SPE 116300

Experimental Study and Modeling of Cuttings Transport Using Foam With

Drillpipe Rotation
Mingqin Duan,∗ Stefan Miska, Mengjiao Yu, Nicholas Takach, and Ramadan Ahmed, University of Tulsa, and
John Hallman, Weatherford International

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Although rotary drilling is being used in most wells, the impact of drillpipe rotation on hole cleaning during foam drilling has
not been investigated. There has been no single predictive tool developed to address pipe rotation effects on foam drilling.
This paper presents the first study of cuttings transport using foam with pipe rotation under simulated downhole conditions.
A field-scale, high pressure high temperature wellbore simulator with a 73-ft long, 5.76” by 3.5” eccentric annular test
section was used to investigate the effects of pipe rotation, foam quality and velocity, downhole pressure and temperature on
cuttings transport and pressure losses in a horizontal wellbore. Experiments were conducted with backpressures from 100 to
400 psi and temperatures from 80 to 160 degrees F. Pipe rotary speeds were varied from 0 to 120 RPM with foam qualities
ranging from 60% to 90% and foam velocities from 2 to 5 ft/s.
It was found that pipe rotation not only significantly decreases cuttings concentration in a horizontal annulus but also
results in a considerable reduction in frictional pressure loss. The reduction in cuttings concentration is up to 40% at a
medium foam velocity (3 ft/s) when pipe is rotated up to 120 RPM. The decrease in frictional pressure loss is up to 50% at a
medium foam velocity and is more than 60% at a low velocity. Using a higher foam velocity or quality also improves hole
cleaning, however, pressure losses are significantly increased.
A mechanistic model and an associated computer simulator were developed for practical design and field applications. It
can be used to predict cuttings concentration, bed height and pressure drop during horizontal foam drilling with various pipe
rotary speeds, eccentricities, foam qualities and velocities under different pressure and temperature conditions. Comparisons
between model predictions and experimental results show that the difference is less than 15% in most of the cases.

Introduction
The study of cuttings transport using foam is important not only because foam has a high cuttings carrying capacity
compared to many conventional fluids, but also foam has many applications in drilling that can not be replaced by
conventional fluids. The typical applications, in under-balanced or near-balanced drilling, have enabled the successful
exploitation of low pressure, low permeability or naturally fractured reservoirs. An ever-increasing concern in today’s
drilling operations is a narrower operating window between the continuously changing pore pressure and facture pressure
gradients. Previous studies (Chen et al. 2007b; Duan et al. 2008) show that it is possible to use foam to create a curved
pressure profile within the narrow window, which is not possible with conventional fluids.
After more than 20 years of practice in slide drilling with downhole motors for the purpose of well trajectory control, the
industry realized the limitations of slide drilling and the irreplaceable advantages of rotary drilling in hole cleaning. It is
believed that pipe rotation is a major factor that contributes to good hole cleaning in highly inclined wells. It is also a major
factor that promotes the ever-increasing applications of the Rotary Steerable System.
Despite the many applications of foam and the importance of pipe rotation, there has been no study on cuttings transport
using foam with pipe rotation. No single model has been developed to predict cuttings concentration or pressure losses during
foam drilling with pipe rotation, primarily because the complexity of flow caused by pipe rotation has been a bottleneck in
the development of predictive tools for wellbore hydraulics and cuttings transport. Pipe rotation effects in foam drilling are
more complex because of foam compressibility and the non-Newtonian behavior of foam.

∗
Now with Chevron North America E&P Company.
2 SPE 116300

A literature review indicates that there are very limited investigations in cuttings transport using foam (Chen et al.
2007a; Li 2004; Ozbayoglu 2002; Capo 2002; Martins et al. 2001; Okpobiri and Ikoku 1986). Only one study (Chen et al.
2007a) in cuttings transport with foam at Elevated Pressure Elevated Temperature (EPET) conditions was recently
completed, but without pipe rotation. It was conducted on a full-scale, high pressure high temperature flow loop consisting of
a 73-ft long, 5.76” by 3.5” concentric horizontal annulus. Experiments were conducted with pressures ranging from 100 to
400 psi and temperatures from 80 to 170 °F. Foam qualities were varied from 70% to 90% and velocities from 2 to 6 ft/s.
Test results showed that cuttings concentration decreased with increasing foam quality, while pressure and temperature had
only slight effects.
Li (2004) developed a mechanistic model to predict the optimum foam flow rate for cuttings transport in vertical wells
and a two-layer model to predict cuttings bed height in horizontal wells, but did not perform an experimental study.
Ozbayoglu (2002) studied cuttings transport with aqueous foam using a field-scale, Low Pressure Ambient Temperature
(LPAT) flow loop at hole inclinations of 70 and 90 degrees. A three-layer mechanistic model was developed to predict
cuttings bed thickness and pressure drop. Capo (2002) conducted an experimental study of cuttings transport with aqueous
foam at intermediate hole angles (45 to 65 degrees) using the same LPAT flow loop. It was observed that the inclination
angle at which cuttings are most difficult to transport is around 55 degrees. Martins et al. (2001) developed empirical
correlations to predict bed height during foam drilling based on their experiments on an eccentric, 3.9” by 1.7”annulus. None
of the above studies involved drillpipe rotation.
The objective of this study was to develop the first predictive tool for cuttings transport using foam with pipe rotation.
The model was verified by new experimental data obtained on a field-scale, high pressure high temperature flow loop that
can rotate drillpipe at up to 120 RPM. The model predictions were also compared with existing test data without pipe rotation
at different wellbore configurations.

Modeling Approach
The algorithm of cuttings transport model in this study is described in Fig. 1. An initial guess of cuttings bed height is made
to calculate the annulus geometry and fluid velocity. Rheological parameters are obtained from the Equation of State for
foam and rheology tests. Pressure drop along the wellbore, ∆P, is then calculated. The actual pressure drop is compared with
the critical pressure drop, ∆Pc, which is defined as the pressure drop with an equilibrium bed height at steady-state flow
conditions. The experimental data from this study combined with previous investigations was used to obtain the critical
pressure drop. The estimated bed height is the final bed height if the two pressure drops are close enough. Otherwise, the bed
height is changed and the procedure repeated until convergence is achieved.

Geometry, Experiments
Guess h Velocity

Rheological
Parameters ∆P ∆P c

Y
Increase h

N Y
∆Pr < ∆Pc |∆Pr -∆Pc| < ε ? Output
?
N
Decrease h

Fig. 1— Flow chart of modeling cuttings transport with drillpipe rotation.

A major assumption of the above algorithm is that each equilibrium bed height corresponds to a unique pressure drop,
and vice versa. Experimental observations for bed heights up to 0.85D (where D is wellbore diameter) support this
assumption. For a bed higher than 0.85D, it may be possible that there exist two equilibrium bed heights for one pressure
drop. However, this bed height is so high that it seldom occurs in practical applications. In fact, in foam drilling the
hydraulic program should be designed to as to avoid accumulation of cuttings on the low side of the welbore.

Model Development
The model is based on an assumption of steady-state, non-Newtonian, isothermal, compressible laminar flow in an eccentric
annulus with or without a cuttings bed. The Power-Law rheological model is used for foam based on foam rheology
measurements in a pipe viscometer and a flow-through rotational viscometer.
SPE 116300 3

Equation of State (EOS) for Foam Considering Gas Solubility. Air, nitrogen (N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most
widely used gases to make foam in field applications. Solubility of air and N2 in water are considered to be approximately the
same since air consists of 79% N2.
Given the liquid flow rate, QL, and the gas flow rate at standard conditions, Qg,s, the quality of foam, which is defined as
the volumetric fraction of gas in foam at certain pressure and temperature conditions, can be expressed as,
1
Γ= , (1)
QL
1+
ρ g , s Qg ,s 1 1 Rg T
{ − QL PK H ,Ts EXP [c( − )]}
Mg T Ts P
where ρ g ,s is gas density at standard conditions, Mg is the molar mass (kg/mole) of the gas, Rg is the universal gas constant
(8.314 J/mol.K), P and T are absolute pressure (Pa) and temperature (Kelvin), respectively, KH, Ts is the Henry’s constant at
the standard temperature, Ts (298 K), and c is a constant with a unit of temperature. Derivation is in Appendix A.
Eq. 1 is the EOS for foam considering gas solubility. The term with the Henry’s constant accounts for gas solubility in
water. The Henry’s constant at Ts is 1.38×10-5 molgas/ m3soln.Pa for air and 3.36×10-4 molgas/ m3soln.Pa for CO2. The constant,
c, is 1300 K for air, and 2400 K for CO2. If CO2 is used, the system pressure can not exceed 7.4 MPa (1073 psi), the critical
pressure above which CO2 becomes liquid.
When CO2 is used, the following Eq. 2 is recommended to calculate foam quality. It was derived using a similar
procedure for Eq. 1. However, the results from Eq. 2 for CO2 are more accurate than from Eq. 1 since Eq. 1 is a general
equation for all types of gases while Eq. 2 is specifically for CO2. The final equation reads,
1
Γco = . (2)
2
QL
1+
Qg , s − QL S co 2

where S co is solubility of CO2 in water in terms of standard cubic meter gas per cubic meter water at certain pressure (Pa)
2

and temperature (K) conditions. It was developed in this study based on previous experimental data of CO2 solubility at
higher pressure and temperature conditions (Crawford et al. 1963). The equation reads,
P / 6895 2 P / 6895
S co2 = 7.29 Ln [0.546( ) − 0.1357( ) + 1] . (3)
1.8T − 460 1.8T − 460
3
The volume of CO2 dissolved in water can be significant at a high pressure, e.g., 80 scfm (2.27 m /m) CO2 will be dissolved
in water at a water flow rate of 20 gpm (0.076 m3/m) and a pressure at 800 psia (5.52 MPa).

Foam Rheological Parameters at EPET conditions. Foam rheological parameters are functions of quality, pressure and
temperature. Based on the experimental data, the consistency index, k, and flow behavior index, n, are expressed as,
0.2022 EXP (−36.86Γ 2 + 68.04Γ − 27.68)
k= , and (4)
P / 6895 + 205
1 + EXP[−1.045( ) + 1.81]
1.8T − 375
n = 1 − 0.613Γ 0.567
, (5)
where k, P and T are in Pa.sn, Pa and K, respectively. Pressure and temperature are not included in the equation for n because
they have limited effects on n. It was also observed in previous studies that rheological parameters for N2 and CO2 foams are
the same within experimental errors (Harris 1987 and Reidenbach et al. 1986). Therefore, both foams use the same k and n.

Pressure Drop with a Cuttings Bed in a Horizontal Annulus.

Pressure Drop Calculation. As stated in the modeling approach, the calculated actual pressure drop assuming a given
bed height is compared with the critical pressure drop to find the actual bed height. The pressure drop is calculated using an
“effective diameter” method or modified Exlog approach, which was originally proposed by Zamora and Lord (1974) and
used for laminar flow of a Power-Law fluid in smooth concentric annuli. The equations for calculating pressure drop with a
cuttings bed as a flow boundary are as follows:
n
dP ⎛⎜ 4k ⎞⎟⎛⎜ 8V f ⎞⎟
= , (6)
dL ⎜⎝ Dhy ⎟⎠⎜⎝ Deff ⎟⎠
Dhy
Deff = , (7)
G
Z
(1 + )[(3 − Z )n + 1]
G= 2 , (8)
n( 4 − Z )
4 SPE 116300

1
⎡ ⎛ d ⎞Y ⎤ Y
Z = 1 − ⎢1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ , (9)
⎣⎢ ⎝ D ⎠ ⎦⎥
Y = (0.37)n −0.14 , and, (10)
4 Af
Dhyd = , (11)
So + Si + Sb
where Vf is the foam in situ velocity, Dhy is the hydraulic diameter of the annulus, Deff is the effective diameter of the annulus,
Af is the fluid open flow area, and So, Si, and Sb are the wetted perimeters of the wellbore, the drill pipe, and the bed,
respectively, all in SI units. The calculation of the variables used in Eq. 11 is listed in a previous study by Duan et al. (2007).
Concept of Critical Hydraulic Diameter. The above effective diameter approach was found to work well in a concentric
annulus with a cuttings bed (Chen 2005). However, using the hydraulic diameter defined in Eq. 11 in an eccentric annulus
yields a decrease in hydraulic diameter with decreasing cuttings bed height after the bed decreases to a certain height, as
indicated in Fig. 2 (a). Therefore, the effective diameter also decreases when the bed height is lower than a certain value.
According to Eq. 6, pressure drop would increase with decreasing bed height, which is in contradiction with experimental
observations.
To solve the above problem, the concept of critical hydraulic diameter is introduced. It is defined as the hydraulic
diameter, after which the diameter starts to decrease with decrease in bed height, as shown in Fig. 2 (a). The bed height at the
critical hydraulic diameter may be called the critical bed height. In the computer simulator associated with this model, the
program searches from the maximum bed height towards zero bed height. When the critical hydraulic diameter is found, the
diameter after that is set to equal the critical hydraulic diameter, as shown in Fig. 2 (b). The calculated pressure drop using
the concept of critical hydraulic diameter shows good comparison with numerical results from Azouz (1994) and Sanchez
(1997) and the experimental data in this study.
4 4
Critical Dhyd
3 3
D hyd , in.

D hyd , in.

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Bed height, in. Bed height, in.
(a) (b)

Fig. 2—Concept of critical hydraulic diameter with a bed in an eccentric annulus (5.76 by 3.5 in. annulus, 0.6 eccentricity).

Critical Pressure Drop in a Horizontal Annulus. Critical pressure drop was obtained from the cuttings transport experiments
using foam with pipe rotation on the Advanced Cuttings Transport Facility. It is a function of foam quality, velocity, pipe
rotary speed, wellbore geometry, pressure and temperature. These parameters interact with each other. Extensive sensitivity
analysis was performed based on experimental data from this study and previous studies to find out the key factors and how
they affect each other. The general expression is,
dPc
= f Γ ( f Ω ) f P f T f P,T f geo , (12)
dL
where f Γ , fP, fT, fP,T and fgeo are foam quality, pressure, temperature, pressure temperature interaction and wellbore geometry
functions. These functions are expressed as,
⎧
⎪56.56(−0.874 f 0.3516 − 1.564 f 0.352 + 36.23)(2Γ − 1) 0.6 ≤ Γ < 0.7
⎪ Ω Ω
⎪ 0.294 f (0.8 − Γ)
f Γ = ⎨150.8(−6.195 f Ω + 104.5)(1 − Ω )(Γ − 0.65) 0.7 ≤ Γ < 0.8 , (13)
⎪ 160
⎪ (20.1 f Ω
0.005 0.16
− 14.8 f Ω + 180.5)
⎪22.62( − 170) 0.8 ≤ Γ ≤ 0.9
⎩ EXP(6.485Γ − 12.566Γ + 5.515)
2

⎧1.11 − P / 6205284 P ≤ 689500

fP = ⎨ −5
, (14)
⎩1 − 0.0144 Ln(1.237 × 10 P − 7.55) P > 689500
SPE 116300 5

f T = −0.00002 * T 2 + 0.0155T − 1.858 , (15)

k
f P ,T = , and (16)
k LPAT
f geo = 17.42( D − d ) ( −1− 0.5 n ) . (17)
where kLPAT is the fluid consistency index at low pressure ambient temperature conditions.
Note that the quality function, f Γ , is a function of RPM factor, fΩ . The RPM factor shows how other variables change
the effect of pipe rotation, it reads
D D
f Ω = Ω f ΩV (0.75e + 0.4)[−0.911( ) 2 + 2.709( ) − 0.319] , (18)
d d
where Ω is pipe rotary speed (RPM), e is pipe eccentricity, D is wellbore diameter (m), d is pipe outer diameter (m), and fΩV
is a coefficient depending on superficial foam velocity, Vsf (m/s),
⎧1.5 V sf ≤ 0.61
⎪
⎪− 0.152V sf + 2.5 0.61 < V sf ≤ 0.91
⎪
f ΩV = ⎨− 0.213V sf + 3.1 0.91 < V sf ≤ 1.22 . (19)
⎪
⎪− 0.012V sf + 0.46 1.22 < V sf ≤ 2.74
⎪0.1 V > 2.74
⎩ sf

The effect of pipe rotation is complex because the degree to which pipe rotation affects the bed height is affected by
other variables. A larger wellbore, a smaller eccentricity or a higher fluid velocity reduces the effect of pipe rotation.
Therefore, the concept of RPM factor in Eq. 18 was introduced to account for the influence of these variables. For example,
pipe rotation at 50 RPM may result in the same bed height in a 6” wellbore as pipe rotation at 80 RPM does in an 81/2”
wellbore. In this case, the combined effect of wellbore geometry and pipe rotation is converted to the effect of pipe rotation
only with an equivalent pipe rotary speed that gives the same bed height.

Computation procedure. The following procedure is proposed to calculate the cuttings concentration, bed height and
pressure drop in a horizontal annulus.
(1) Obtain in-situ foam quality using Eq. 1. If CO2 is used to mix foam, use Eq. 2 to calculate foam quality.
(2) Calculate foam rheological parameters using Eqs. 4 and 5.
(3) Calculate the critical pressure drop, dPc/dL, using Eq. 12.
(4) Guess a cuttings bed height. Calculate wellbore geometry parameters. Solve for Dhyd with Eq. 11. Find the critical
Dhyd, and set it as the actual hydraulic diameter after the bed height is lower than the critical bed height. The in-situ foam
velocity can also be calculated from the wellbore geometry parameters.
(5) Calculate the actual pressure drop, dP/dL, using Eq. 6.
(6) Compare the actual pressure drop based on the guessed bed height with the critical pressure drop. If the difference
between them is within the tolerance, the actual pressure drop is obtained, and the corresponding bed height is the actual bed
height. Otherwise, increase the guessed bed height if dP/dL < dPc/dL, or decrease the bed height if dP/dL > dPc/dL, and
repeat steps 4 and 5 until convergence is achieved.
(7) Cuttings concentration can be obtained from the calculated bed height and the wellbore geometry.
(8) To calculate the cuttings concentration, bed height and pressure drop at the next location, use the calculated pressure
drop to obtain the actual pressure at that location. Repeat steps 1 to 7.

Experimental Setup
Cuttings transport experiments using foam with drillpipe rotation were conducted on the Advanced Cuttings Transport
Facility at the University of Tulsa (Fig. 3). It is a full-size flow loop that simulates the flow of various drilling fluids mixed
with cuttings under downhole conditions. The main test section consists of a 73-ft long, 5.76” by 3.5” annular test section
followed by a 4” rheology pipe. The loop was designed to conduct experiments at a pressure up to 2000 psig and a
temperature up to 200 °F. Both conventional and compressible fluids, such as foams or aerated mud, can be tested. The drill
pipe can be rotated up to 200 RPM. Specially designed spiders are used in the annulus to keep the pipe eccentricity at 0.78.
The test section is attached to a mast and can be raised to 42 degrees from horizontal. The flow loop is fully instrumented.
More than 40 operational parameters are monitored and controlled using a data acquisition and control system.

Test Procedure. The objective of the experiments is to measure cuttings concentration and pressure drop at steady-state flow
conditions. It consists of four steps. A flow chart of the test process is shown in Fig. 4.
(1) Generate foam. Water is stored in a 100-bbl tank. A boiler heats water to the desired temperature. It can heat 100
bbls of water from ambient temperature to 180 °F within an hour. A centrifugal pump that provides 125 ft pressure head is
used as a feed pump. It feeds water from the water tank to a liquid metering pump that accurately controls water flow rate.
6 SPE 116300

Air is injected from an air compressor with an injection rate up to 900 scfm at 500 psig pressure. A surfactant injection pump
is used to add surfactant to the system. The mixture of water, air and surfactant meet at the suction end of the Moyno pump, a
three-phase pump that can provide a total flow rate of 500 gpm. Pressure is raised to the desired value at the discharge end.
The mixture then goes to a shear valve across which 100 psi differential pressure is applied. Homogenous foam is created
after the shear valve. Foam then flows to the annular test section, the 4” return pipe and finally to the foam disposal system.
Two Fisher valves, CV2 and CV3 in Fig. 4, were installed downstream of the test section to control the test pressure in the
system. A steady-sate foam flow is obtained when the pressure drop across the annulus and the 4” pipe is stabilized.

Fig. 3—The Advanced Cuttings Transport Facility.

Air Tank

Air Compressor #1 CV5

F1
Air Compressor #2
CV6 Metering Pump
F2 Feed Pump
Injection
Tower Surfactant Pump
F3
High
Pressure
Pump
Moyno
Static Mixer Pump

Cooler Heater
Shear Valve

Foam
Monitoring
CV3

CV2 Mud Mud

Tank Tank
#2 #1

V1
DN2 DN1

Breaker Pump
V2 5.76 × 3.5 in. V3
Annular Section
Separation
Tower

4-inch Pipe

Fig. 4—Schematic drawing of the advanced cuttings transport facility.

(2) Inject and collect cuttings. Cuttings from the 30-ft high injection tower are injected into the system after the shear
valve and foam static mixer (Fig. 4). Cuttings injection rate is controlled by a 12-inch cuttings injection valve at the bottom
of the injection tower and a cuttings injection auger that is installed below the 12-inch valve. Cuttings injection is started
when foam flow reaches steady state. Pipe rotation is started after cuttings enter the annulus. After flowing through the test
SPE 116300 7

section, cuttings are separated from foam and enter a 41-ft tall collection tower that can transfer cuttings back to the injection
tower for re-use. The cuttings weight measurement system is installed under each tower. The weight change of each tower as
a function of time is used to determine the real-time cuttings injection rate and collection rate.
(3) Measure cuttings concentration and pressure drop across the annulus at steady-state flow conditions. Cuttings
concentration is defined as the true volume of cuttings in the test section at steady state divided by the volume of the annulus.
It is obtained from the mixture density of cuttings and foam. Two calibrated nuclear densitometers were installed on the
annular section to measure the mixture density. Steady-state flow of the mixture is achieved when the differential pressure
across the annulus and the two densitometer readings are stabilized. It takes about 30 minutes to reach steady sate after the
start of cuttings injection. The measurements of the nuclear densitometers are verified by cuttings holdup tests. When the
flow of the foam-cuttings mixture reaches steady state, the cuttings in the test section are trapped by opening the bypass
valve, V2, and closing the two holdup valves, V1 and V3, simultaneously. The cuttings are then flushed to the collection tank
to measure the weight of cuttings. Cuttings concentration or the density of the mixture can thus be obtained.
(4) Dispose of foam and shut down the system. Foam generated in this system is for one-time use only and is not
intended for recirculation. A specifically designed foam disposal system was built to handle the rapidly expanding foam
coming out of the pressurized flow loop. It consists of a foam breaker pump, a water spray system, a foam enclosure and a
waste tank. The system starts working once foam is produced. Foam breaker is injected using a pneumatic oscillating pump
to the top of the separation tower, where foam is separated from cuttings, turns into liquid and flows to the discharge line.
The water spray system is used as an auxiliary cleaning system at the exit of the discharge line. The liquid then flows to a
100-bbl waste tank for further treatment. The foam monitoring system allows the operator to observe foam disposal outside
while operating in the control room. The entire flow loop is shut down after an experiment is completed and foam is properly
disposed of.

Test Matrix. As shown in Table 1, the test variables include foam quality, foam velocity, pressure and temperature in the
annular test section and pipe rotary speed. The cuttings injection rate was maintained at 25 to 35 lbs/min, which corresponds
to a rate of penetration at 50 to 70 ft/hr. The cuttings mean diameter, D50, is about 3 mm. The surfactant concentration in the
base fluid (liquid phase of foam) is 1% by volume for every test.
TABLE 1—TEST MATRIX OF CUTTINGS TRANSPORT USING FOAM WITH DRILLPIPE ROTATION

Foam Quality Velocity, ft/s Pipe Rotation, RPM Pressure, psig Temperature, ºF No. of Test

0.6 2 0, 40, 120 100 80 3

0.7 2, 3 0, 40, 80, 120 100 80 7
0.8 2, 3, 4 0, 40, 80, 120 100, 200, 400 80, 120, 160 24
0.9 3, 4, 5 0, 40, 80, 120 100 80 7

Results and Discussion

The Effect of Pipe Rotation. Fig. 5 shows the effect of pipe rotation on cuttings concentration with 0.7 quality foam. Pipe
rotation reduces cuttings concentration at both foam superficial velocities tested. When the pipe is rotated from 0 to 120 RPM
with a foam velocity of 2 ft/s, cuttings concentration decreases from 35.4% to 22.1%. The relative reduction is 38%, which is
a significant improvement for hole cleaning. Moreover, frictional pressure loss also decreases with pipe rotation, as shown in
Fig. 6. Note that reduction in the pressure loss is up to 44% at a velocity of 3 ft/s when pipe rotation increases from 0 to 120
RPM. This reduction is of critical significance for ECD control. The decrease in pressure loss with pipe rotation is mainly
because of a reduction in cuttings concentration in the annulus. A decrease in cuttings concentration results in a smaller
cuttings bed cross-sectional area, and a larger open flow area for fluid. This reduces the flow resistance and pressure losses.
50 0.05
Cuttings Concentration, %

2 ft/s 2 ft/s
40 0.04
3 ft/s 3 ft/s
dP/dL, psi/ft

30 0.03

20 0.02

10 0.01

0 0.00
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Pipe Rotation, RPM Pipe Rotation, RPM

Fig. 5—Cuttings concentration vs. pipe rotation for 0.7 quality Fig. 6—Pressure drop vs. pipe rotation for 0.7 quality foam (100
foam (100 psi, 80 °F). psi, 80 °F).
8 SPE 116300

Fig. 7 gives the change in cuttings concentration with pipe rotation for 0.8 quality foam at foam velocities of 2, 3, and 4
ft/s. Clearly, cuttings concentration consistently decreases with pipe rotation. The relative reduction is up to 40% (from
31.1% to 18.7%) at a foam velocity of 3 ft/s. Again, frictional pressure drop is decreased by pipe rotation (Fig. 8). The
decrease at a low foam velocity, 2 ft/s, is more than 60%.
50 0.15
2 ft/s 2 ft/s
Cuttings Concentration, %

40 3 ft/s 3 ft/s
4 ft/s 4 ft/s
0.10

dP/dL, psi/ft
30

20
0.05

10

0 0.00
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Pipe Rotation, RPM Pipe Rotation, RPM

Fig. 7—Cuttings concentration vs. pipe rotation for 0.8 quality Fig. 8—Pressure drop vs. pipe rotation for 0.8 quality foam (100
foam (100 psi, 80 °F). psi, 80 °F).

The effect of pipe rotation on cuttings transport using high quality (0.9) foam is shown in Fig. 9. The reduction in
cuttings concentration resulting from pipe rotation is not diminished by the fact that cuttings concentration is already low
using high quality foam at a high velocity. Pipe rotation can make further, noticeable improvement in hole cleaning. Fig. 10
shows that pressure drop again decreases with pipe rotation at three foam velocities, i.e., 3, 4, and 5 ft/s.
50 0.20
3 ft/s 3 ft/s
Cuttings Concentration, %

40 4 ft/s 4 ft/s
0.15
5 ft/s 5 ft/s
dP/dL, psi/ft

30
0.10
20

0.05
10

0 0.00
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Pipe Rotation, RPM Pipe Rotation, RPM
Fig. 9—Cuttings concentration vs. pipe rotation for 0.9 quality Fig. 10—Pressure drop vs. pipe rotation for 0.9 quality foam (100
foam (100 psi, 80 °F). psi, 80 °F).

The Effect of Foam Velocity. Figs. 5 to 10 also show the effect of foam superficial velocity under different pipe rotary
speeds. For 0.7 quality foam, the improvement of hole cleaning by increasing velocity is negligible (Fig. 5). The effect of
velocity for 0.8 quality foam becomes noticeable, but is still slight (Fig. 7). With high quality (0.9) foam, however, increasing
foam velocity considerably decreases cuttings concentration (Fig. 9). The concentration decreases from approximately 21%
to 10% at 80 RPM pipe rotation when foam velocity is increased from 3 to 5 ft/s.
The improvement of hole cleaning resulting from an increase in foam velocity is more pronounced for high quality
foam. However, as shown in Fig. 10, increasing velocity causes a significant increase in frictional pressure loss. The pressure
loss increases by 58% when foam velocity increases from 3 to 5 ft/s if the pipe is not rotated. Unlike pipe rotation, which
normally decreases pressure drop in a horizontal annulus, using a velocity that is too high may adversely affect ECD control.

The Effect of Foam Quality. Fig. 11 shows the effect of foam quality in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 at 2 ft/s foam velocity and
different pipe rotary speeds. There is a dramatic reduction in cuttings concentration when foam quality increases from 0.6 to
0.7. A reduction of 44% in cuttings concentration was observed at 120 RPM pipe rotation. Further increasing foam quality to
0.8 shows little influence at all pipe rotary speeds tested.
As shown in Fig. 12, frictional pressure loss slightly increases with foam quality from 0.6 to 0.7. There are two
competing factors affecting the pressure loss. On one hand, the open flow area for foam significantly increases when foam
quality changes from 0.6 to 0.7 because of a decreased cuttings concentration. This causes a pressure loss reduction. On the
other hand, increasing foam quality also increases foam apparent viscosity, which results in an increase in pressure drop.
Apparently, the increase in pressure drop due to viscosity changes prevails and causes a slight increase in the resultant
pressure drop. When foam quality increases from 0.7 to 0.8, however, a dramatic increase in pressure loss by 200% was
SPE 116300 9

observed in the absence of drillpipe rotation. Clearly, the foam viscosity factor dominates over the whole process since there
is no change in cuttings concentration. The increase in pressure loss has a substantial impact on ECD control that must be
considered. If the drillpipe is rotated, the increase in pressure loss with foam quality is greatly reduced. For example, pressure
drop increases by 70% instead of 200% when foam quality increases from 0.7 to 0.8 when the pipe is rotating at 120 RPM.
50 0.15
Cuttings Concentration, %

40
0 RPM
0.10

dP/dL, psi/ft
40 RPM
30
120 RPM

20
0 RPM 0.05
40 RPM
10
120 RPM

0 0.00
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8
Foam Quality Foam Quality

Fig. 11—Cuttings concentration vs. foam quality at 2 ft/s foam Fig. 12—Pressure drop vs. foam quality at 2 ft/s foam velocity
velocity (100 psi, 80 °F). (100 psi, 80 °F).

Fig. 13 shows the effect of foam quality on cuttings concentration at a higher foam velocity, 3 ft/s, and a higher foam
quality range, from 0.7 to 0.9. Consistent with Fig. 11, foam quality in the range of 0.7 to 0.9 does not have a significant
effect on cuttings concentration at three pipe rotary speeds. Nevertheless, the improvement of hole cleaning resulting from an
increase in foam quality is noticeable at a higher foam velocity. Depending on pipe rotary speed, the frictional pressure loss
increases by approximately 200% when foam quality increases from 0.7 to 0.9 (Fig. 14).
50 0.15
0 RPM 0 RPM
Cuttings Concentration, %

40 40 RPM 40 RPM
120 RPM 120 RPM
0.10
dP/dL, psi/ft

30

20
0.05
10

0 0.00
0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9
Foam Quality Foam Quality
Fig. 13—Cuttings concentration vs. foam quality at 3 ft/s foam Fig. 14—Pressure drop vs. foam quality at 3 ft/s foam velocity
velocity (100 psi, 80 °F). (100 psi, 80 °F).

In summary, increasing foam quality from 0.7 to 0.9 only slightly enhances hole cleaning at a low to a medium foam
velocity. The reason may be explained as follows. The cuttings carrying capacity of a fluid depends on two parameters, i.e.,
fluid density and viscosity. A fluid with a higher viscosity or a higher density normally enhances cuttings carrying capacity
because of a lower cuttings slip velocity. When foam quality increases, foam apparent viscosity increases, which is beneficial
for cuttings transport. On the other hand, foam density decreases with an increase in quality, which is detrimental for cuttings
transport. The improvement of cuttings transport because of an increased foam viscosity is compromised by the decrease in
foam density.
Up to this point, three options were found to improve hole cleaning: 1) to apply pipe rotation, 2) to increase foam
velocity or flow rate, and 3) to increase foam quality. Depending on other parameters, the last two options may or may not
offer a great help in hole cleaning, yet they significantly increase frictional pressure loss in most cases. By applying pipe
rotation, however, both cuttings concentration and pressure loss can be reduced. Therefore, rotating the drillpipe during foam
drilling, if possible, is one of the best options for hole cleaning.

The Effect of Downhole Pressure. Fig. 15 shows the effect of downhole pressure on cuttings transport using foam with a
given quality at 3 ft/s foam velocity and three pipe rotary speeds. The general tendency is that increasing pressure causes a
very slight decrease in cuttings concentration. However, the frictional pressure drop increases with pressure for the same
quality foam (Fig. 16). As shown in a previous study, pressure increases the apparent viscosity of a given quality foam, and
thus increases pressure drop. The increased foam apparent viscosity also accounts for the slight decrease in cuttings
concentration.
10 SPE 116300

50 0.20
0 RPM
Cuttings Concentration, %

40 40 RPM
0.15
120 RPM

dP/dL, psi/ft
30
0.10
20
0 RPM
0.05 40 RPM
10
120 RPM

0 0.00
100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
Pressure, psi Pressure, psi
Fig. 15—Cuttings concentration vs. downhole pressure for 0.8 Fig. 16—Pressure drop vs. downhole pressure for 0.8 quality
quality foam with pipe rotation (3 ft/s velocity, 80 °F). foam with pipe rotation (3 ft/s velocity, 80 °F).

The Effect of Downhole Temperature. The effect of downhole temperature on cuttings concentration is shown in Fig. 17.
A higher temperature generally results in a higher cuttings concentration for the same quality foam. The frictional pressure
drop decreases with an increase in temperature because foam apparent viscosity decreases with temperature (Fig. 18). This
also accounts for the slight increase in cuttings concentration.
50 0.15
Cuttings Concentration, %

0 RPM
40
40 RPM
0.10
dP/dL, psi/ft

120 RPM
30

20
0 RPM 0.05
40 RPM
10
120 RPM

0 0.00
80 120 160 80 120 160
Temperature, °F Temperature, °F

Fig. 17—Cuttings concentration vs. downhole temperature for Fig. 18—Pressure drop vs. downhole temperature for 0.8 quality
0.8 quality foam with pipe rotation (3 ft/s velocity, 100 psi). foam with pipe rotation (3 ft/s velocity, 100 psi).

Comparisons of Model Predictions with Experimental Data. The model predictions using the cuttings transport simulator
developed in this study were extensively compared with experimental data in this study and in previous studies under
different wellbore configurations and test conditions.
50 0.20
Data from this study
Data from Chen
Predicted dP/dL, psi/ft

40
Data from Ozbayoglu 0.15
Predicted Cc, %

30
0.10
20

0.05
10

0 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Measured Cc, % Measured dP/dL, psi/ft

Fig. 19—Comparison of model prediction with experimental Fig. 20—Comparison of model prediction with experimental data
data for cuttings concentration from three studies. for pressure drop from this study.

Fig. 19 shows the predicted cuttings concentration versus experimental data from this study and two previous studies
that can be found in the literature (Chen et al. 2007a; Ozbayoglu 2002). The test data from Chen was obtained on a concentric
5.76” by 3.5” annulus at elevated pressure and temperature condtions, but without pipe rotation. The data from Ozbayoglu
was obtained on a low pressure ambient temperature flow loop consisting of a 100-ft long, 8” by 4.5” annulus of 0.9
eccentricity without pipe rotation. A total of 94 pairs of data points were compared. The average difference is 10.7% (take the
SPE 116300 11

absolute value of the relative difference between each pair of data and then take the average of the 94 differences). The
predicted frictional pressure drop versus the measurements from this study is indicated in Fig. 20, with an average difference
of 14.3%.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Pipe rotation not only significantly decreases cuttings concentration in a horizontal annulus during foam drilling, but also
results in a considerable reduction in frictional pressure loss in most cases. The reduction in cuttings concentration is up to
40% at a medium foam velocity (3 ft/s) when pipe is rotated to 120 RPM. The decrease in frictional pressure loss is up to
50% at a medium foam velocity and is more than 60% at a low velocity.
Improvement in hole cleaning by increasing foam velocity is limited when low to medium quality foams are used. An
increase in foam velocity noticeably decreases cuttings concentration with high quality (0.9) foam. However, increasing foam
velocity causes a significant increase in frictional pressure loss. The pressure loss increases by 58% when foam velocity
increases from 3 to 5 ft/s if the pipe is not rotated. Rotating drillpipe helps minimize the increase in pressure loss caused by
an increase in foam velocity. Increasing foam quality from 0.7 to 0.9 also slightly improves hole cleaning. However, pressure
loss increases by approximately 200% with foam quality from 0.7 to 0.9. Decreasing foam quality from 0.7 to 0.6
significantly increases cuttings concentration. The increase is up to 100% even with pipe rotation.
Cuttings concentration slightly decreases with pressure and increases with temperature. The changes are not significant.
The frictional pressure drop increases with pressure and decreases with temperature. The changes can be considerable.
The model and the associated computer simulator can be used to predict cuttings concentration, bed height and pressure
drop during horizontal foam drilling with various pipe rotary speeds, eccentricities, foam qualities and velocities under
different pressure and temperature conditions. Comparisons between model predictions and various experimental data
sources show that the difference is less than 15% in most of the cases.
Pipe rotation in the range of 80 to 160 RPM is highly recommended during foam drilling. If pipe rotation is not possible,
a foam superficial velocity higher than 5 ft/s is recommended for hole cleaning purposes. However, be aware of the
significant increase in pressure losses. A foam quality of 0.9 combined with a medium to high foam velocity (4 to 6 ft/s) is
recommended to get a good hole cleaning. Based on the experimental observations, foam quality lower than 0.7 is not
recommended for drilling applications in a horizontal well.

Nomenclature
Af : Fluid open flow area, m2 Number of moles of gas dissolved in
nsol :
c : Equation constant in Eq. 1, Kelvin water, mole
d : Drill pipe diameter, m P : Pressure, Pa
D : Wellbore diameter, m Gas flow rate at standard conditions,
Qg,s :
Deff : Effective diameter, m m3/s
Dhy : Hydraulic diameter, m QL : Liquid flow rate, m3/s
DP/DL : Actual pressure drop, Pa/m Rg : Universal gas constant, J/mol.K
DPc/DL : Critical pressure drop, Pa/m Sco2 : Solubility of CO2 in water, m3co2/m3water
e : Pipe eccentricity Ssol : Solubility of gas in liquid, molgas/m3soln
fgeo : Wellbore geometry function T : Temperature, K
fP : Pressure function Ts : Standard temperature, K
fP,T : Pressure temperature interaction Vf : Foam in situ velocity, m/s
fT : Temperature function Vg : Volume of the gas, m3
fΩ : Pipe RPM factor Volume of free gas that is not dissolved
Vgf :
fΩV : Coefficient in pipe RPM factor in water, m3
fг : Foam quality function VL : Liquid volume, m3
h : Cuttings bed height, m Vsf : Superficial foam velocity, m/s
k : Fluid consistency index, Pa.sn Greek Letters
KH(T) : Henry’s constant, molgas/ m3soln.Pa
KH, Ts : Henry's constant at standard Γ : Foam quality
3
Fluid consistency index at LPAT ions, Γco 2 : CO2 foam quality
kLPAT : n
Pa.s Gas density at standard conditions,
ρ g,s :
mg : Mass of the gas, kg kg/m3
Mg : Molar mass of the gas, kg/mole Ω : Pipe rotary speed, RPM
n : Total number of moles of gas, mole
n : Fluid behavior index
12 SPE 116300

Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank Weatherford International for providing a large quantity of chemicals and all member companies of
the Tulsa University Drilling Research Projects (TUDRP) for their financial and technical support throughout this study.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl × 1.560 E – 01 = m3
ft × 3.048* E – 01 = m
°F (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
gal/min (US) × 6.309 E – 05 = m3/s
inch × 2.54 E – 02 = m
psi × 6.895 E + 00 = kPa

*Conversion factor is exact.

References
Azouz, I. 1994. Numerical Simulation of Laminar and Turbulent Flows of Wellbore Fluids in Annular Passages of Arbitrary Cross-Section.
PhD Dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Capo, J. 2002. Cuttings Transport With Foam at Intermediate Inclination Angles. MS Thesis, U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma. U.S.A.
Chen, Z., Ahmed, R., Miska, S. et al. 2007. Experimental Study on Cuttings Transport With Foam Under Simulated Horizontal Downhole
Conditions. SPEDC 22 (4): 304-312. SPE-99201-PA. DOI: 10.2118/99201-PA.
Chen, Z., Duan, M., Miska, S., Yu, M., Ahmed, R., and Hallman, J. 2007. Hydraulic Predictions for Polymer-Thickened Foam Flow in
Horizontal and Directional Wells. Paper SPE 105583 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 20–
22 February. DOI: 10.2118/105583-MS.
Chen, Z. 2005. Study of Cuttings Transport with Foam under Elevated Pressure and Elevated Temperature Conditions. PhD Dissertation,
U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Crawford, H.R., Neill, G.H., Bucy, B.J., and Crawford, P.B. 1963. Carbon Dioxide - A Multipurpose Additive for Effective Well
Stimulation. JPT 15, N(3): 237-242.
Duan, M., Miska, S., Yu, M., Takach, N., Ahmed, R., and Hallman, J. 2008. The Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Pressure Losses and Fluid
Velocity Profile in Foam Drilling. Paper SPE 114185 presented at the SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint
Meeting, Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., 31 March–2 April. DOI: 10.2118/114185-MS.
Duan, M., Miska,S., Yu, M., Takach, N., Ahmed, R., and Zettner, C. 2007. Critical Conditions for Effective Sand-Sized Solids Transport in
Horizontal and High-Angle Wells. Paper SPE 106707 presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, 31 March-3 April. DOI: 10.2118/106707-MS.
Harris, P.C. and Reidenbach, V.G.1987. High-Temperature Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing Fluids. JPT 39 (5): 613-619.
Li, Y. 2004. Numerical Modeling of Cuttings Transport with Foam in Vertical and Horizontal Wells. PhD Dissertation, U. of Alberta,
Alberta, Canada.
Martins, A.L., Luorenco, A.M.F. and de Sa, C.H.M.2001. Foam Property Requirements for Proper Hole Cleaning While Drilling
Horizontal Wells in Underbalanced Conditions. SPEDC 16 (4):195-200. SPE-74333-PA. DOI: 10.2118/74333-PA.
Okpobiri, G.A. and Ikoku, C. U. 1986. Volumetric Requirements for Foam and Mist Drilling Operations. SPEDE 1 (1): 71-88. SPE-11723-
PA. DOI: 10.2118/11723-PA.
Ozbayoglu, M.E.2002. Cuttings Transport with Foam in Horizontal and Highly-Inclined Wellbores. PhD Dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa,
Oklahoma. U.S.A.
Sanchez, R.A. 1997. Modeling of Drilled Cuttings Bed Erosion in Highly Inclined Wells. MS Thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
U.S.A.
Sander, R. 1999. Compilation of Henry’s Law Constants for Inorganic and Organic Species of Potential Importance in Environmental
Chemistry. Version 3. Max-Planck Institute of Chemistry, Germany.
Reidenbach, V.G., Harris, P.C., Lee, Y.N. and Lord D.L. 1986. Rheological Study of Foam Fracturing Fluids Using Nitrogen and Carbon
Dioxide. SPEPE 1 (1): 31-41.
Smith, F.L. and Harvey, A.H. 2007. Avoid Common Pitfalls When Using Henry's Law. Chemical Engineering Progress. ISSN 0360-7275.
Zamora, M. and Lord, D.L.1974. Practical Analysis of Drilling Mud Flow in Pipes and Annuli. Paper SPE 4976 presented at the Fall
Meeting of the SPE of AIME, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 6-9 October.

Appendix A
Devrivation of Equation of State (EOS) for Foam Considering Gas Solubility. According to Henry’s law (Smith and Harvey
2007), at a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly
proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. The equation reads,
S sol = PK H (T ) , (A-1)
3
where Ssol is the solubility of gas in liquid in terms of the number of moles of gas per cubic meter of solution (molgas/m soln), P
is the absolute partial pressure of the gas (Pa), and KH(T) is the Henry’s constant (molgas/ m3soln.Pa), which is a function of
temperature. The temperature dependence of the Henry’s constant is expressed as (Sander 1999),
1 1
K H (T ) = K H ,Ts EXP [c( − )] , (A-2)
T Ts
SPE 116300 13

where KH, Ts is the Henry’s constant at the standard temperature, Ts (298 K), and c is a constant with a unit of Kelvin. Suppose
the volume of water is VL m3 and neglect the volume change of water due to dissolved gas, the number of moles of gas
dissolved in water is (using Eq. A-2 into Eq. A-1 and times the water volume),
1 1
n sol = V L PK H ,Ts EXP [c ( − )] . (A-3)
T Ts
According to the Equation of State (EOS) for an ideal gas, the gas volume under a certain pressure and temperature is,
nRT m g R g T
Vg = = , (A-4)
P MgP
where n is the total number of moles of gas, Rg is the universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol.K or m3.Pa/mol.K), and mg and Mg
are the mass (kg) and molar mass (kg/mole) of the gas, respectively. If the gas is mixed with VL m3 of water under pressure,
P, and temperature, T, nsol moles of gas is dissolved in water. Therefore, the remaining number of moles of gas in gas phase is
n-nsol. The volume of free gas that is not dissolved in water, from Eqs. A-3 and A-4 is,
mg 1 1 Rg T
V gf = { − V L PK H ,T EXP [c ( − )]} . (A-5)
Mg s
T Ts P
Assuming water is incompressible, according to the definition of foam quality, the quality of foam can be calculated as,
V gf
Γ= . (A-6)
V gf + V L
Given the water flow rate, QL, and the gas flow rate, Qg,s, at standard conditions, the quality of foam at certain pressure
and temperature conditions can be obtained by using Eqs. A-5 and A-6. The final equation is,
1
Γ= . (A-7)
QL
1+
ρ g ,s Q g ,s 1 1 RgT
{ − Q L PK H ,T EXP [c( − )]}
Mg s
T Ts P