IADC/SPE 27464

Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores

Marco Rasi, Exxon Production Research Co.
lADe and SPE Member

Copyright 1994, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 15-18 February 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the 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). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknOWledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083·3836, U.S.A. Telex, 183245 SPEUT.

low side of the wellbore due to insufficient bole

ABSTRACT
Beds of cuttings are usually formed on the bottom of
large, high-angle wellbores during drilling. When the
drill string is moved axially along the wellbore, large
bottom-hole assembly elements such as drill bit and
stabilizers tend to plow the cuttings bed, thereby
causing the fonnation of plugs of cuttings which give
rise to high overpulls, loss of circulation, continuous
need for operations such as backreaming, and stuck
pipe. To reduce the likelihood of these costly hole
problems occurring, it is necessary to minimize the
height of the cuttings bed which forms while drilling,
and to minimize the tendency of tile bottom-hole
assembly to form plugs of cuttings. This can be done
with a new hole cleaning tool described in this paper.
This tool was developed using a combination of
analytical modeling based on fluid meclltUlics tirst
principles, experimental data, and tield data. The tool
enables -establishment of pump flow rates, drilling
fluid rheological properties, drill string contigurations,
and well profiles for minimal risk of experiencing
problems associated with tile existence of a cuttings
bed.
INTRODUCTION
The cost of drilling deviated wellbores is-often greatly
increased by the occurrence of several "hole problems"
that make the wellbore deviate from tile ideal
geometry of a gage, hollow cylinder. Such problems
may result from a number of causes, which
include: (1) hole enlargements, closures or fractures
due to wellbore instability, (2) a bed of cuttings on tile
cleaning, and (3) a mud cake which is deposited across
permeable formations (Figure 1). These deviations
from ideal wellbore conditions often lead to stuck drill
strings, stuck casing, difficulties in logging, poor
cememing jobs and lost retums. Operations such as
wiper trips, washing and reaming, circulating and
backreaming are often used in an effort to cope with
tIlese problems, but such operations significantly add
to drilling costs. Therefore there exists a strong
incentive to find ways to minimize the likelihood of
occurrence of these hole problems.
The work described in this paper focuses on hole
probkms resulting from accumulation of cuttings or
c~lVings on the low side of wellbores with inclination
of 50° from vertical or higher, and with boles larger
than lO-inches in dimneter. It is in sucb large, bigh-
~Ulgle wellbores that tall, stationary cuttings beds often
form. Recognizing the complexity of the physical
system under investigation, the objective of developing
a meUlOd to minimize hole problems associated with
cuttings beds was approached in a fundamental way,
using a combination of analytical modeling based on
fluid mechmlics first principles, laboratory results
published in the literature, new experimental data, and
field data.
The outcome of the work described in this paper is a
hole cleaning design tool which is being used by a
number of drilling orgmlizations to assess pump flow
rate requirements, to optimize fluid rheology selection
mId drill string design, mId to establish the impact of
different well profiles on the likelihood of
experiencing problems due to the existence of a
cuttings bed.

