Numerical Study on Effects

E. GhasemiKafrudi
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Research Laboratory,
School of Chemical Engineering,
Iran University of Science
and Technology,
Tehran 16846, Iran
S. H. Hashemabadi1
Associate Professor
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Research Laboratory,
School of Chemical Engineering,
Iran University of Science
and Technology,
Tehran 16846, Iran
e-mail: hashemabadi@iust.ac.ir
of Drilling Mud Rheological
Properties on the Transport
of Drilling Cuttings
Inaccurate prediction of the required pressures can lead to a number of costly drilling
problems. In this study, the hydrodynamics of mud-cuttings were numerically studied
using the Mixture Model. To this end, an in-house code was developed to calculate the
velocity and pressure fields. The mud velocity profile using of Herschel–Bulkley model
and solid phase volume fraction were locally calculated; moreover, pressure drop
through the annulus was taken into account. The effects of velocity, mud properties, and
solid phase volume fraction on pressure drop were discussed and a new correlation was
proposed for calculating friction factor based on corresponding parameters.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4031450]

1 Introduction
Drilling cost optimization has always been an essential subject
in the petroleum engineering. Drilling cost depends on various
factors particularly mud cost, safety, and operation efficiency.
Pumping and increasing mud pressure are crucial operating cost
sources. The mud pressure helps clean the well and in some cases
provides power for the bit. Thus, it is necessary to study the pa-
rameters influencing pressure drop and hydrodynamics of mud in
drilling well. The bottom hole pressure, as a critical parameter in
any drilling operation, is a function of the hydrostatic head of the
mud and annular pressure loss. Hence, accurate prediction of the
annular pressure loss leads to a good estimation of the bottom
hole pressure that prevents kicks and circulation losses. In addi-
tion, drilling mud carries cuttings from the bottom of the well to
the surface which has crucial effects on the drilling mud flow
field. Therefore, understanding the hydrodynamic behavior of
drilling fluids through the extraction process from drilling wells
can be used to optimize the extraction performance and reduce
pumping cost of drilling mud [1].
1.1 Background. Many investigations have been done exper-
imentally and numerically on drilling fluids flow through the well-
bore. Sorgun [2] developed simple empirical frictional pressure
losses and cuttings bed thickness correlations including pipe rota-
tion for solid–liquid flow in horizontal and deviated wellbores.
Ozbayoglu and Sorgun [3] developed correction factors for calcu-
lating frictional pressure losses in eccentric horizontal annuli for
non-Newtonian fluids with the effect of pipe rotation and showed
that pipe rotation affects frictional pressure loss particularly at
lower flow rates. Sorgun et al. [4] proposed a mechanistic model
for predicting the frictional pressure losses of Newtonian fluid in
concentric annuli. Additionally they studied pipe eccentricity
effect on tangential velocity inside the annulus. Erge et al. [5]
made a horizontal well setup with drilling string, to investigate
influence of rotation on frictional pressure losses of yielded power
law fluids. They observed most effect of rotation is in the transi-
tion region from laminar to turbulent flow. Founargiotakis et al.
[6] investigated laminar, transitional and turbulent flow of
Herschel–Bulkley fluids in a concentric annulus. They offered a
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL
OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 16, 2015; final
manuscript received May 23, 2015; published online September 16, 2015. Assoc.
Editor: Christopher J. Wajnikonis.
reliable analytical model which predicts the pressure drop for lam-
inar fluids in concentric annuli. Sorgun et al. [7] presented a math-
ematical model for predicting flow characteristics and frictional
pressure losses of Newtonian fluids in concentric horizontal annu-
lus with drill pipe rotation. Wei et al. [8] used theoretical, experi-
mental, and field data for considering the effects of parameters on
annular pressure loss due to friction for Power law fluids in lami-
nar regime. Wang et al. [9] performed an experimental investiga-
tion for finding the effective parameters of drilling in a slim hole
and concluded that the annular mud flow regime relies on not only
the Reynolds number but also the Taylor number. Ozbelge and
Beyaz [10] discussed the pressure drop in solid–liquid flows and
the alternative of operating velocities in the vertical pipe for
solid–liquid mixtures. Escudier et al. [11] studied the rheological
behavior of xanthan and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) solu-
tions mixture and experimentally investigated pressure drop and
velocity profiles in the annuli. Zhou and Shah [12] experimentally
investigated the rheological properties and friction pressure losses
of several common well-drilling, completion, and stimulation flu-
ids. Woo et al. [13] conducted an experimental study of fully
developed laminar flows of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids
through a concentric annulus with an inner rotational cylinder.
Their results showed that the pressure drop increases at higher
rotational speeds of the inner cylinder. Kelessidis et al. [14] meas-
ured the viscosity of bentonite suspension in water as the drilling
fluid and obtained single-phase pressure drop of this drilling fluid
with two-dimensional analytical solution regardless of the drill bit
rotation. Pereira et al. [15] simulated the single-phase flow in
eccentric and concentric annuli and validated the velocity profiles
with Escudier’s data [16] and, then, studied the effects of viscos-
ity, drilling string rotation and axial velocity on pressure drop.
Ahmed and Miska [17] carried out an experimental and theoreti-
cal study on laminar flows of yield power-law fluids in concentric
and fully eccentric annuli. They found that the frictional pressure
loss is mainly affected by fluid rheological properties, flow re-
gime, diameter ratio and annulus eccentricity. Zhi-ming et al. [18]
simulated the transport of drilling cuttings in a horizontal well.
They assumed a Newtonian behavior for the drilling mud and a
spherical shape for particles with a mean diameter of one milli-
meter. Han et al. [19] designed an experimental annulus system
with a rotational inner shaft. The fluid was a solution of CMC (4%
volume fraction) in which the fluid was assumed to be a shear
thinning fluid. In their study, CMC solution with 4% volume
fraction of solids passed through the annuli. They concluded that
pressure drop increases with raising mud flow rate, particles

