Design of Muds for Carrying Capacity
R. 
E. Walker, SPEAIME,LamarU. 
T. 
M. Mayes, SPEAIME, Milchem, Inc. 
Introduction
Hole cleaning is an important function of a drilling liquid. The ability to predict the degree of cleaning possible for a given mud and flow rate is a definite advantage in'plan ning and completing a successful drilling operation. The prediction is normally made by calculating 'the transport velocity, the difference in the annular velocity and the slip velocity of the particles, by assuming the slip veloc ity is equal to the terminal settling velocity of the particle in a stationary liquid. The settling velocity is easily calcu lated if the annular flow is turbulent or the particle settles in the turbulent regime. Under these conditions, the slip velocity depends on the density difference between the mud and the particle and on the particle shape and size. The slip velocity is not a function of the liquid viscosity. However, these settling velocities may be high, up to 74 ft/min for a shale sphere Vs in. in diameter, and high annular velocities are needed to clean the hole. There are many cases where high annular velocities are unavailable and/or undesirable. Annular velocities may be low because of pump limitations or an enlarged hole, or may be low where risers are used. Also, it may be necessary to restrict annular velocity to minimize the equivalent circulating density or to maintain laminar flow opposite drill collars. If turbulentregime slip velocities are too high for the annular velocities, the viscous proper ties of the liquid must be increased until the particle falls in a transition or laminar regime where slip velocities are influenced by viscous forces. Unfortunately, none of the methods proposed in the literature for predicting terminal
settling velocities in the transition or laminar regimes are suitable for field application. Most of the theoretical and
experimental work is with spheres1~810~13~14 or with
uids that are almost Newtonian. _{5}_{~}_{6} In work using non Newtonian liquids, the rheological measurements are not sufficient for defining properties in the experimental range, ^{6} or the prediction equations use rheological mod els with constants defined in a shearrate range different than that of the experimental work. ^{4} One stud y 19 uses
viscosities not associated with that of the liquid surround
ing the particle, while another study 13 provides
so complex that it is impractical for field use. An assumption that the terminal settling velocity will be the'same as the slip velocity is questionable because of the complex motion of the particle in the annulus. The moving liquid has a velocity profile, near parabolic in form, that is affected by hole geometry, liquid flow properties, and pipe rotation. 11 The particles tilt with the velocity profile, which in turn affects their settling veloc ity. Drillpipe rotation introduces a centrifugal force caus ing radial migration, 15 and some particles are also trapped near the pipe.18~19 If the mud is nonNewtonian,
the viscosity of the liquid around the particle is depen dent on the settling velocity and the flowing velocity profile. An additional complication is the various shapes a cutting or caving may have. Improvement in methods for predicting successful hole cleaning is dependent on a better understanding of how viscous forces retard particle settling. Practical ap
liq
a solution
The ability to predict the degree of hole cleaning possible with a given mud andflow rate is an advantage in successfully planning and completing a drilling operation. A simple, reasonably accurate, mathematicalprediction technique is developed that can be used in the field.
JULY, 1975
893
plications of methods for improving hole cleaning require a simple approach. The objectives of this paper are. to relate the size, density, and slip velocities of cuttings and cavings to the shear stress vs the shear rate relationship of the liquid and to establish a simple mathematical pro cedure applicable to field use.
Settling Velocity
The settling velocity of any particle depends on a number of factors such as the density and flow properties of the liquid and the volume, density, and shape of the particle. Nonnally, the relations are correlated by plotting a drag coefficient vs a Reynolds number. The drag coefficient is defined as twice the net vertical force (volume times density difference) divided by the product of the particle velocity squared, projected area of the particle, and the liquid density. The Reynolds number contains a liquid viscosity term. convenient for Newtonian liquids, but unsuitable for nonNewtonian liquids. Work with Newtonian liquids shows that the drag coefficient vs the Reynoldsnumber relation can be di vided into three regimes: turbulent, laminar, and transi tion. In the turbulent regime, the only resistance slowing the fall of the particle is caused by the momentum forces of the liquid; viscosity plays no part. Thus, if a particle is falling in the turbulent regime, increasing the mud viscos ity will not slow the settling rate until the viscosity is increased sufficiently to force a change from the turbulent to the transition or the laminar regime. In the laminar regime, the entire resistance slowing the fall is caused by the viscous forces of the liquid; the momentum forces are negligible. The drag coefficient in this regime varies inversely with the Reynolds number. Between the two regimes is the transition regime, where both viscous and momentum forces retard the falling particle. If the flow in an annulus is turbulent, a particle slips in turbulence. If the flow is laminar, a particle may slip in a turbulent, transition, or laminar regime depending on its geometry and on the viscous proptrties of the liquid. Work with Newtonian liquids2~7 indicates that the laminartransitionregime change for a particle occurs at a Reynolds number between 0.1 and 0.3 and the change from the transition to turbulent regime occurs at a Reynolds n\lmber of 100. The approach used in this paper to develop a useful method for predicting slip velocities is to assume a simple set of conditions and develop predictive equations. The results are compared with laboratory experiments and with the results of the work of others. The problem is simplified by assuming a disk shape that is the simplest shape consistent with a cutting form. It also assumes that the qisk falls flat",side down, which represents the condition for the highest terminal settling velocity. Drag coefficients are established for this disk shape and orientation, and the relations with Reynolds numbers for each flow regime are assumed from Newto nian liquid data. An assumption is then made about the viscosity term in the Reynolds number to develop the settlingrate equation as a function of the liquid shear stress and the shear rate.
E,quation Development
Terminal settling velocity equations are developed by combining the drag coefficient and the Reynolds number
894
V p
=
(

2 )3/4
24
(1)
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
redefined and the shear stress equation (Eq. 7) had to be modified. This resulted in a more complex calculation that was only slightly more accurate than can be obtained by extrapolating Eq. 8 into the laminar regime. So Eq. 8 is used for both laminar and transition regimes.
Laboratory Experiments
Laboratory experiments were conducted to establish the degree of accuracy. of Eqs. 6 and 8 in predicting terminal settling velocities. Terminal settling velocity refers to that observed in static conditions, whereas slip velocity represents the particle fall rate under dynamic conditions. The experiments were made by timing the fall of parti cles inside a 6~in.ID, 5fthigh glass tube. Data were obtained for three densities of disks with specific gravities from 1.38 to 8.77. The disks ranged in size from 1M to 1 in. in diameter and from 1/32 to lh in. in thickness. Five liquids with· varying flow properties were used to provide a range of data in the laminar, transition, and turbulent regimes. The specific gravity of all the liquids
was·1.0.
The slip .velocities were timed with a stop watch for the lower velocities experienced with the first three liq uids. A photoelectric circuit and electronic timer system was used to measure the higher velocities experienced with the last two liquids. Normally, a dozen disks were dropped and an average time was used to arrive at the velocities. Disks were released under the liquid surface either in a flat or an edgewise position. The fall orientation' 'flat"
refers to the position assumed by the disk in
fall through the timed interval, regardless of orientation at release. With some combinations of disks and liquid flow properties, disks released in an edgewise or flat orientation remained in the same orientation throughout the fall; these are referred to as stable. Others assumed a
or "edge"
TABLE lSHEAR STRESS VS SHEAR RATE RELATIONS OF THE UQUIDS*
Liquid Number 
_{1} 
_{2} 
_{3} 
_{4} 
5 

Polymer 
XC 
_{X}_{C}_{+}_{C}_{M}_{C} _{C}_{M}_{C} 
CMC 
CMC 

DensitY,lb/gal 
8.33 
8.33 
8.33 
8.33 
8.33 

Shear Rate 

(secI) 
Shear Stress (Ib/100 fF) 

0.1 
1.14 
_{1}_{.}_{3}_{8} 
0.05 
0.015 
0.007 

0.2 
1.60 
2.02 
_{0}_{.}_{1}_{1} 
_{0}_{.}_{0}_{3} 
0.015 

0.5 
2.70 
3.32 
0.25 
_{0}_{.}_{0}_{7} 
0.03 

1.0 
3.86 
4.60 
_{0}_{.}_{4}_{6} 
0.15 
0.06 

2.0 
5.10 
_{6}_{.}_{2}_{0} 
_{0}_{.}_{8}_{4} 
0.29 
0.12 

. 
5.0 
7.00 
8.60 
1.94 
0.74 
0.29 
10. 
8.60 
10.4 
_{3}_{.}_{6}_{0} 
_{1}_{.}_{4}_{7} 
0.59 

20. 
10.2 
12.6 
6.20 
2.94 
1.17 

50. 
12.9 
16.2 
12.4 
6.85 
2.80 

100. 
15.2 
19.8 
20.0 
12.4 
5.30 

200. 
18.4 
24.2 
30.4 
20.6 
9.50 

500. 24.4 
32.6 
53.7 
36.3 
19.5 

1,000. 30.6 
43.0 
_{7}_{8}_{.}_{0} 
55.5 
32.5 

Plastic viscosity Yield point Powermodel constants based on 500 and 1,000 sec ^{l} K, Ibsec/100 fF 
6.3 
10.4 
_{2}_{4}_{.}_{7} 
19.5 
13.2 

18.3 
22.3 
29.9 
17.4 
6.6 

3.20 
2.72 
1.89 
0.807 
0.200 

n 0.327 
0.399 
_{0}_{.}_{5}_{3}_{9} 
0.613 
_{0}_{.}_{7}_{3}_{7} 
* Measurements made with a rotating rheometer identified as the LRCl. ^{1} 7
JULY, 1975
45° fall regardless of their orientation at release. Some fell at a slant and ricocheted off the walls; in these instances, the disk fall was called unstable and velocity
data were not recorded. Table 1 lists the shear stress vs shear rate relations of the liquids used in the experiments. Liquids 1 and 2 were used primarily to obtain laminar and transitionregime data. Liquid 1 had a 2.2lb/bbl concentration of an XC polymer treated to increase transparency. Liquid 2 was made by adding CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) to Liq uid 1. The other liquids used had various concentrations of CMC to obtain additional data in the transition and turbulent regimes. Experimental data are listed in Tables 2A and 2B. In addition to the observed and measured results, the tables
contain
the difference between observed and calculated settling velocities (observed minus calculated). Eq. 6 was used to calculate velocities where the Reynolds number ex ceeded 100, and Eq. 8 was used for the other cases. The computed velocities were multiplied by a walleffects, factor, F w, developed from settling rates observed in the first three liquids. The equation for F _{w} is
calculated values for the Reynolds number and
F
_{w}
=
1.6d ^{p} d _{w} d _{p}
d w
••.••• ~•••••••.•••.•
(9)
Discussion of Experimental Data The method used to evaluate the accuracy of the equa tions considered the difference between measured and calculated settling velocities. The measured particle ve locity was used to calculate the Reynolds number. There are 87 sets of useful experimental data, with 10 additional sets negated because of unstable fall. The data include a Reynoldsnumber range from <0.1 to 833. The average difference in the velocities is 0.66 ft/min, with a standard deviation of 6.26 ft/min and a standard error of the mean of 0.67 ft/min. As shown in Fig. 1, the variation in velocities is fairly uniformly distributed throughout the range of velocities. The average values for each liquid listed in Table 2 shows that there is no significant difference in the variation in velocities between liquids. If a difference of _{±} 10 ft/min is arbitrarily assumed as an acceptable error, only 77 of the 87 sets of data are acceptable. Of the 10 sets that ex
f/)
::>
z
i
+ 25 

of 
20 

+ 15 
. 

+ 
10 
_{.} 
_{.} 

+5 
. 
. 
."': 
': 
. 
CONTROL 

•••• 
•1, 
: 
••• 
. 
. 
LIMITS 

5 10 
L 

  
15 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 ^{} 
20 
^{2}^{5} b'1 _{2} '1 _{0}
'4'0L6'0~~8'O~I~O~~12~'o~Il~o
OBSERVED
SETTLING
VELOCITY,
Ft /min
Fig. lComparison of calculated with measured settling velocities.
895
00
\0
0\
TABLE 2AEXPERIMENTAlRESULTS (DIFFERENCE B'ETWEEN OBSERVED AND CALCULATED SLIP VELOCITIES)
Liquid 1
Particle Shape 
^{}^{}^{}^{}^{}^{}^{}^{}^{}^{} Terminal Ve,locity 

Diameter ,Thickness 
_{S}_{p}_{e}_{c}_{i}_{f}_{i}_{c} 
(ft/min) 
Reynolds 

(in.) 
(in.) 
Gravity 
Observed Difference* 
Orientation 
Number 

_{}_{} 
 

Disk 
1 
¥2 
2.'83 
Ill. 
1.0 
Flat 
478. 

Disk 
1 
1M 
2.83 
_{7}_{4}_{.} 
(4.1) 
Flat 
136. 

Disk 
1 
Va 
2.83 
_{3}_{3}_{.}_{8} 
(1.4) 
Flat 
21.7 

Disk 
1 
1/16 
2.83 
Unstable 
' 3.1 

Disk 
1 
1/.32 
' 2.83 
_{8}_{.}_{0} 
2.6 
Edge 
1.0 

Disk 
¥2 
_{¥}_{2} 
2.69 

Disk 
_{'}_{¥}_{2} 
_{¥}_{4} 
_{2}_{.}_{8}_{3} 
_ 60. 
_{(}_{1}_{5} 
8) 
Flat 
55. 

Disk 
_{¥}_{2} 
_{¥}_{a} 
_{2}_{.}_{8}_{3} 
_ Unstable 
_{8}_{.}_{6} 

 
Disk 
¥2 
1/16 
2.83 
18.9 
9.2 
Edge 
2.3 

Disk 
Y4 
1M 
2.68 
24.6 
(24.2) 
Stable 
'10.0 

Disk 
¥4 
_{¥}_{a} 
_{2}_{.}_{6}_{8}_{·} 
13.6 
(3.6) 
Edge 
1.9 

Disk 
1M 
1/16 
 2.68 
4.2 
(2.1) 
Edge 
0.2 

Disk 
1 
¥2 
1.38 
.26.2 
(0.5) 
_{'}_{E}_{d}_{g}_{e} 
12.8 

Disk 
1 
1M 
1.38 
12.4 
_{2}_{.}_{3} 
Edge 
2.4 

Disk 
_{¥}_{2} 
_{¥}_{2} 
1.38_ 
_{5}_{.}_{6} 
(14.7) 
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
1.4 

 
Disk 
¥2 
1M 
1.38 
2.7 
(4.9) 
Edge 
0.3 

Disk 
_{1}_{M} 
_{1}_{M} 
_{1}_{.}_{,}_{3}_{8} 
_{0}_{.}_{6}_{5} 
(4.9) 
_{S}_{t}_{a}_{b}_{l}_{e} 
_{<}_{:}_{0}_{.}_{1} 

Disk 
1 
_{1}_{/}_{3}_{2} 
_{8}_{.}_{7}_{7} 
_{3}_{1}_{.}_{5} 
(7.0) 
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
_{2}_{2}_{.}_{0} 

Disk 
¥2 
_{1}_{/}_{3}_{2} 
 8.77 
Unstable 
10.2 

Disk 
_{1}_{M} 
_{1}_{/}_{3}_{2} 
_{8}_{.}_{7}_{7} 
Unstable 
3.7 

Square** 

1.04 
0.248 
1.42 

Triangular*** 

0.66 
0.247 
1.42 

 Rectangular t 

0.82 
0.236 
1.42 
Average velocity 
(4.5) 