299
2 Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores
The next section states the physical problem under
investigation and lists the steps used in this paper to
describe its solution.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OUTLINE OF
SOLUTION
The problem of hole cleaning in high-angle wells can
be stated as follows. When a highly deviated section
is being drilled. cuttings generated at the drill bit tend
to fall to the lower side of the hole because of the
effect of gravity [Figure 2(a)]. This leads to the
fonuation of a cuttings bed. Such a bed does not
usually cause problems while the drill bit is being
rotated on the bottom of the wellbore, even if the bed
is relatively tall. Problems often do arise, however,
when the drill string is moved axially for trips in or out
of the hole, wiper trips, or even for connections. This
is due to the fact that large boltom-hole assembly
elements, such as the drill bit and stabilizers, tend to
plow the cuttings bed and lead to Ule formation of a
"plug" of cuttings, as illustrated by Ule sketch in
Figure 2(b). This plug causes overpull, loss of tluid
circulation and, if pulling continues, stuck pipe.
This qualitative description of Ule problem points to
the fact that two issues need to be addressed in order to
minimize the likelihood of experiencing difticulties
associated wiUl the existence of a cuttings bed. First,
it is necessary to minimize the height of Ule cuttings
bed that fonns while drilling. Second, it is necessary
to reduce the tendency of the bottom-hole assembly
(BRA) to plow the bed and form plugs of cuttings.
The approach that is described in Ulis paper addresses
these two issues as indicated in Figure 3.
The issue of bed height minimization is addressed by
an analytical model Ulat calculates Ule height of Ule
free region above Ule cuttings bed, labeled WiUl "Hoi in
Figure 3. This height is a function of several drilling
variables, such as pump tlow rate, and drilling l1uid
density and rheological properties.
The issue of characterizing Ule tendency of a BllA to
fonn plugs of cuttings is addressed by establishing a
"critical height" of Ulis free region, Heri, in Figure 3.
Such a height is defined as follows. If H > Hed " no
problems while moving Ule drill string axially are
experienced. By contrast, if H < Heri, high overpulls,
stuck pipe or continuous need for operations such as
backreaming are experienced. Heri, are a function of
BHA geometry and drill pipe size.
300
IADClSPE 27464
This paper is organized as follows. Fir~t, the
calculation of the height of the free region above the
cuttings bed, H, is described. Second, the
detennination of Ule critical height, Herib is illustrated.
Third, a single parameter that fully characterizes the
likelihood of experiencing problems because of a
cuttings bed is presented. Such a parameter is called
Hole Cleaning Ratio (HCR). HCR is then shown to be
highly correlated with hole cleaning problems as
recorded in a number of wells drilled in the past. High
values of HCR are found to be associated with trouble-
free drilling, while low values are associated with high
trouble costs. Finally, this paper describes how HCR
is used to develop design recommendations which
ensure minimal risk of experiencing problems due to
poor hole cleaning. More specifically, it is shown that
design recommendations can be developed for flow
rate, drilling fluid rheology, drill string geometry and
well bore profile to ensure Ulat acceptably high values
of IICR are achieved.
CALCULATION OF HEIGHT OF FREE REGION
While drilling progresses in a highly deviated
wellbore, Ule cuttings bed that fonus on the bottom of
Ule wellbore tends to attain an equilibrium height that
depends on drilling variables such as flow rate and
tluid properties. This concept is illustrated by
refen'ing to Figure 4, where Ulree identical wellbores
are sketched. For Ule purpose of illustration it is
assumed here that everything is identical in the three
wellbores • they have the same size, the fluid is the
smne, the cuttings are the smne, and the flow rate is
Ule smne. In Ule wellbore on the left of Figure 4 a tall
cuttings bed is assumed to exist. Because of this, the
region above tlle bed through which the drilling fluid
cml tlow has a small area, mld this implies that the
tluid has a high average velocity. This in tum implies
Ulat Ule shear stress exerted by the fluid on the bed is
high. Shear stress is defined as force per unit area
exerted by Ule tluid on Ule bed, parallel to the bed
surface. This shear stress cml be envisioned as the
resuILant of Ule forces exerted by tluid elements onto
Ule individual solid particles which protrude out of the
bed surface. A high shear stress enables the fluid to
remove solid particles away from the bed, and this
results in bed erosion mld a reduction of cuttings bed
height.
The opposite situation is illustrated in the wellbore in
Ule center of Figure 4. In Ulis case the bed is relatively
shallow, and because of Ulis the area available for fluid
IADClSPE 27464 Marco Rasi
flow above the bed is large. Consequently, average
fluid velocity and shear stresses are relatively low.
The fluid does not have the ability to remove particles
from the bed surface and therefore cuttings generated
at the drill bit, which are continuously settling from
the fluid stream onto the bed, are not eroded away.
Bed deposition is experienced and the height of the
cuttings bed increases.
Between these two extreme situations, there exists an
intermediate bed height at which a balance exists
between the tendency of the fluid to erode tlle bed and
the resistance of the bed to erosion (sketched on tlle
right-hand side of Figure 4). Under tllis condition, tlle
volume of cuttings that is removed from the bed by the
fluid per unit time is equal to the volume of cuttings
that settles onto the bed in the smne period. The
height of the cuttings bed under tllis balmlced
condition is known as "equilibrium height" of tlle
cuttings bed.
The concept of equilibrium height of a cuttings bed is
central to the problem of high-mlgle hole cleaning,
because the fluid-solid system under investigation
seeks and reaches such an equilibrium height
regardless of the initial conditions. If the bed is
initially taller, it tends toward the equilibrium height
by experiencing erosion, whereas if the bed is initially
shallower, it tends toward the equilibrium height by
experiencing deposition. Therefore the equilibrium
height is the height that will exist in a highly deviated
wellbore most of the time during drilling of tlle smne
wellbore.
The qualitative discussion presented above illustrates
that in order to calculate the equilibrium height of a
cuttings bed it is necessary to calculate the shear stress
exerted by the drilling fluid on tlle surface of tlle bed.
Such shear stress, which will be called 't, cml be
expressed as
(1)
where 't is the shear stress expressed Newtons per
square meter, f is a dimensionless number known as
friction factor, p is the density of the drilling tluid in
kilogrmns per cubic meter, mld v is tlle average
velocity of the fluid in the region above the cuttings
bed, expressed in meters per second.
The simplicity of Equation (1) is somewhat deceiving,
since the complexity of the problem is "hidden" in tlle
301
3
friction factor f. This factor depends on a number of
variables, which include the rheological properties of
the fluid, the flow regime, and the relative roughness
of the surface of the cuttings bed. A large body of
literature exists, however, to determine the value of the
friction factor f as a function of these variables for
flow in circular pipes, both with Newtonian l and non-
Newtoniml fluids. 2 The results for flow in circular
pipes cml be extended to the case of flow in a region
with the shape sketched in the wellbores in Figure 4.
This is done by using the well known concept of
hydraulic radius, which can be applied to the problem
under investigation as long as most of the drill pipe is
buried under the cuttings bed. The approximation
introduced by using the hydraulics radius becomes
progressively less accurate as the bed height decreases
to significantly less thml the dimneter of the drill pipe.
Because of this, the hole cleaning model described in
tllis paper is not applicable to wellbores witll small
hole size (such as 8-112-inch), since in such wellbores,
witll typically used pump flow rates, cuttings boos
heights are often significmltly lower tllan the diameter
of tlle drill pipe.
Once tlle shear stress has been calculated, it is
necessary to detennine whether such stress will be
sufficient to erode particles away from tlle bed surface.
In oilier words, tlle calculated shear stress must be
compared witll a "tllreshold stress" for bed erosion. A
detailed description of tlle calculation of tllis tllreshold
stress is beyond tlle scope of tllis paper. This
calculation is based on an extension to non-Newtonian
l1uids of tlle approach developed by ShieldsJ to
determine tllfeshold stress as a function of particle
Reynolds number. The equilibrium height of the free
region above tlle cuttings bed, H, is tllen calculated by
tlle iterative procedure illustrated in the sketch in
Figure 5. Different values of H are chosen, the shear
stress 't is calculated, mld tllen 't is compared witll the
tllreshold value 'tTlJR. This is repeated unitl 't = 'tmR
wiiliin tlle desired degree of accuracy.
Figure 6 shows a comparison between tlle value of H
calculated witll tlle metllod described above and the
value of H measured by several investigators who
performed flow loop experiments. In these
experiments, fluid mld cuttings were injected at one
end of a flow loop, mld tlle height of tlle cuttings bed
was measured after ml equilibrium, steady condition
had been reached along tlle entire flow loop. Different
symbols in Figure 6 refer to data from different
investigations. A description of these experiments can
be found in References 4-9.
4 Hole Cleaning in Lal'ge, High-Angle Wellbores
The ability to calculate the height of the free region
over the cuttings bed, H, as a function of the input
drilling variables listed on the left-hand side of
Figure 3 enables us to address a number of practical
needs. For example, it enables us to optimize drilling
fluid rheology for any specific application by
analyzing the impact of different rheological properties
on H. Also, it enables us to quantify the impact on H
of variables such as flow rate or mud weight. From an
operational standpoint, however, what is most
important is not so much a knowledge of the value of
H itself, as much as a knowledge of whether problems
such as stuck pipe or continuous need for backreaming
are to be expected while pulling out of the hole.
Therefore it is necessary not only to be able to
calculate H, but also to establish what value of H is
needed for trouble-free operations. In other words, it
is also necessary to detennine the value of Heril , Ule
critical height of the free region defined in Ule
previous section and shown in Figure 3.
PULL-OUT-OF-HOLE EXPERIMENTS
The height of the cuttings bed which can be tolerated
while moving the drill string in and out of Ule hole, or,
equivalently, tlle height of tlle free region above lhe
bed needed for trouble-free operations, B erilo was
detennined through a series of laboratory experiments.
In these experiments, models of bottom-hole
assemblies (drill bit, collar, stabilizer) were pulled
lhrough transparent pipes partially occupied by
cuttings beds. The force necessary to pull out of Ule
hole was measured as a function of several different
variables, which included pipe size, bit cross-sectional
area and shape, collar lenglh and outside diameter,
initial cuttings bed height, type of cuttings, and
wellbore inclination.
These experiments revealed tllat two markedly
different conditions may arise, as illustrated in
Figure 7. In the condition depicted in Figure 7(a), Ule
movement of the BBA along Ule weUbore docs not
give rise to high overpulls. While lhe BBA does cause
a defonnation of tIle cuttings bcd, the "hill" of cuttings
that fonns (near the bit in Figure 7) soon stops growing
in size. A steady state condition is reached in which
such a hill of cuttings travels along lhe hole and Ule
overpull remains constant as the BBA continues to
move out of the hole. This condition is experienced if
the cross-sectional area of the largest element in tlle
BBA, typically the drill bit, is smaller tllall tIle open
area above tlle cuttings bed. In other words, this
302
IADClSPE 27464
condition is experienced when Abil in Figure 7 is less
than Aopeu '
By contrast, if Abil > Aopen, the hill of cuttings that
fonns near the bit continues to grown until it takes the
shape of a "plug" which occupies the entire cross-
sectional area of the hole [Figure 7(b»). Further
pulling is characterized by sharply increasing
overpulls, as the "plug" of cuttings grows in length.
This phenomenon can be explained in terms of a
simple mass continuity concept. If Abil > Aopen, as the
bit moves out of the hole it encounters a volume of
cuttings which exceeds the volume of cuttings which
Call be left behind through the openings around the bit
itself. Therefore cuttings pile up in front of the bit,
and the plug necessarily grows longer and longer as
additional pulling takes place. Eventually the overpull
exceeds Ule pulling capabilities of the test facility, and
stuck pipe is experienced. A similar phenomenon is
believed to lead to stuck pipe incidents in actual highly
deviated wellbores where a L:'lll cuttings bed exists. In
actual wellbores, of course, overpulls resulting in stuck
pipe are much higher man mose experienced in the
laboratory.
Figure 8 displays measured overpull as a function of
me ratio between Abil and Aopen in a series of tests
conducted in a 3-1I2-inch pipe. It can be observed mat
overpulls increase sharply as Abil/ Aopen increases
beyond a value of approximately one. Similar results
were obtained using a 6-inch pipe. The different
symbols in Figure 8 refer to different values of
variables such as bit shape, area and length.
The implication of mese experimental results is that
me critical height of the free region over the cuttings
bed, Heril in Figure 3, depends on the cross-sectional
area of the largest BBA element. In other words, t9
minimize lhe likelihood of experiencing high overpulls
and stuck pipe while pulling out of hole it is necessary
not only to keep Aopen in Figure 7 as large as possible,
but also to keep Abil as small as possible. It is
advisable, tIlen, to use drill bits alld stabilizers with as
low a cross-sectional area as possible, as illustrated in
Figure 9. Data on cross-sectional areas of drill bits
obtained from bit mallUfacturers show that marked
differences in cross-sectional areas exist among
different bits. Obviously when selecting a drill bit,
olher criteria will need to be considered as well, but it
is clear lhat mere is a strong incentive for choosing bits
wilh lower cross-sectional area when drilling in highly
deviated wellbores.
IADClSPE 27464 Marco Rasi
For completeness, it should be mentioned that our
analysis and experiments have pointed out that Heril
depends also, although not as strongly, on a number of
other variables in addition to bit cross-sectional area.
Such variables include drill collar outside diillneter
(larger collars cause higher overpulls), drill pipe
outside diameter (larger drill pipe causes lower
overpulls), illld cuttings characteristics. A detailed
description of these effects is beyond Ule scope of this
paper.
HOLE CLEANING RATIO
The previous two sections described how the height of
the free region above the cuttings bed, H (Figure 3),
illld the "critical" height of such region, H. ril , are
determined as a function of a number of drilling
variables. This section describes how a single
parillneter Cilll be defined which fully characterizes
hole cleillling perfonnilllce. Such a parillneter is calIed
Hole Cleillling Ratio (HCR), and is defined by
HCR =HlHeril (2)
By definition of Heril, problems while pulling out of
hole (stuck pipe, high overpulIs, continuous need for
backremning or pumping out, etc.) illoe expected if
H < Heril . In other words, problems are expected when
HCR < 1. By contrast, if H> H. ril , i.e., HCR> 1, we
expect to be able to move Ule drill string axially, in
illld out of the wellbore, wiUlOut difliculLy. Thcrefore
it is expected that hole problems due to Ule existcnce
of a cuttings bed are negatively correlatcd WiUl Ule
value of HCR. This conclusion Cilll be tested against
drilling data recorded in the past. This is done by
calculating HCR as a function of input variables
obtained from drilling morning reports, mud reports,
and bit records, as illustrated in the sketch in Figure 3.
An exmnple of Ule outcome of such a test· is shown in
Figure 10.
Figure 10 shows the frequency of stuck pipe incidents
as a function of calculated HCR in 50 large hole,
highly deviated sections drilled in the NorUl Sea. It
can be seen that when HCR was larger Ulan 1.1 no
stuck pipe incidents occurred in Ulese wells, whereas
stuck pipe always resulted from values of HCR below
0.5. Between these two extremes, stuck pipe
frequency is seen to decrease as HCR increases. These
results point to the fact that it is desirable to maintain
HCR as high as possible, and that U1C risk of problems
303
5
due to a cuttings bed becomes very small if HCR is
kept as high as the "ideal" value of approximately 1.1.
Analysis of milllY other wells from several regions of
the world, including North Sea, Gulf of Mexico,
Australia, and Indonesia have confumed that HCR is
strongly correlated with hole problems associated with
the existence of a cuttings bed, as reported in records
of hourly operations.
Figures 11 illld 12 display the results of detailed
"hindcast" studies in which indications of the existence
of a troublesome bed are compared with calculated
values of HCR on a plillle of HCR versus calendar
date. In Figure 11 three North Sea wells, labeled as A,
B, illld C, are illlalyzed. Each point represents a
drilling condition (typically, a drilling day). It can be
seen that in welI A HCR was consistently low, with
values rilllging between 0.5 and 0.8. All the points
labeled WiUl illl arrow illld a letter were characterized
by major hole problems. For exmnple, at points D and
E stuck pipe incidents occurred that led to a sidetrack
of the 12-1I4-inch hole, and at point H a stuck pipe
incident occurred that was remedied by fuing the jars
with illl overpulI of 185 kilopounds. The points
labeled with illl arrow and a number were
characterized by less severe problems, such as
overpulls below 50 kilopounds, need for backremning
while tripping out of the hole, and need for washing
and reillning while tripping into the hole.
The extremely troublesome drilling experienced in
Well A can be contrasted with the troublefree drilling
of Well B, which was drilled in the Silloe field. In this
well Ule hole cleillling ratio always exceeded the
"ideal" value of 1.1, illld no major problems existed.
Only on one <L:1.Y was there a minor problem, with an
experienced overpull of 40 kilopounds. Well C,
drilled in illlOUler field, had values of HCR between
Ulose calculated in Wells A and B. It can be seen that
the only problems that were recorded occurred at HCR
values lower thilll 1.0.
A second eXillnple is given in Figure 12, which shows
calculated HCR illld measured. overpulls as a function
of calendar date in tlle 12-1I4-inch hole of a well
drilled in Ule Bass Strait, in Australia Points labeled
WiUl "W&R" represent <L:1.Ys on which more than
4 hours of washing illld reilloing were performed.
Points labeled with "Pump Out" represent days on
which Ule drill string was backremned or pumped out
of Ule hole for 500 meters or more. It can be seen that
Ulis type of operation, which is often needed when a
tall cuttings bed exists, was quite frequent when the
6 Hole Cleaning in Lal'ge, High-Angle Wellbores
value of HCR was in the low range of 0.7-0.8. Data
displayed on the right hmld side of Figure 12 also
demonstrate that low values of HCR were associated
with high overpulls.
APPLICATIONS
In the previous section it was described how a single
parameter, called the Hole Clemling Ratio, HCR, can
be used to characterize the likelihood of expcricncing
problems due to the existence of a cuttings bed in a
highly deviated wellbore. Since we are in a position to
calculate HCR as a function of several drilling
variables (listed in Figure 3), we are now also able to
decide how to choose such variables to ensure that
HCR is kept as high as possible, ideally as high as 1.1.
In other words, we have a tool to develop hole
clemling design recommendations for
• Drill String Configuration (Bit, Collm·s, Drill Pipe)
• Drilling fluid Rheological Properties
• Pump flow Rate
• Well Profile
In the next four sections examples m'e given of how
this new hole cleaning tool enables us to choose
optimal combinations of these drilling variables.
DRILL STRING CONFIGURATION
As it was explained in tile section entitled "Pull-Out-
Hole Experiments," the tendency of tile drill string to
form plugs of cuttings cml be minimized by
a. Using drill bits wim small cross-sectional areas.
Such areas, provided by bit mmlUfacturers upon
request, cml vary greatly between different bit
types and styles. Among 12-1I4-inch bits, for
exmnple, mere are bladed PDC bits witil areas on
me order of 70 to 90 square inches, roller cone bits
wim areas between 78 mld 86 square inches, and
full bodied PDC bits willi areas in excess of
105 square inches. The impact of tilese area
differences on overpulls and likelihood of
experiencing stuck pipe cml be quantified witil tile
hole cleaning model described in tilis paper. Bit
cross-sectional areas williin tile commercially
existing rmlges mentioned above arc associated
wim significmlt variations in calculated HCR (for
instance, see Figure 14).
304
IADClSPE 27464
b. Using stabilizers willi small cross-sectional areas,
Stabilizers willi lliree straight blades, for exmnple,
are less likely to lead to problems while puling out
of hole tilml four-blade spiral stabilizers or
integral-blade stabilizers,
c. Using BHA elements willi smaller body outside
dimneter, especially near me drill bit. For
exmnple, higher overpulls while pulling out of
hole will be experienced if a 9-5/8-inch motor is
used in place of an 8-inch motor, everylliing else
being equal.
d. Using larger drill pipe outside dimneter. Again,
tile hole clemling model enables to quantify the
reduction in risk of experiencing hole problems
achieved by, for example, using 6-5/8-inch drill
pipe in place of 5-inch pipe.
DRILLING FLUID RHEOLOGICAL
PROPERTIES
Our ability to calculate H, me height of me free region
above tile cuttings bed, as a function of a number of
drilling variables (Figure 3) allows us to optimize fluid
rheology for any given application of interest.
Suppose, for exmnple, tilat optimal rheology is sought
to drill a highly deviated 12-1I4-inch section, and
suppose tilat all otiler drilling variables have been
selected as follows: flow rate 750 gallons per minute,
drill pipe outside dimneter 5-inches, mud weight
12.5 pounds per gallon. Suppose also mat me
expected cuttings size will be in me range
0.01-0.25 inch, tile expected cuttings specific gravity
approximately 2.4, and tile expected rate of penetration
approximately 60 feet per hour. Using mese numbers
as inputs, we can calculate H as a function of any set
of rheological parmneters, for exmnple plastic
viscosity (PV), yield point (YP), and 6 rpm FaIm
Viscometer reading (6 RPM). An exmnple of such a
calculation is shown in Figure 13, where H is
displayed for PV = 30 cp, aIld 6 rpm and YP in the
ranges 0-30 aIld 0-60 pounds per 100 square feet,
respectively. The region labeled "H = 5" is
characterized by a height of the free region, H,
between 4.75 mld 5.25-inch. This is me worst possible
choice of 6 rpm mld YP for the given set of input
variables. It can be seen, however, mat H increases as
viscosity is increased (higher 6 rpnl aIld/or YP) or
decreased (lower 6 rpm and/or YP), In other words,
tilcre is ml incentive to use fluids with very high or
vcry low viscosity. There are limits, however, to how
IADC/SPE 27464 Marco Rasi
high or how low viscosity can be. Such limits derive
from issues such as separation of cuttings from the
fluid at the shale shakers, surge and swab pressure,
barite suspension, and effective hole cleaning in the
near-vertical section of the wellbore. A full discussion
of these limits is beyond the scope of this paper.
Although a complete discussion of fluid rheology
optimization is not possible, it is apparent how our
ability to generate charts such as the one displayed in
Figure 13 allows determination of optimal
combinations of rheological parwneters. Such optimal
parwneters are then summarized in easy-to-use tables
that display best ranges of PV, 6 rpm, wld YP (or W1Y
other parwneter of interest, such as 100 or 200 rpm
viscometer reading) for various possible values of
drilling variables (e.g., for various hole sizes, flow
rates and mud weights).
PUMP FLOW RATE
The impact of pump flow rate on hole cleaning can
also be quwltified using the hole cleaning model. In
this case all the drilling variables listed in the sketch in
Figure 3 are assigned values of interest for any given
application, except for the flow rate, which is allowed
to vary within Wly desired range. In Ulis case Ule hole
cleaning model produces an output graph such as Ule
one shown in Figure 14, in which Ule calculated Hole
Cleaning Ratio (HCR) is displayed as a function of
flow rate in a 12-l/4-inch hole. The input drilling
variables used for this exwnple are listed in tlle figure.
It can be seen that HCR increases almost linearly as
flow rate increases, wld it reaches Wl "ideal" value of
1.1 at a flow rate of approximately 970 gallons per
minute if a bit with cross-sectional area of 86 square
inches is used.
Several graphs such as the one shown in Figure 14 can
be generated using several sets of input vw"iables. By
doing this, it is possible to develop simple tables of
recommended flow rates as a function of chosen
drilling conditions (e.g., hole size, fluid rheology and
density). By using calculated values of HCR in
conjunction with Ule histogram in Figure 10, it is also
possible to quwlLify the impact of different flow rates
on the risk of experiencing stuck pipe.
305
7
WELL PROFILE
Repeated use of the hole cleaning model in a number
of applications has shown that achievable values of
HCR are a strong function of hole size. While in a
12-114-inch hole an ideal value of HCR = 1.1 may be
achieved fairly easily by proper selection of drilling
variables such as flow rates, fluid rheologies and drill
string configurations, in a 17-l/2-inch hole HCR is
often much lower even if such drilling variables are
optimized. In other words, in highly deviated larger
holes, such as 17-l/2-inch holes, it is more likely to
experience problems due to cuttings beds than in
smaller holes. Therefore, while designing the profile
of a well there is an incentive for minimizing the
length of larger holes in high angle. This is illustrated
WiUl an exwnple in Figure15, in which wellpath A and
wellpaUl B are compared. Both wellpaths reach the
Stune target at 9000 ft true vertical depth, but it can be
seen Ulat wellpaUl B has a much shorter section of
17-l/2-inch hole in high wlgle. While it is realized
tllat oUler considerations may at times make
wellpaUl A more desirable, from a hole clcwling
standpoint wellpath B is likely to be characterized by
fewer problems. The hole clcwling model, together
WiUl data such as the ones shown in Figure 10, enables
an estimate of the added risk/cost associated with
drilling witll wellpatll A. Such Wl estimate can be used
to weigh Ule advwlLages of such a profile against the
disadvwltages.
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of hole clewling in highly deviated wells
has been addressed by several investigators for many
years, but because of its complexity neither purely
Ulcoretical nor purely experimental investigations have
succeedcd in fully addressing the needs of drilling
organizations. In tllis paper it was demonstrated how a
fundwnental approach based on fluid mechanics first
principles, coupled witll laboratory results published in
tlle lilerature, new experimental data and field data,
has enabled unification of previous studies into a
practical hole clewling design tool. Predictions from
Ulis tool closely match field experience in a number of
wells wlalyzed in different regions of the world.
The hole cleaning tool described in this paper enables
to assess pump flow rate requirements, to optimize
fluid rheology, to optimize drill string design, and to
establish tlle impact of well profile on the likelihood of
experiencing problems due to the existence of a
8 Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores IADClSPE 27464

cuttings bed in large, high-angle wellbores. While this
tool is already being used in the design of wells in
which hole cleaning problems are a concem, there
remain questions that need to be addressed by
additional research. In particular, it is believed that
further advances can be made in this area by
investigating the impact of drilling operations such as
backreaming, pumping out of hole, wiper trips and fast
drill string rotation on the risk of experiencing
problems associated with beds of cuttings or cavings.
6. Iyoho, A. W., "Drilled Cuttings Transport by Non-
Newtonian Drilling Fluids Through Inclined.
Eccentric Annuli," U. of Tulsa Ph.D. Thesis, 1980.
7. Okrajni, S., "Mud Cuttings Transport Study in
Directional Well Drilling," U. of Tulsa, January
1981.
8. Siffennan, T. R., and Becker, T. E., Mobil E&P
Services Inc., "Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale
Inclined WeUbores," SPE 20422, September 1990.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9. Wicks, M., "Transport of Solids at Low

Concentration in Horizontal Pipes," Int. ASCE &
The author wishes to thank Exxon Production Penn Univ. Solid-Liquid Flow in Pipes
Research Company for tile support received while Symposium Proceedings, Paper 7, p. 101-124,
performing this work and for permission to publish tilis 1971.
paper. Drilling dak'l and commcnts provided by
several Exxon drilling organizations and operating
parulers are also appreciated.

REFERENCES

1. Nikuradse, J., "Stromungsgesetze in Rauhen

Rohren, VDI-Forschungsheft, No. 361, 1933.
Translation available in NACA Tech. Mcm. 1292.
Nikuradse's curves can also be found in
V. L. Streeter, Handbook of Fluid Dynamics,
p. 3-11, McGraw-Hili Pub. Co., 1961.

2. Dodge, D. W., and Metzner, A. B., "Turbulent

Flow of Non-Newtonian Systems," A.I.Ch.E.
Joumal, Vol. 5, No.2, June 1959.

3. Shields, A., "Anwendung der Aehnlichkeits-

mechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die
Geschiebebewegung" (Application of Similarity
Principles and Turbulence Research to Bcd-Load
Movement), Mitteilungen der Preuss. Versuch-
sanst fur Wasserbau und Schiflbau, Berlin, No. 26
(1936). A description of Shields' work can also be
found in F. M. Henderson, Open Channel Flow,
p. 413, McMillan Pub. Co., N.Y., 1966.

4. Larsen, T., "A Study of tile Critical fluid Velocity

in Cuttings Transport for Inclined Wellbores,"
U. of Tulsa MS Thesis, 1990.

5. Pilehvari, A., "Modeling of Cuttings TnUlsport in

Highly Inclined Wellbores," U. of Tulsa Advisory
Board Meeting, May 1992.

306
 -.--- j \\
o
o 0 ~o .... o 0

(a)

m::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::~~::::~::~::... - - -. . .~:.:.:.:.:~.~.':1.~~~g~~~!).~:~::~::::::::::~::::~::~~::~~::::~::::::~::::::~::~~~::::~~::~~~~~
1~lllllllllllllm::[~~i~~~i:~~~~::::~~::~~::.:~:::::_::·:::~::~~~~~~·Ci9~~;i,im~~I~~~~IIII~~II~~III~~11111111111~~~~~~I~i (b)

f)!\~'):;&\I)i~f~t~r§;j;~~~~:~1*tJl;::~~~~f:~,ig;:i:ti:'> ,yr••• ,M>;';;;:

c.> Figure 1. Causes of hole problems in high-angle sections Figure 2. Cuttings beds formed while drilling cause problems
o
-....I when the drillstring is moved axially

INPUT OUTPUT Wellbore

Drilling
Bit size, type and style Fluid
Drill pipe and drill collar 0.0. Bed
Flow rate
Mud weight
SUrlac·~I~
Fluid rheology
Wellbore inclination Cuttings
Cuttings size and density Bed
Rate of penetration
High Shear Low Shear Equilibrium
Bed Erosion Bed Deposition
HeR = H/H cR1T

Figure 3. Outline of hole cleaning model Figure 4. Cuttings beds reach an equillibrium height
 5

4
H .....
c
:::.
:::t 3
'i
[,:v.. . tt""'V""\I"il"'nV"'Vl:5{~Y~'r:::Z~~x ~ii:t......-
O"V=""""l'Q-rI.7"'r')'i\ " ! ....... 't='tTHR
'tU
:;
J:!
2
~
1"\("'))4 #" ) 't < 't THR 1

Drillpipe
1 2 3 4 5
Measured H (in)

w Figure 5. Calculation of equilibrium height of free region above Figure 6. Model predictions versus laboratory measurements
g cufflngsbed

50
_FA.pen :Slablllze, ~Abh a 45 l-
•
_,3:~()
IJ¢
•
IJ
40 I- IJ

35 e e 8
IJ -
..... e
x x
~~,~I~)
I/) ¢
.c 30
c ¢+

'3 25
e •
...CII
a- •x
>
0
20
•
e.
x x •
15 x•
¢. •
x ¢.
10 l- ex• x -
5~
•x •_ x
xet
¢ • ¢j pc!. + I
01 I I

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

AbltlAopen

Figure 7. Pull-out-of-hole experiments Figure 8. Overpull depends on ratio of cross-sectional areas

 50 North Sea Wells - 10 >= 10-3/4-in l Inclination> 50 Degrees

100
100
90

80
III
i;' 70
'U
~ 60
~ 50
~ 40
3
fA 30
Larger X-Sectional Area
~
*" 20
More Problems Pulling Out 10
and Running Into Hole
o .5-.7 .7-.9 .9-1.1
<.5
HCR =HlHcritical
c.>
Figure 9. Bit cross-sectional area Figure 10. Stuck pipe frequency as a function of hole
o cleaning ratio
co

HeR HCR = HlHcrltlcal Overpull (klb)

0 0.2 0.4 0.' 0.' 1 1.2 1.4
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 ~ III :: :e CD
co

--l.:~
920705 I . _ I I

121113 -- --- .- --

121120
121127
-- ---
~

~
t~
Sl
5-~

1=::
rr 12. 1/." ST1
1~~
1~~
i'
120910
920710·····

920715 L

121208
121217 :::::::~~~
.!l
~ '13 WI=> l5--- -- 12m.
~
920720 .\
wu.J ~p;~.~~~~~ . ~.~.~.;~~~~~ .
; " / . Pump Out : :

8,liJiJ!
ICA 920725· ..; ; .
121231
130117
- --
-- --- ---IE
--~L~
p..
v~
-"2 ---
po
120817

f;a
r~ 120821
920730r
120127 -- -- -- 17~l=!
--@:J~ 'in (
~
[@
120107 W&R

m
,., 920804 +--------.,., __ . . . . . m .. .! i I

- -------$it:
Figure 11. Hole cleaning ratio in three North Sea wells
920809 I I

Figure 12. Hole cleaning ratio and overpull in an

Australian well
 HCR
30 ~~ 1.3
1 PV =30 cp '.' . . ,H-6 5 ~
Rowrate = 750 gpm -: -:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::<'% Drill Pipe OD = 5"
I I
Bit with 79 squar'e

II III ..-:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:- :-:-:':-:-:':-. ~ /"

1.2 I-- Drill Collar OD = 8"
inchar~
HoIeID-12.25"
- 5"
Drill PI pe= ~ [1"':-:':-:-:-: ·H···=6····-:-:-:·:-·~
.-:.:-:-:- . - :-:-:-:.:-:
MW= 12.5 ppg /
i'
g
20- MW=12.5ppg
Cuttings: 0.01 "-Q.25"'\"
~, .;
I

" ., .. , , ; , .. \ ,",'\
•••••••••••••

'.:-:- :-:':-:-:-.':-:':-:
II ,.. :-:.:-:.:-:-:.:-:-: ..
1.1 I-- PV = 30, YP = 17, 6RPM = 8
Cuttings: 0.01"-0.25",2.4 S.G. / ~
v---
"""'1.. 1.0

III"~ ~ j~~ II I I'I:,:::}}:::::

:a 2.4S.G. " ..... , ' .. H=5.5 -:.:-: :-:-:-:-:-:.
/ ./
V Bit with 86 square inch
c
E
e- 10
.....
.-:1.1111111"1" ../ :,::...
'" . . . .
.'-:-:.:-:-:-:-: III; ,
" :;":"':\',
, ~ ,'\/t
..
.. , ~ , ' \~,
·H=5·
', ; ,
"
.. ',
0.9
/'
v
./
V
cross-sectional area -

H 5 """I' "".., 0.8

~
CD /h /' ,/
~~"';-:""""",::5. ~"'"'' ::"'" ..... ./
..:::../H=6~5i': ..H=6-:l 1111 ..','\'''''..'' .. , '''''.. ./
R -I' n~, .. ; -1'1
..;::::::::::.Wlj'~hh·.:-:-:.:-:-. 0.7
..............@ . . . .. " "," '\" , ",'\ H/:: ~/ /" :/
-=7.5~~:~r:::: >/::::' '\;',.. ,\"; .- L 0.6
o.
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
~
0.5
YP (1b/1oo ft 2) 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Flow Rate (gallons per minute)

(,,) Figure 13. Rheology optimization chart Figure 14. Impact of f10wrate and bit area on hole
......
o cleaning ratio

Closure, Ft
00 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
I i i i

2000 ----------------------------------\-----------------
II:

tC
GI 4000 ,
\
1701fl!" Hole

~~
~ 6000
--- ~....
\.. -_.~---------
........
-------------------------f-----
GI
:;, WeUpathTil
B .. ...... 12-1/4" Hole
~ "Catenary- ype ~
8000
.... ...... ~ _
---------------------------------------
10000' I

Figure 15. Well profile selection to optimize hole cleaning