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME JANUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 012902-1

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 concentration, drilling fluid viscosity and string rotation speed. 2.1 Governing Equations. In this study, each phase was con-
Gumati et al. [20] experimentally investigated cuttings transport sidered incompressible and the flow was assumed to be isothermal
by foam fluid and proposed two models to calculate the pressure and laminar. The mixture viscosity depends on the strain-rate ten-
drop. Their results showed an increase in pressure drop and trans- sor and the solid volume fraction. The continuity equation for the
port of cuttings with increasing the concentration and fluid flow of mixture can be expressed as follows:
the foam. Haciislamoglu and Langlinais [21] presented an analy-
sis of non-Newtonian fluid flow in an eccentric annulus with inner @
ðq Þ þ r  ðqm v m Þ ¼ 0 (1)
pipe motion. They developed a correlation to quick calculation of @t m
surge pressures in eccentric annuli based on their model’s results.
Hajidavalloo et al. [22] numerically simulated hydrodynamic From the continuity equation for the secondary phase, the
behavior of gas–solid two-phase flows in vertical wells. They dis- volume fraction equation can be obtained:
cussed air velocity profile, particle velocity profile, particle vol-
ume fraction and pressure drop in a different situation. Sorgun
et al. [23] showed that CFD model can predicts frictional pressure @
ap q þ r  ðap qp v m Þ ¼ r  ðap qp v dr;p Þ
losses gas-liquid flow inside horizontal eccentric annulus with an @t ð p Þ
error less than 20% for all two-phase flow patterns (dispersed bub- X
n
ble, dispersed annular, plug, slug, churn, wavy annular) when þ ðm_ cp  m_ pc Þ (2)
compared with experimental data. q¼1
The frictional pressure drop of cuttings-mud two-phase flow is
one of the important parameters for drilling operations. An accu-
rate evaluation of the pressure drop is crucial especially for calcu- where m_ cp and m_ pc are the rates of mass transfer from continuous
lating hydraulic horsepower supply, choosing proper mud phase (denoted by c) to particle phase and conversely. In this
pumping systems, and foreseeing bite requirements in drilling study, the mass transfer between the two phases was ignored. The
operations. All of the previous studies have considered the single momentum equation for the mixture can be obtained by summa-
phase analysis of non-Newtonian or two-phase analysis of Newto- tion of the individual momentum equations for all phases [28]. It
nian fluids. So far, there have been few analytical and numerical can be expressed as follows:
studies on two-phase flows of non-Newtonian drilling mud and
@   
cutting transport. ðq vm Þ þ r  ðqm vm vm Þ ¼ rp þ r  lm rvm þ rvm
T
@t m !
1.2 Research Approach. In this study, the effects of both X
n

rheological properties and cuttings transport on pressure loss and þ qm g þ F þ r  ak qk vdr;k vdr;k
k¼1
profile velocity through a vertical annulus are numerically investi-
gated. Herschel–Bulkley model is to be used to predict the rheolog- (3)
ical properties of the drilling mud. The mud and cuttings velocity
profile and the volume fraction of solids in the annulus cross section The last two terms stand for the effect of second phase (cutting
are to be calculated. Moreover, the effects of mud flow rate, drilling phase) comes in the momentum equation
string rotational speed, the volume percent of solid phase and fluid
type on pressure drop will be investigated. Finally, a correction fac- 2.2 Relative (Slip) and Drift Velocities. The slip and the
tor will be proposed to accurately determine the frictional pressure drift velocity in the momentum equations show the interdepend-
loss in concentric vertical annuli for non-Newtonian fluids includ- ence of drilling fluid hydrodynamics and dispersed phase (cutting
ing the effect of inner cylinder rotation. phase). These two velocities (drift and slip) are related through
the following expression [28]:
1.3 Statement of the Problem. In the drilling process, mud
is pumped down through the drill string so that the mud with high X
n
ak q k
vdr;p ¼ vpc  vck (4)
pressure breaks out the bit and carries cuttings to the surface of k¼1
qm
ground through the annulus. In this study, the bit size was selected
according to the stiffness of the well’s walls. Typically, the diam- Here, cuttings and mud are the secondary and primary phases,
eter can be in the range of 0.311–0.445 m and almost 0.127 m for respectively. The form of the slip velocity is given by
wellbore and drilling string, respectively. The cuttings are classi-
fied as low density solid with the density range of 2400–2900 kg/
qp dp2 sp ðqp  qm Þ
m3. It is too hard to find out the optimum shapes, sizes and size vpc ¼ a (5)
distribution in each circumstance. However, sphericity or shape 18Fd lc qp
factor (u), which is defined as the ratio of the surface area of a
sphere with the same volume of the particle (a) to the actual sur- 2.3 Mud Force on Cuttings. When a particle is carried by a
face area of the particle (S), has been reported to be in the range moving fluid, different forces can affect its trajectory (Fig. 1(b)).
of 0.75–0.85 in the literature [2,24]. The velocity of mud which is The crucial forces are weight, buoyancy and drag forces and other
pumped into the bore string depends on annulus diameter and ones are negligible. The drag force of drilling fluid on the cuttings
varies from 0.4 to 1.4 m/s [19]. The mud pressure must be high (term F in Eq. (3)), is given [27]:
enough to prevent reservoir fluids (oil and gas) from entering the
well but does not break the formation [1]. ! 
18lm Cd Re
F¼ (6)
qp dp2 24
2 Computational Methodology
A finite-volume based in-house code was developed using the The drag coefficient, Cd, is
mixture model and was then employed for performing the simula-
tions in this study. The mixture model [25,26] was implemented
for simulating solid–liquid flow field and the interaction of the 
24 
  b Re 
3 p
two phases was applied by drag coefficients according to Cd ¼ 1 þ b1 Rebp2 þ (7)
Morsi–Alexander’s law [27]. Rep b4 þ Rep

012902-2 / Vol. 138, JANUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 (a) The boundary conditions, (b) forces on a moving particle in drilling fluid, (c) a con-
trol volume to calculate the velocity and pressure
where
b1 ¼ exp ð2:3288  6:4581u þ 2:4486u2 Þ
b2 ¼ 0:0964 þ 0:5565u
b3 ¼ exp ð4:905  13:8944u þ 18:4222u2  10:2599u3 Þ
b4 ¼ exp ð1:4681 þ 12:2584u  20:7322u2 þ 15:8855u3 Þ
2.4 Constitutive Equation. The Herschel–Bulkley [29]
model extends the simple power-law model to include a yield
stress term as follows:
 
sy
s ¼ Kjcj_ n1 þ c_ for jsj  sy (8)
jcj
_ presented in Figs. 1(a) and 1(c). All of the boundary conditions
where n is power law index and K is consistency coefficient. The
experimental data [14] can be predicted by Herschel–Bulkley
model relation and the rheological characteristics of each fluid are
tabulated in Table 1. It can be seen in Table 1 that R2 values are
close to 1 and the biggest difference with 1 is 0.012. Therefore,
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
shear stress prediction versus shear rate by the model can be
accepted. The mud apparent viscosity is calculated by
lmud ¼ jsj=jcj
_ (9)
where shear rate tensor and the magnitude of the shear rate are
given by [30,31]
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
† 1
_c ¼ rvc þ rvc ; j_c j ¼ c_ : c_ (10)
2
3 Numerical Solution
3.1 Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions.
The three-dimensional computational domain used in this study is
are also shown in Fig. 1(a). In all simulation cases, the inlet veloc-
ity to the annulus was assumed to be uniform. The drill string
rotated at constant angular velocity and the wall casing was sta-
tionary. The wall boundary was subjected to no slip conditions
(zero velocity on the wellbore). To reduce computational time and
false diffusion error, the totally orthogonal structural hexahedral
JANUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 012902-3
 meshes were employed. To consider the mesh independency of
the results, several different mesh numbers (e.g., 168,000,
270,000, and 420,000) were examined. Under the same condi-
tions, a comparison between the results of simulations with differ-
ent meshes showed that 270,000 mesh numbers was more
appropriate than 420,000 mesh numbers in terms of CPU time and
accuracy.

3.2 Discretization. The momentum equations were discre-

tized with finite volume method [25,26] for each control volume.
Figure 1(c) shows the faces in axial direction with e and w, in
radial direction with n and s, and in h direction with t and b. In
general, the form of discretized momentum equations can be
expressed by
X
aP uP ¼ anb unb þ b (11)

The pressure correction equation is susceptible to divergence

unless some under-relaxation is used during the iterative process. Fig. 2 Comparison the numerical simulation and experimental
data [19] of solid particles average velocity versus liquid aver-
Under-relaxation factor was set to 0.7 for pressure and 0.3 for age velocity (water as carrier fluid) in vertical (0 deg) and
velocities in this study. The semi-implicit method for pressure inclined annulus (20 deg)
linked equations (SIMPLE) algorithm was applied for coupling
the continuity and momentum equations, and Thomas algorithm the hydrodynamics of drilling mud. Therefore, an understanding of
was used to solve the set of algebraic linear equations [25]. the cuttings hydrodynamics is desirable. In this investigation, the
effects of different rheological and operational parameters were
4 Results and Discussion studied; the external and internal diameters of the annulus were
0.311 and 0.127 m, respectively. Moreover, Herschel–Bulkley
4.1 Model Verification. In order to validate the developed rheological model was used to predict the drilling mud viscosity.
numerical code before discussing the results, some comparisons
were made between the numerical outcomes and the experimental
data. In this regard, two solid–liquid multiphase flows (sand–water
and sand-carboxymethyl cellulose, CMC solution) were consid-
ered. In the first case, the inner and outer pipe diameters were
30 mm and 44 mm, respectively. The carrier fluid (continuous
phase) was water and density, solid mass fraction and particle di-
ameter were qp ¼ 2550 kg/m3, ap ¼ 4%, dp ¼ 1 mm, respectively.
According to Fig. 2, there is an appropriate agreement between
the simulation results and experimental data (mean deviation of
8%) for solid average velocity in different inclination. Figure 3(a)
shows the average particles velocity versus average velocity of
0.4% CMC solution in water. The numerical results, obtained
from a Power law rheological model for CMC solution, depict
proper agreement with the experimental data (mean deviation of
11.7%). For both water and CMC solution, the axial velocity of
particles gradually increased with the mixture velocity.
Also Fig. 3(b) presents a suitable agreement between the simu-
lation results and experimental data [19] (mean deviation is 9.1%)
for pressure drop of unit of length. It is clearly observed that the
simulation results are properly able to predict experimental data
under all single- and two-phase conditions.

4.2 Two-Phase Flow Simulation of Drilling Mud. Cuttings

increase pressure drop through the domain and greatly influence

Table 1 Rheological parameters of Herschel–Bulkley model

for different types of drilling mud [15]

Samples sy K n R2

D.F-1 8.44 3.426 0.255 0.988

D.F-2 7.074 8.431 0.229 0.991
D.F-3 0.675 0.073 0.700 0.994
D.F-4 6.394 0.450 0.500 0.994
D.F-5 2.409 0.125 0.701 0.998
D.F-6 1.183 0.127 0.643 0.997
D.F-7 3.485 0.031 0.805 0.967
D.F-8 1.706 1.206 0.4354 0.997 Fig. 3 Comparison of numerical simulation and experimental
D.F-9 0.175 0.945 0.410 0.999 data [19] of (a) solid particles’ average velocity (b) pressure
D.F-10 2.675 0.250 0.661 0998 drop versus liquid average velocity (0.4% CMC solution as car-
rier fluid) in vertical (0 deg) and inclined annulus (20 deg)

012902-4 / Vol. 138, JANUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 4 shows the radial distribution of velocity profile for
mixture of liquid phase and cuttings (solid loading 5%) with
different sizes in drilling mud (D.F-10, Table 1). As it can be
observed, the small particles have higher rising velocities com-
pared to larger particles. Moreover, the velocity profile is nega-
tive in the vicinity of the wall for mixtures with coarse particles
(diameters of 4 mm and 1 cm). This shows that particles do not
rise to the top and fall on the drill bit in regions near the wall
and thus can be crushed by the bit. In contrast, cuttings move to
the top of the well in other regions and the maximum velocity
for cuttings occurs almost in the center of the annular space.
Furthermore, cuttings which move into the center of the annuli
space (plug flow region) have the lowest slip velocity and are
carried with the mudflow. Although mud velocity is high in A
areas (Fig. 4), the cuttings do not move with mud flow and con-
tinuously slip down. This is due to the fact that the fluid viscos-
ity is less in these regions (higher shear rate) in comparison
with the plug flow area, thereby creating a lower drag force on
particles.
Figure 5 shows the volume fraction of solid phase for three dif-
ferent particle sizes. As it can be seen, the volume fraction near Fig. 5 Cutting volume fraction with different sizes on devel-
the annulus walls increases by increasing the particles diameter. oped flow region with D.F-10 fluid (Table 1)
This can be explained by the velocity profile of particle and mud
in radial direction (Fig. 4). According to Fig. 4, small particles The ratio of mud velocity to cuttings velocity, called transport
move with the fluid phase and have a very low slip velocity. ratio, is used to measure the cuttings removal process. When the
Therefore, the solid volume fraction of the small particles is transport ratio reaches 1, mud transport capacity is more appropri-
almost uniform through the annulus cross section. According to ate and can transfer cuttings and clean the drilling well. If this ra-
Fig. 5, the cutting (medium and large size) volume fraction in tio is greater than 0.5, the cutting transport is safe and if it is less
developed regions in the plug flow area has the lowest values; than 0.5 or 0, almost all cuttings undesirably accumulate in the
there is also a peak in volume fraction of solid particles approach- well.
ing the walls. This peak in particle volume fraction plummets in Figure 6 shows the transport ratio for different sizes of cuttings
the vicinity of the walls. This trend can be explained by the cut- for two types of drilling mud (Table 1). If this ratio is negative
tings velocity profile, shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, the velocity (cuttings downward movement), the particles remain in the well
of large particles is maximum in plug area and minimum near the and fall on the drill bit. As Fig. 6 suggests, the small cuttings are
walls. The cuttings velocity is zero or negative near the walls due completely carried and transport ratio in the annulus cross section
to slipping condition. Therefore, the solid volume fraction shows is more than 0.5. Transport ratio for larger cuttings is less than 0.5
the maximum value due to higher residence time. Solid volume near the walls and the index is negative where the cuttings fall
fraction decreases due to particles slip and negative velocity of down. The transport ratio is highly dependent on the type of mud
being so close to the wall. In the plug flow area, drilling mud vis- under the same operational conditions. The transport ratio for
cosity is high and all small and large cuttings move with the flow D.F-1 (Table 1) is greater than D.F-10 indicator due to having a
with the high solid phase velocity consequently, volume fraction higher yield stress and viscosity.
of the solid phase remains almost constant. However, in regions Determination of carrying capacity of drilling fluids is very
where particles velocities are less than the fluid velocity, the solid important. It is observed that low viscosity mud could reduce the
phase volume fraction increases. It should be noted that negative fluid’s ability to carry the rock cuttings to the surface. Neverthe-
velocity of particles reduces volume fraction of the solid phase less, increasing the mud viscosity can lead to the enhancement of
near the walls. power consumption.

Fig. 6 Comparison of two different carrying ratios for different

Fig. 4 Drilling mud and cutting velocity profiles with different cutting sizes (0.1, 0.4, and 1 cm) and drilling mud (D.F-1 and
sizes, solid loading 5%, with D.F-10 fluid (Table 1) D.F-10, Table 1)

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JANUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 012902-5

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 4.3 Influence of Mud Rheology on Pressure Drop. In order
to investigate the dependency of velocity profile and pressure
drop on fluid properties, the flow field with different velocities
was simulated based on Herschel–Bulkley rheological model for
five viscoplastic fluid types (drilling mud) presented in Table 1.
For each fluid in the developed region, the pressure gradient per
unit length was calculated and plotted in Fig. 7.
As shown in this figure, the pressure drop changes significantly
with fluid types in a constant flow rate. The pressure variations
through the annulus at lower velocities are much higher compared
to those at higher velocities. In the low velocity area (Fig. 7) shear
rate changes slowly by increasing the velocity and apparent vis-
cosity remains high; therefore, the pressure drop variation is high.
However, shear rate increases strongly in the high velocity area
by increasing the input velocity and has a significant impact on
the fluid apparent viscosity. Thus, reducing the fluid apparent vis- Fig. 8 Pressure gradient versus input velocity in different solid
cosity leads to a decrease in the effect of velocity causing less volume fraction (ap 50–15% with D.F-1 (Table 2)
pressure drop variation in the high velocity area compared to that
in the low velocity area (Fig. 7). These high pressure losses may
result in high velocity, thereby raising the problem of power lost 4.6. A New Correlation for Friction Factor. In the previous
and increasing the pumping cost. Hence, accurate selection of sections, effective factors on the flow pressure drop were investi-
mud (based on factors affecting the pressure drop and cuttings gated through the vertical annulus. According to the results, it can
transport) is needed in order to optimize drilling costs. be inferred that the pressure gradient depends more on rheological
parameters of drilling mud and fluid flow, and less on the drilling
string rotational velocity and solid volume fraction. To this end,
4.4 Effect of Cuttings Volume Fraction on Pressure Drop.
Reynolds, Froude, Taylor, Bingham and solid phase volume frac-
Presence of solid particles in the drilling fluid increases the pres-
tion dimensionless numbers were studied. To predict the pressure
sure drop due to momentum interaction with mud phase. Since
drop due to friction, a correlation between pressure drop and
high loads on the drill bit cause stuck bit, only low cuttings vol-
friction factor was proposed based on the aforementioned dimen-
ume fractions (0%–15%) were considered in this study. Figure 8
sionless numbers. In order to calculate the friction factor for non-
shows the pressure drop through the well in different solid volume
Newtonian fluids, the effective Reynolds is defined as follows
fractions ranging from 0% to 15%. It should be noted that
[15,16]:
solid–fluid interaction increases the pressure drop. Therefore, at
the higher cuttings feed concentrations, the hydraulic pressure q
v c dh
drop of the flow increases due to higher friction between the wall Reeff ¼ (12)
and mixture. leff

The shear rate is obtained by Eq. (13) and effective viscosity is

4.5 Influence of Drill String Rotational Velocity. The drill calculated by Herschel–Bulkley model
bit force is determined by drill string rotation, and the rotation
velocity is usually low for well drilling. Figure 9 shows that  2  
vc wc Rin 2
increasing drilling string rotation velocity has little effect on the c_ 2eff ¼ þ (13)
pressure drop; also, this figure illustrates a small pressure drop dh dh
variation with tangential velocity enhancement. The shear rate in
the fluid increases due to drilling string rotational velocity; When the inner pipe rotates with w angular velocity, and the
consequently, the drilling mud viscosity decreases which leads to outer pipe is stationary in the annulus, the axial flow under an
pressure drop reduction. external force such as a pressure gradient follows a helical or spi-
ral path. In addition to the Reynolds number, Taylor number is
defined as follows [28]:

Fig. 7 Pressure drop versus average velocity for five different Fig. 9 Pressure gradient versus input velocity and increased
fluid types (Table 1) (qp 5 2550 kg/m3, ap 5%3) drilling string rotation velocity. With D.F-1 fluid ap 58%.

012902-6 / Vol. 138, JANUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 rheological behavior was described well by the three-parameter
Herschel–Bulkley model. The mixture model was chosen for the
numerical solution of pressure and velocity fields. For calculating
the velocity field, pressure drop, phases holdup, and friction factor
of flow through the annulus, a numerical code was developed and
validated. Minimum and maximum cuttings volume fractions
were found in the plug region and near the wall, respectively. Cut-
tings in the plug area move upward with the lowest slip velocity
and transfer to the ground surface. However, cuttings may move
downward to the bottom of the well depending on their size and
mud velocity near the wall. Therefore, the drill bit should be
designed in a way that cuttings are guided toward the middle of
annular space to move quickly toward the surface and avoid mov-
ing downward to the drill bit. Moreover, the pressure field was
calculated for different rheological properties of mud and the
results showed that the pressure drop strongly depends on the rhe-
ology of drilling mud. The mud with high-yield stress showed
more pressure drop through the annulus. Also, the consistency
coefficient in Herschel–Bulkley model depicted a significant
Fig. 10 Comparison of the friction factor predicted by numeri- impact on increasing the pressure gradient. The mud pressure
cal solution and new correlation (Eq. (17)) drop increased with the increase in axial velocity and rotational
velocity of drilling steering. Because of viscosity reduction at
 2 high shear rates, the effect of flow rate on pressure drop is insig-
qc wc
Ta ¼ Rout ðRout  Rin Þ (14) nificant at higher velocities. Similarly, the effect of increasing
leff solid volume fraction on pressure drop was investigated. Results
showed that the pressure gradient is mainly increased with
Bingham number is the characteristic of Herschel–Bulkley fluid increasing volume fraction. The pressure drop increased by
[32] and is calculated with parameters of this model that is defined enhancing rotational velocity of the drilling steering. On the basis
as follows: of the results, dimensionless numbers of Reynolds, Freud, Bing-
  ham, and Taylor were calculated for the two-phase flow field.
sy dh n Finally, a new correlation with a maximum calculation error of
Bi ¼ (15)
K vc 18% was presented to calculate the friction factor of the drilling
mud as a function of Reynolds, