4, is generated by dividing the average results
of large, medium, and small cuttings by that of the large cuttings,
while using mud 1. It is also represented by the equation
C size + 1.04D 50 cut ) 1.286. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

and V slip + 0.02554 m a53 ) 3.28 for m a u 53 cp, . . . (10)

Mud-Weight Correction Factor. The correction for mud weight

has been based on muds 2 (8.65 lbm/gal) and 4 (11.0 lbm/gal). The
test results for mud 5 (15.0 lbm/gal) were not incorporated into this
correction factor since the plastic viscosity (mp ) could not be kept at
14 cp, as the case was for the two other muds, but rather rose to 28

Fig. 1Cuttings concentration vs. ROP at CTFV.

Fig. 2Equivalent slip velocity vs. apparent viscosity.

V slip + 0.00516 m a ) 3.006 for m a t 53 cp, . . . . . . . . (9)

130

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

Fig. 3Correction factor for angle of inclination.

cp. Thus, the effect of density was not totally isolated. Fig. 5 can be
used to find the correction factor for mud weight, as can the equations
C mw t + 10.0333(g m8.7)
and C mw t + 1.0

g m t 8.7.

g m u 8.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)

Therefore the generalized ESV is expressed as

V slip + V slip C ang C size C mwt .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

Determining CTFV. The CTFV can be found by adding the CTV

(from Eq. 8) to the generalized ESV (from Eq. 16), as in
V crit + V cut ) V slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
Annular-Cuttings-Concentration Prediction For SCFF. For a
given SCFF rate, cuttings will start to deposit in the wellbore. The
cuttings accumulation, or cuttings bed, will grow until the area open
to flow above the bed is so restricted that the fluid is capable of transporting out all the cuttings entering the annulus.9 Steady state is
achieved whenever the cuttings bed will neither grow nor erode.
Then, the velocity in the open area above the bed is assumed to be
equal to the CTFV. By neglecting flow through the cuttings bed itself, the assumption can be made that
V open + V crit , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

Fig. 5Correction for mud weight.

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

Fig. 4Correction factor for cutting size.

where Vopen is the average fluid velocity above cuttings bed at

steady state, and Vcrit is the CTFV (no cuttings accumulation).
In terms of flow rate and the corresponding area open to flow, the
above equation becomes
Q pump
Q
+ crit , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
A open
A ann
where Qpump is the pump, or operating, flow rate; Qcrit is the flow
rate corresponding to CTFV; Aopen is the area open to flow above the
cuttings bed; and Aann is the total area of the annulus.
The area occupied by the cuttings bed (Abed ) can be calculated by
combining Eq. 19 with the equation
A bed + A annA open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
to achieve

A bed + A ann 1

Q pump
Q crit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

The cuttings concentration (Cbconc ), or average cross-sectional

area of the cuttings in the annulus, can be calculated by using the cuttings bed porosity (f), as in
C bconcfr +

A cut
A ann

A cut + A ann 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)

Q pump
(1f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
Q crit

Fig. 6Uncorrected SCFF predictions.

131

Fig. 7Effect of pipe eccentricity at CTFV.

C bconc + 100 1

Q pump
1f .
Q crit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)

Eq. 24 is the basis for cuttings concentration calculations for any

given fluid flow rate that corresponds to a velocity lower then the
CTFV. A more accurate result can be obtained by incorporating a
correction factor.
Correction Factor for Cuttings Concentration for SCFF. The
prediction (calculated by Eq. 24) of cuttings concentration at a
SCFF rate of 110 gpm is fairly close to the experimental values for
water and mud 1 data, as shown in Fig. 6. A slight overprediction
can be seen. Note that the predicted cuttings concentration for this
figure is based on the actual (experimental) CTFV.
For higher-viscosity muds an even larger overprediction of the
cuttings concentration was experienced. The location of the drillpipe during CTFV testing caused the overprediction of the cuttings
concentration. As Fig. 7 shows, a positive eccentricity requires a
higher flow rate to reach CTFV because the mud velocity slows
down in the narrow section of the annulus, causing a diversion of
flow to the more open area. The narrow section of the annulus is located below the pipe, where the cuttings are transported in highly
deviated wellbores, for a positive eccentric pipe. This narrow section will be covered by accumulated cuttings for SCFF testing, and
the velocity distribution above the cuttings bed will be more uniform. It was found that the diversion of flow increases as the viscosity of the mud increases, while the diversion effect is reduced for
lower-viscosity fluids, such as water. To compensate for this diversion of flow to the more open area of the annulus, a correction factor
has been introduced for the SCFF predictions. This factor has been
generated from the mean SCFF results using all variables, as shown
in Fig. 8. In order not to underpredict the cuttings concentration, the
correction factor was estimated conservatively.
Using linear regression, Fig. 8 can be reproduced by
C bed + 0.970.00231m a .

Fig. 8SCFF correction factor.

mud 3 and water, according to viscosity. Low-viscosity muds, or

water, perform better in high-angle wells because the fluid velocity
below the drillpipe is higher. As stated earlier, a positive eccentric
drillpipe resting on tool joints on the low side of hole will cause
higher-viscosity muds to divert more flow from the narrow section
below the drillpipe where the cuttings are transported to the open
section above the pipe, as shown in Fig. 7.
A change in ROP and a variation in cuttings size were predicted
by the model, as respectively shown in Figs. 10 and 11. To reach
CTFV a higher velocity is needed for an increase in ROP, as shown
in Fig. 10. Fig. 11 shows that a smaller cuttings size requires a larger
flow rate to reach CTFV.
An increase in mud weight will improve cuttings transport, as
shown in Fig. 12, where mud 2 (8.65 lbm/gal) is compared to mud
4 (11.0 lbm/gal). The intention was to maintain the mp at 14 cp and
the yield point (Yp ) at 14 lbf/100 ft2 while increasing the mud
weight. This was not successful for mud 5 (15.0 lbm/gal) where the
mp increased to about 28 cp. This higher viscosity, for the positive
eccentric annulus, affected the enhancement gained by a higher mud
density. For this mud the density effect could not be isolated.
SCFF. The predicted SCFF cuttings-concentration values, which
are based on the calculated CTFV values, are compared to the experimental results in Figs. 13 and 14.
The effect of rheology on cuttings concentration for two different
SCFF rates [150 gal/min (3.17 ft/sec) and 110 gal/min (2.32 ft/sec)],

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)

The generalized cuttings concentration can be found from

C bconc + C bconc

C bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)

Results and Discussion

Prediction of the model vs. the experimental results are examined
and the effect of the variables are discussed below.
CTFV. A higher viscosity requires a larger flow rate to reach CTFV,
as shown in Fig. 9. The figure shows the predicted vs. the experimental CTFV for mud 3 and water. Mud 1 and mud 2 fall between
132

Fig. 9Effect of rheology for predicted vs. experimental CTFV.

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

Fig. 10Effect of ROP for predicted vs. experimental CTFV.

Fig. 11Effect of cuttings size for predicted vs. experimental

CTFV.

Fig. 12Effect of mud weight for predicted vs. experimental

CTFV.

Fig. 13Effect of rheology for predicted vs. experimental SCFF

corresponding to 3.17 ft/sec.

are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. Annular cuttings concentrations of mud

1 and mud 3 are predicted fairly closely, while that of mud 2 is overpredicted by about 14% for both 150 and 110 gal/min flow rates.
By comparing Figs. 13 and 14, it can be noted that dropping the
flow rate from 150 gal/min to 110 gal/min caused the annular cuttings concentration to increase by a factor of about 1.6.
Conclusion
Based on an extensive experimental testing program, gathered in a
5-in. diameter full-scale flowloop, simple empirical correlations
have been developed for predictions of CTV, CTFV, and the cuttings
concentration for SCFF rates. The predictions can be read easily
from the charts, hand calculated, or programmed on a personal computer. A sample calculation can be found in the Appendix.
Please note that as a continuation of this project a hole-size correction factor for the CTFV predictions has recently been developed by
Jalukar et al.10 No correction factor was needed for SCFF predictions.
Nomenclature
Aann + area of annulus, ft2
Abed + area of cuttings bed, ft2
Acut + area occupied by cuttings in the annulus, ft2
Ahole + area of the drilled hole, ft2
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

Aopen +
Apipe +
Cang +
Cbed +
Cconc +
Cconc-fr +
C+
Cbconc +
Cbconc-fr +
Cbconc +
Cmwt +
Csize +
D50sut +
Dhole +
Dpipe +
Mgd +
Mtm +

area open to flow above the cuttings bed, ft2

area of drillpipe or drill collars, ft2
correction factor for angle, nondimensional
correction factor for cuttings concentration,
nondimensional
cuttings concentration by volume at CTFV, %
fractional cuttings concentration by volume at CTFV,
nondimensional
correlation factor for the ESV, nondimensional
cuttings concentration for a stationary bed (by
volume), corrected for viscosity, %
fractional cuttings concentration for a stationary bed
(by volume), corrected for viscosity,
nondimensional
cuttings concentration for a stationary bed (by
volume), not corrected for viscosity, %
correction factor for mud weight, nondimensional
correction factor for cuttings size, nondimensional
mean cuttings size, in.
diameter of drilled hole, in.
diameter of drillpipe, in.
mass generated by drill bit, lbm
mass transported by mud, lbm
133

TABLE A-1PARAMETERS FOR SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Drilling fluid
Yield point, Yp, lbf/100 ft2
Plastic viscosity, mp, cp
Flow rate, Qpump, gal/min
Angle,
Cuttings size, D50cut, in.
Mud weight, lbm/gal
Drilling rate, ft/hr
Hole diameter, Dhole, in.
Pipe diameter, Dpipe, in.

mud 1
7
7
110
65
0.175; medium
8.57
54
5
2.375

Bed porosity, %

Fig. 14Effect of rheology for predicted vs. experimental SCFF

corresponding to 2.32 ft/sec.

Qinj +
Qpump +
Rp +
Vcrit +
Vcut +
Vcritguess +
Vcritcalc +
Vopen +
Vslip +
Vslip +
Yp +
f+
gcut +
gm +
ma +
mp +
qang +

volumetric injection rate of cuttings, ft3/sec

operating, or desired, pump flow rate, gpm
ROP, ft/hr
CTFV, ft/sec
CTV, ft/sec
CTFV based on estimated ESV for apparent viscosity
calculations, ft/sec
iterated CTFV used to calculate a new and more
accurate apparent viscosity, ft/sec
velocity in open area above cuttings bed, ft/sec
ESV corrected for angle, cuttings size and mud
weight, ft/sec
uncorrected ESV, ft/sec
yield point based on 600 and 300 rev/min from fann
viscometer readings, lbf/100 ft2
porosity of cuttings bed, or packed bed free space,
nondimensional
density of rock cuttings, lbm/ft3
density of mud, lbf/gal or ppg
apparent viscosity, cp
plastic viscosity based on 300 and 600 rev/min fann
viscometer readings, cp
angle of inclination of the wellbore from vertical,

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the member companies of the Tulsa U.
Drilling Research Project for their technical and financial support
for this project.
References
1. Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., and Azar, J.J.: Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in Directional Well Drilling, SPEDE (Feb. 1986), 43.
2. Okranji, S.S. and Azar J.J.: Mud Cuttings Transport in Directional Well
Drilling, paper SPE 14178 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2225 Sept.
3. Becker, T.E., Azar, J.J., and Okranji, S.S.: Correlations of Mud Rheological Properties with Cuttings Transport Performance in Directional
Drilling, paper SPE presented at the 1989 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 811 Oct.
4. Sifferman, T.R. and Becker, T.E.: Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale Inclined
Wellbores, SPEDE (June 1992) 115.
5. Martin, M., Georges, C., Bisson, P. and Konirsch, O.: Transport of Cuttings in Directional Wells, paper SPE/IADC 16083 presented at the
1987 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 1518 March.
6. Gavignet, A.A. and Sobey, I.J.: Model Aids Cuttings Transport Prediction,, JPT (Sept. 1989), 916.
7. Luo, Y., and Bern, P.A.: Flow-Rate Predictions for Cleaning Deviated
Wells, paper IADC/SPE presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, 1821 Feb.
134

36

8. Bourgoyne, A.T., et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook

Series, Vol.2, Richardson, Texas (1986) pp. 110189.
9. Ponce-Campos, C.D. et al.: A Model for the Calculation of Hold-Up
in Turbulent Solid-Liquid Flow, J. Of Pipelines,4 (1984), 177183.
10. Jalukar, L.S. et al.: Extensive Experimental Investigation of Hole Size
Effect on Cuttings Transport in Directional Well Drilling, paper presented at the ASME Fluids Engineering Division Annual Summer Meeting, San Diego, California, 712 July (1996).

AppendixSample Calculations
Objective
To calculate the CTV, CTFV, and cuttings concentration at an SCFF
rate of 110 gal/min by using the empirical correlations, given the
conditions in Table A-1.
CTFV Prediction
Cuttings Concentration at CTFV. Using Eq. 7,
C conc + 0.01778

54 ) 0.505 + 1.47%. . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)

Average CTV at CTFV. Using Eq. 6,

V cut +

54

36 1 2.375
5.0

1.47
2

+ 1.32 ft sec.

. . . . . . . (A-2)

Note that the CTV (from Eq. A-2) can be calculated directly by Eq. 8.
ESV. To find the ESV, the apparent viscosity has to be calculated.
The apparent viscosity will be calculated by estimating the Vcrit and
iterating until an acceptable value has been obtained. First, the ESV
has to be estimated, for example, 3.3 ft/sec. The estimated ESV will
be added to the CTV (from A-2), as given in Eq. 17, to get
V critguess + 1.32 ft sec ) 3.30 ft sec + 4.62 ft sec.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
Using Eq. 11 to calculate the estimated apparent viscosity,
ma + 7 )

(5.02.375)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
4.62

yields m a + 26.9 cp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)

Using Eq. 9 to calculate a new estimate of the ESV,
V slip + 0.00516

26.9 ) 3.006 + 3.14 ft sec. . . . . (A-6)

For better accuracy, the calculated Vslip from Eq. A-6 is used to
calculate a new apparent viscosity, using Eq. 17 once more for
V critcalc + 1.32 ft sec ) 3.14 ft sec + 4.46 ft sec.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

and Q crit + 231 galmin.

New apparent viscosity (with Eq. 11) gives

ma + 7 )

(5.02.375)
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8)
4.46

yielding m a + 27.6 cp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-9)

27.6 ) 3.006 + 3.15 ft sec. . . . (A-10)

Eq. A-10 yields 3.15 ft/sec, compared to Eq. A-6, which yielded
3.14 ft/sec. This is close enough. In other words, the ESV is not very
sensitive to Vcrit . Note that, for simplicity, the uncorrected Vcrit has
been used to calculate the apparent viscosity.
Angle of Inclination Correction Factor. Using Eq. 12 for
C ang + 0.0342

650.000233

65 20.213 + 1.026.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-11)
Cuttings-Size Correction Factor. Using Eq. 13 for
C size + 1.04

0.175 ) 1.286 + 1.10.

. . . . . . . . . . (A-12)

Mud-Weight Correction Factor. It is not necessary to correct for

mud weight because the mud weight is below 8.70 ppg. The correction factors can be found from Eqs. 14 and 15, for
C mwt + 1.0.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-13)

ESV. The corrected ESV is found by combining all the correction

factors, as shown in Eq. 16, for
V slip + 3.15

1.026

1.10

Cuttings will accumulate in the wellbore because the flow rate

corresponding to the CTFV is 231 gpm, which is higher than the
pump operating flow rate of 110 gpm.
The cuttings accumulation can be found from Eq. 24, for

Calculate the new ESV (with Eq. 9) as

V slip + 0.00516

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-19)

1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-14)

and V slip + 3.56 ft sec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-15)

CTFV. Add the CTV to the ESV for CTFV, as shown in Eq. 17, for
V crit + 1.32 ft sec ) 3.56 ft sec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-16)
and V crit + 4.88 ft sec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-17)
Cuttings Concentration Prediction for SCFF
The CTFV needs to be converted to flow rate to compare it to the
pump operating flow rate.

C bconc + 1 110 (10.36)100 + 33.5%.

231

. . . . . . . . . (A-20)

Correction for Cuttings Concentration for SCFF. The correction

factor can be found from Eq. 25 by using the apparent viscosity previously from Eq. A-9 to give
C bed + 0.970.00231

27.6 cp + 0.906. . . . . . . . . (A21)

Corrected Cuttings Concentration. From Eq. 26,

C bconc + 33.5 0.906 + 30.4%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A22)
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp 1.0*
E*03 +Pa@s
ft 3.048*
E*01 +m
ft2 9.290 304* E*02 +m2
ft3 2.831 685
E*02 +m3
gal 3.785 412
E*03 +m3
in. 2.54*
E)00 +cm
lbf 4.448 222
E)00 +N
lbm 4.535 924
E*01 +kg
SPEDC

*Conversion factor is exact.

T.I. Larsen has worked for Unocal Corp. in Lafayette, Lousiana, for
the past 7 years. He holds BS and MS degrees (1988 and 1990, re
spectively) from the U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has conducted ex
tensive testing on cuttings transport in deviated holes at the Tulsa
U. Drilling Research Project's flowloop. Ali Pilehvari is an associate
professor in the Dept. of Chemical and Natural Gas Engineering
at Texas A&M U. in Kingsville, Texas. He was formerly a visiting assis
tant professor in the petroleum engineering department at the U.
of Tulsa, and he was the assistant director of the Tulsa U. Drilling Re
search Projects. Pilehvari earned a BS degree in chemical engi
neering from Tehran Polytechnic in 1972, and a PhD degree in
chemical engineering from the U. of Tulsa in 1984. J.J. Azar is a pro
fessor of petroleum engineering and past director of the U. of Tulsa
Drilling Research Project. He has extensive experience in applied
industrial drilling research and teaching. He lectures and consults
worldwide and is the author or coauthor of books in drilling engi
neering and structures. Azar holds a PhD degree in mechanical
engineering from the U. of Oklahoma. He served as a member of
the Career Guidance Committee Educational/Professional Tech
nical Committee and was a student chapter faculty sponsor.

Converting CTFV to Flow Rate. Cross-sectional area of the annulus is Aann +0.10559 ft2, so

ft
Q crit + 4.88 sec

sec 7.48 gal

601 min
1 ft 0.10559
3

ft 2 ,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-18)

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1997

Larsen

Pilehvari

Azar

135