Standard 
deviation of velocity 
_{8}_{.}_{1} 
'Standard errorofthe mean 
_{}_{2}_{.}_{1} 
*Observed minus calculated: ( ) minus. **Square plate, I.in. sides, l.04.;.in. effective diameter. ***45° isoscelestriangle with l'in. sides, O.66in. effective diameter.
^{C}^{}^{t}
0
~
_{Z}
> tt
0
^{~}^{,}
~
td
^{~}
0
^{~}
^{t}^{}^{t}
tn
~
^{~}
tn
(J
~
Z
0
14
0
0
~
C tl x Y2in. rectangle, O.82in. effective diameter.
Liquid 2
liquid 3
Terminal Velocity 
Terminal Velocity 

(ft/min) 
_{R}_{e}_{y}_{n}_{o}_{l}_{d}_{s} 
(ft/min) 

Observed Difference* 
Orientation 
Number 
.Observed Difference* 

113. 
2.6 
Flat 
_{2}_{0}_{3}_{.} 

68. 
4.3 
Flat 
50. 
_{8}_{8}_{.} 
10.1 

27.9 
4.1 
Flat 
8.1 
48.5 
3.6 

Unstable 
1.1 
29.2 
5.5 

5.3 
1.2 
Edge 
0.4 
16.4 
2.8 

_101. 
(4.8) 

48.2 
0.0 
Flat 
17.8 
 67. 
6.9 

. Unstable 
2.6 
_{3}_{8}_{.}_{4} 
4.3 

12.8 
_{6}_{.}_{0} 
Edge 
_{0}_{.}_{8} 
_{2}_{1}_{.}_{7} 
_{3}_{.}_{7} 

19.3 
(11.9) 
Stable 
3.2 
_{3}_{5}_{.}_{9} 
(5.7) 

8.9 
(2.7) 
Edge 
0.6 

2.8 
(1.5) 
Edge 
0.1 

.22.2 
3:9 
Edge 
5.1 
39.7 
1.6 

8.5 
1.6 
Edge 
0.8 
24.7 
' 4.2 

4.1 
(9.8) 
Flat 
0.5 
"25.4 
(3.5) 

1.9 
(3.3) 
Edge 
0.1 
16.3 
0.7 

0.44 
(3.4) 
Stable 
. <0.1 
_{8}_{.}_{8} 
(2.5) 

28.0 
2.2 
Flat 
8.9 
44.9 
(2.4) 

Unstable 
3.1 
_{3}_{7}_{.}_{1} 
1.2 

Unstable 
1.1 
_{2}_{8}_{.}_{0} 
_{1}_{.}_{8} 

(0.4) 
1.6 

5.0 
4.2 

1.3 
1.0 
Reynolds 

Orientation 
Number 
Flat 
100. 
Flat 
,'50. 
Flat 
23.9 
Flat 
12.6 
Flat 
71. 
Flat 
37.9 
Flat 
20.0 
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
8.9 
_{4}_{5}_{°} 
10.6 
Unstable 
5.9 
Unstable 
2.5 
Flat 
39.2 
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
20.0 
Edge 
12.6 
Flat 
6.6 
, Flat 
1.8 
Flat 
47.2 
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
19.5 
Flat 
7.4 
ceed these limits, six are in the turbulent regime; in .each case, the difference is less than 20 percent of the mea sured velocity. The four remaining cases occurred with disks whose thickness was equal to or one~halfofthe diameter; in each instance, the particle was in transition fall.
of thfee nondisk shapes were
measured in Liquids 4 and 5. All were made from
lAin.thick plastic. One shape~as a square
sides; another was a triangle made by cutting the square along a diagonal; and the third was a _{1}_{} _{x} Vzin.rec
tangle. The differences in velocities were in the _same range as those obtained for disks when the effective diameters were calculated by the hydraulicdiameter equation: ^{3}
(10)
Terminal
velocities
with Iin.
d _{e}_{q} == ~Ac
L c
In summary, the equations predicted the velocity within ±10 ft/min for 88 percent of the test sets and closer than either ,10 ft/min or 20 percent of the measured velocities over 95 percent of the time. The overall error could be reduced by modifying the equation for the tur bulent regime, as the difference in this regime averages +4.2 ft/min, and by altering the equation in the ~aminar regime, where the averageerror is ~1.8 ft/min. The
correlation is
deemed sufficiently accurate for field
application. Disk orientation appears to be influenced by many
factors.
occurred above a Reynolds number of 13 and edge fall occurred predominantly below _{3}_{~}_{5}_{.} However, when the
Within the limits of this study, flat fall always
disk thickness equaled its diameter, flat fall occurted'at a Reynolds number of 2 and stable fall occurred at a Reynolds number of 1. When unstable fall occurred, it was in the,Reyno~ds number range of 2.5 to 10. The largest errors in the predictedtoobserved velocities in the laminar and transition regimes occurred with disks having thicknesstodiameter ratios of 0.5,and 1.0. This was probably because the equations do not account for the viscous drag on the peripheral area of the disk.
Equation Evaluation
Experiments that simulate continuous tran~portin a well bore and provide rheologic'al info'rmation are limited. Field data _containing requisite information are almost nonexistent.
rate for
 Williams and Bruce ^{1}^{8} measured the ,transport
,
disks in an annulus with Newtonian fluids where pa.rticle
slip was turbulent. The terminal settUngveloci~y,eqia tion, Eq. 6, is equivalent to the slip velocity equation developed in their work.
. Sifferman et al. ^{1}^{2} measured, the transport velocity of simulated cavings carried up an annulus with gel muds. A comparison between their calcul~tedslip 'veiocities; es , tablished by subtracting the t~ansportvelocity from the bulkliquid velocity, and the terminal settling velocities predicted with Eqs. 6 and 8 are listed in Table 3. Evalua tion was limited to four sets of data; one set _{~}_{h}_{e}_{r}_{e} particles were in turbulent fall, one set in transition fall, and two sets in laminar fall. Agreement was excellent for the turbulent and transition regimes, but not as .good for the laminar regime. The laminar conditions were calcu lated for two different particle orientations because a shift
TABLE 2BEXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSERVED AND CALCULATED SLIP VELOCITIES)
Liquid 4
Liquid 5
^{P}^{a}^{r}^{t}^{i}^{c}^{l}^{e} ^{S}^{h}^{a}^{p}^{e}
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Disk
Diameter
(in.)
,
1
1
1
1
1
1/ 2
V2
V2
^{.} ^{V}^{2}
V4
V4
V4
1
1
1/ 2
V2
V4
1
V2
1/ 4
Thickness
(in.)

^{V}^{2} ^{.}
_{~}
l/ s
1/16
1/32
V2
_{~}
Vs
1/16
V4
Vs
1/16
V2
V4
V2
1/ _{4}
1/ 4
1/32
1/32
1/32
_{S}_{p}_{e}_{c}_{i}_{f}_{i}_{c}
_Q~~!t_
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.69
_{2}_{.}_{8}_{3}
2.83
2.83
2.68
_{2}_{.}_{6}_{8}
2.68
1.38
1.38
1.38
_{1}_{.}_{3}_{8}
1.38
8.77
8.77
8.77
Terminal Velocity
(ft/min)
Observed Difference*
 
128.
90.
56.
38
_{2}_{4}_{.}_{0}
8
123.
_{8}_{3}_{.}
_{4}_{9}_{.}_{1}
29.8
51.
_{3}_{3}_{.}_{8}
23.8
52.
32.5
36.3
24.6
14.9
51.
52.
45.3
18.0
11.9
1.2
3.4
_{3}_{.}_{0}
8.7
(3.5)
_{1}_{.}_{4}
2.9
(6.3)
1.2
5.5
0.1
1.7
(3.1)
1.2
(2.1)
(6.1)'
2.0
8.9
Square**
1.04
Triangular***
0.66
0.248
0.247
1.42
1.42
36.8
32.5
3.3
_{4}_{.}_{4}
Rectangular t
0.82
Average velocity
Standard deviation of velocity
Standard
0.236
error of the mean
1.42
33.2
'3.6
_{2}_{.}_{7}
_{5}_{.}_{4}
_{1}_{.}_{1}
Orientation

Flat
Flat
Flat
FIClt
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t}
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t}
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t}
Flat
Flat
45°
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Stable
Flat
45°
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t}
Flat
*Observed min us calculated: ( ) min us. **Square plate, Iin. sides, l.04in. effective diameter. ***45° isosceles triangle with Iin. sides, O.66in. effective diameter. tI x V2in. rectangle, O.82in. effective diameter.
JULY, 1975
Reynolds
Number

348.
211.
115.
71.
44.0
162.
_{9}_{7}_{.}
50.
27.3
28.6
17.2
10.9
95.
60.
33.2
22.5
6.8
104.
53.
23.2
70.
39.2
49.8
Terminal Velocity
(ft/min.)
Observed Difference*
 
117.
78.
54.
111.
98.
41.0
85.
47.2
61.
39.
60.
38.2
26.6
70.
38.3
39.9
33.9
6.5
0.3
(1.5)
(3.4)
13.6
( 1.5)
1.7
(4.5)
10.8
3.4
5.5
1.2
(0.3)
13.0
1
3
0.8
(3.5)
2.55
_{5}_{.}_{4}
_{1}_{.}_{3}
Orientation

Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Reynolds
Number

.833.
487~
277.
390.
303.
94.
117.
61.
282.
178.
137.
87.
30.5
360.
183.
120.
127.
897
in orientation would be expected at a low Reynolds number. An assumption of edge fall, which is likely to occur under laminar conditions, more closely approxi mates experimental results . Additional information is needed before drawing defi nite conclusions but, based on the available ,data, termi nal settling and slip velocities can be considered the same and' the predicted velocities are consistent with experi ments of others.
Application
Slip Velocities
The developed equations can be more easily applied in the field by transposing to the following units:
velocity  ft/min . density lb/gal particle dimensions  in. shear stress lb _{f} /100 sq ft The specific gravity of the solids is assumed to be 2.5 or 20.8 Ib/gal. The first step in estimating the slip velocity is to calcu late the shear stress developed by the particle:
(11)
The particle thickness can be estimated from samples (over the shaker, junk basket, viscous plugs, or offset wells).
T _{c} = 7.9 Yh _{c} (20.8  Pc) '.'
. The second step is to estimate whether the annular flow is laminar or turbulent.l ^{6} If it is laminar, skip to Step 3; if it is turbulent, calculate the slip velocity for the turbulent regime:
V _{c}
=
16.62 T~
V;;;
••••••••••.•.••••••
••
(12)
rhe third step is to determine the turbulenttransition rt<gime boundary by calculating the shear rate at which the Reynolds number is 100. This is done using Eq. 13,
which is developed in Appendix B.
Yb =
186
de vP;
(13)
The final step is to calculate the settling r~gimeand
rate that
corresponds to ,the shear stres's given by Eq. 11. ,One method ^{1}^{6} 'of obtaining this shear rate is to, plot the Fann dial readings (shear stress) vs the shear rate (1.7 times revolutions per minute), draw a smooth curve tp.rough the points, and read off the shear rate that corresponds to the shear stress calculated. from Eq. 11. Measuremen~s should be made at four or more speeds, anda loglog plot will facilitate drawing a smooth curve. If this she~rrate is
velocity. The shear.· rate for .a particle is the
greater than that given by Eq. 13, the particle is' falling in the turbulent regime and the velocity is calculated by Eq. 12. If the particle shear rate is less than that given by Eq. 13, the particle is falling' in, the transition or laminar regime and the slip velocity is calculated from Eq. 14.
Eq. 14 is obtained by combining Eqs
verting the units to those used in this section.
V _{c} = 1.22Tc~·~(tranSitiO~+laminar) .,. (14)
6 and 7 and con
.
Pc
Example An operator was drilling a 17Vzin. Qole with 10lb/gal
brine at an annular velocity of 66 ft/min basedon a gauge hole. At 1,800 ft, severe sloughing began from uncon solidated sands thought to be at 1,400 ft. The well was mudded up with a guargum mixture and silt and _{1}_{/}_{8}_{~}_{i}_{n}_{.} sand grains were removed, but a tight hole developed as soon as the circulation stopped. The well had been drilled through anhydrites and the thencurrent practices gener ally resulted in several hundred feet of enlarged hole. A good deal of information can be obtained by analyz
ing the particles that come over the shaker.
The V8  in.
TABLE 3CALCULATION OF SLIP VELOCITIES BASED ON DATA OF SlfFERMAN ET AL. AND COMPARISON WITH THEIR OBSERVED RESULTS
Mud* 
Thick 

Lb/gal 
8.6 

Crossover shear rate, . sec ^{1} For lower shea r rate range 
196 

K** 
_{1}_{5}_{.}_{9} 

n' 
0.159 

For highershear 

rate range 

K** 
_{4}_{.}_{9} 

n 
0.381 

Particlet 
Flat 

Thickness, in. 
Va 

Diameter, in. 
0.167 

Shear stress, Ibl100 sq ft 
8.0 

Reynolds number 
10 ^{4} 

Shear rate, sec ^{1} 
0.01 

Flow regime 
Laminar 

Calculated slip, ft/min 
0.3 

Observed slip, ft/min. 
2.6 
Edge
1;4
_{l}_{I}_{a}
11.2
0.0003
0.11
Laminar
_{0}_{.}_{9}
Inter 
Thin 
Water 

8.6 
8.6 
8.3 

280 
502 

_{9}_{.}_{9} 
_{1}_{.}_{5} 
0.0015 

_{0}_{.}_{1}_{7}_{4} 
0.380 
1.0 

_{1}_{.}_{7} 
_{0}_{.}_{4}_{2} 
0.0015 

0.485 
0.585 
1.0 

_{F}_{l}_{a}_{t} 
Edge 
Flat 
Flat 

Va 
1;4 
Va 
Va 

0.167 
_{V}_{a} 
0.167 
0.167 

_{8}_{.}_{0} 
11.2 
8.0 
8.1 

0.002 
0.026 
10. 
5,215 

0.3 
2.0 
82 
± 

_{L}_{a}_{m}_{i}_{n}_{a}_{r} 
Laminar 
Transition 
Turbulent 

_{1}_{.}_{2} 
_{4}_{.}_{0} 
20.5 
45.5 

9.0 
19.0 
44.4 
*Mudidentified as in Fig. 4 of Ref. 12. **Units are Ibsec/100 ft. ^{2} tAli particle densities 16. 7Ib/gal, flat means thinnest dimension is vertical, edge is the thickest dimension vertical, particles were Va X l/a X % in. ±Shearrate value has no meaning in turbulent flow.
898
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
sand grains exert a stress of7 .5Ib/100 ft ^{2} in the 10lb/gal mud. A spherical shape is used for the sand grains, and the effective thickness to use in Eq. 11 is twothirds the sphere diameter. Slip velocity estimates for spheres are valid in the laminar and transition regimes because Eqs. 4 and 5 are valid for both spheres and disks, but Eq. 3 (turbulent regime) is not valid for spheres. The flow in the annulus was laminar. From the shear stress vs shear rate plot shown in Fig. 2, the shear rate corresponding to a stress of 7.5 Ib/100 ft ^{2} is 91 sec ^{i} (Point A). This shear rate is less than the limit for the transition regime (Line C), so the transition equation, Eq. 14, is used to calculate a slip velocity of 17 ft/min. A mud velocity of 27 ft/min might be considered necessary to clean the hole (17 ft/min to overcome the slip and 10 ft/min to move the particles through the enlarged hole in a reasonable time).
A 26lhin.diameter hole will have a bulk velocity of 27
ft/min, which is a reasonable hole size. A viscous plug was run in the well, removing ~in. gravel. Because of the odd shapes of the gravel, the effective thickness was difficult to determine. The effec tive thickness was estimated by measuring the shear stress developed by the particles. This was done by tim ing the terminal settling velocity of a handful of the gravel dropped into water contained in a verticaI2in.diameter glass pipe 10 ft high. Since the flow regime is turbulent, Eq. 12 can be used to solve for particle shear stress; the result can be substituted into Eq. 11 to calculate the thickness. Or, the effective particle thickness can be calculated from Eqr 15, obtained by combining Eqs. 11 and 12, using the density of water.
he = (I~O)2
(15)
The effective particle thickness is 0.108 in. This gives
a shear stress of 8.6 Ib/l00 ft ^{2} in 10lb/gal mud. The
effective diameter of the larger particles is estimated at 14
in.
To clean the hole, the larger particles must have the same or a lower slip velocity than the l/sin. sand grains. The shear rate corresponding to a slip velocity of 17
ft/ min for the 14  in.  diameter particles is, from Eq. 14, 33
seci. The mud must be changed to give a shear stress
equal to or greater than 8.6Ib/l00 ft ^{2} at a shear rate of 33
sec ^{i} (Point B in Fig. 2).
The hole was displaced with a prehydrated gel mud weighted in brine to 10 lb/gal. This mud, which cleaned the hole and allowed problemfree drilling to continue,
closely matches the required shear stress at 33 sec
shown in Fig. 2. In retrospect, the 14in. gravel has a slip velocity of 45 ft/min in 10lb/gal brine and 30 ft/min in the guargum mud. In each mud, the particles would be carried up the gauge hole to accumulate in the enlarged hole and would then fall back when the circulation stopped.
Conclusions
1. A simple set of equations were developed that pre
dict the terminal settling velocity of disks in turbulent, transition, or laminar fall for a wide range of test condi tions. The equations predict the terminal settling velocity within ± 10 ft/min in 88 percent of the cases and within either ± 10 ft/min or 20 percent of measured settling
i
, as
JULY, 1975
velocity in 95 percent of the cases.
2. Data for comparison is limited, but the available
information indicates that the terminal settling velocities calculated by the proposed equations are numerically similar to slip velocities calculated from transportrate measurements .
3. Limited data indicate that the equations developed
for disks can be used to predict slip velocities and hole cleaning for other shapes commonly encountered when drilling.
4. These equations permit comparing holecleaning
capabilities of muds with different flow properties and
provide a method to adjust flow properties to clean an annulus.
Nomenclature
A _{e} = projected crosssectional area of particle, ft ^{2} de = particle diameter, in.
d _{e}_{q}
= equivalent particle diameter, ft
d _{p} :=;;: particle diameter, ft d _{w} :=: inside diameter of glass pipe, ft F w == walleffect factor defined in Eq. 9
F T ===
g ~
dimension factor, Ib _{f} /100 ft ^{2}
acceleration of gravity, 32.17 ft/sec ^{2}
ge = gravitational constant,
32.17 Ibm ft/(lb _{f} sec ^{2} )
he = particle thickness, in.
h _{p} = particle thickness, ft,
L _{e} = perimeter around projected area of particle, ft
Ned::::: drag coefficient defined by Eq. 1 N Re == Reynolds number
o
Q
.Q
"I
f./)
Cf)
W
0::
~
Cf)
0::
«
w
::I:
CI)
V _{e} =
particle velocity relative to the liquid, ft/min
relative to the liquid,
V _{p} = particle velocity ft/sec y::::: shear rate, sec ^{i}
MAXIMUM
TRANSITION
SHEAR
RATE
FOR
REGIME:
SLIP
FOR
I/~' PARlICL"1
100rr:1/~;,PARTICLESl
2
10
8
 
6
+POINTS

.,
,
10
T:?,
1000
~""t7'SHe:ARSTRESSDEVtLOPEDi





BY
SHEAR STRESS
RIVER
Df:VELOPED
GFtAVEL
BY 
liS" 
SAND 

2 
6 
• 
SECI
:=~"'"" 
I P~T~A
I. 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
6
SHEAR
8
100
RATE 
Fig. 2Stressrate relations for two field muds
899
Yb = shear rate
IL = viscosity, lbm/ftsec Pc = liquid density, Ib _{m} /gal
PL = liquid density, Ib _{m} /ft
corresponding toN _{R}_{e} = 100, sec ^{1}
3
Ps =
T _{e} =
T _{p}
=
particle density, Ib _{m} /ft3 .
shear 
stress, 
lb _{f} /100 ft ^{2} 
shear 
stress, 
Ib _{m} /ftsec ^{2} 
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Mil chern, Inc., for permission to publish parts of this article and to the Lamar U. Research Committee for their support.
References
1. Ansley, R. W. and Smith, T. N.: "Motion of Spherical Particles in
a Bingham Plastic," AIChE Journ. (1967) 13, 1193.
2. Becker, H. A.: "The Effects of Shape and Reynolds Number on Drag in the Motion of a Freely Oriented Body in an Infinite Fluid,' , Cdn. J. Chem. Engr. (April 1959) 85.
3. Bennett, C. O. and Myers, J. E.: Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York (1962) 174.
4. Brookes, G. F. and Whitmore, R. L.: "Drag Forces in Bingham Plastics," Rheologica Acta (1969) 9, 472.
5. Carey, W.
"Settling of Spheres in Newtonian and Non
W.:
Newtonian Fluids," PhD thesis, Syracuse U., Syracuse, N.Y.
(1970).
6. Hall, H. N., Thompson, H., and Nuss, F.: "Ability of Drilling Mud to Lift Bit Cuttings," Trans., AlME (1950) 189, 3546.
7. Lappe!, C. E. and Shepherd, C. B. : "Calculation of Particle Trajectories," I and E Chem. (1940) 32, 605.
8. Michael, Paul: "Steady Motion of a Disc in a Viscous Fluid," Physics ofFluids (1966) 9, 466.
9. Rimon, Y.: "Numerical Solution of the Incompressible Time Dependent Viscous Flow Past a Thin Oblate Spheroid," Physics of Fluids (1969) 12, Sup II, II65.
10. Rimon, Y. and Cheng, S. 1.: "Numerical Solution of a Uniform Flow Over a Sphere at Intermediate Reynolds Numbers," Physics ofFluids (1969) 12,949.
11. Savins, 1. G. and Wallick, G. C.: "Viscosity Profiles, Discharge
Rates, Pressures and Torques for a Rheologically Complex Fluid in
a Helical Flow," AIChE Jour. (1966) 12, No.2, 357.
12. Sifferman, T. R., Meyers, G. M., Haden, E. L., and Wahl, H. A.:
"DrillCutting Transport in FullScale Vertical Annuli," J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 12951302.
13. Slattery, J. C. and Byrd,. R. B.: "NonNewtonial Flow Past a Sphere," Chem. Eng. Sc. (1961) 16,231.
14. Turian, R. M.: "An Experimental Investigation of the Flow of Aqueous NonNewtonian High Polymer Solutions Past a Sphere," AIChE Jour. (1967) 13, 999.
15. Walker, R. E.: "Migration of Particles to a Hole Wall in a Drilling Wall," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1969) 147154.
16. Walker, R. E. and Korry, D. E.: "Field Method of Evaluating Annular Performance of Drilling Fluids," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1974) 167173.
17. Walker, R. E. and Othmen, Al Rawi:
"Helical Flow of Bentonite
Slurries," paper SPE 3108 presented at the SPEAIME 45th An nual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 47, 1970.
18. Williams, C. E. and Bruce, G. H.: "Carrying Capacity of Drilling Muds," Trans., AIME (1951) 192, 111120.
19. Zeidler, H. Udo: "An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of Drilling Particles," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1972) 3948; Trans., AlME, 253.
Original man uscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 31, 1974. Revised manuscript received May 13, 1975. Paper (SPE 4975) was first presented atthe SPEAIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 69, 1974. ©Copyright
1975 American Institute of Min ing,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paperwill be included in the 1975 Transactions volume.
_{9}_{0}_{0}
APPENDIX A Eq. 8 is obtained by
combining Eqs. 1, 2, 4, and 7 as
follows. First, Eq. 4, the relation between the drag coef ficient and the Reynolds humber, is inverted and cubed to give
1
(N _{e}_{d} )3
=
2
(N Re )
(24)3
••••••••••••••••••••• (AI)
Next, substitute for N Re and Ned . The viscosity term in the Reynolds number is replaced by shear stress divided by shear rate to give
(A2)
N
_{R}_{e}
=
d ^{p} VPPLY
,
T p
and the shear stress is replaced by the right side of Eq. 7 to give
(A3)
N
_{R}_{e}
=
100d p V p PL ;/ge
V 100F Th _{p} (Ps  PL) g/ge
Next, the right side ofEq. A3 is used to replaceN _{R}_{e} and the right side of Eq. 1 is used to replace Ned in Eq. AI to give'
[
24
v p ^{2} PL
2g h _{p} (ps 
PL)
J3 =
(100 dpv ^{p} PL y)2
100h _{p} (Ps 
PL)g ge FT
(A4)
Solving Eq. A5 for velocity gives
V _{p} = (~)3/4
dp 'Y hp
(Ps 
PL) g
24 v'p _{L} FTge/ lOO
,
(A5)
which is Eq. 8.
APPENDIXB Eq. 13 is developed starting with Eg. A2, which is solved for shear rate and is squared to give
(B1)
Then, the shearstress term is replaced with the right side of Eq. 7 and the velocity term is. replaced with the right side ofEq. 8 to give
y2 =
NRe J2
100 (12)2/3 gc _{F} _{T}
( 
dpPL 
(100)2 ge d _{p} 'Y 
VPLge FT 
100
(B2)
Eq. B 2 is solved for shear rate and the units are changed
to those listed under" Application"
(B3)
to give
.y =
8.62 (N _{R}_{e} )2/3
de V;;;
.~
IfN _{R}_{e} = 100, Eq. B3 yields
Yb =
186
,
de vP;
which is Eq. 13.
(B4)
JPT
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.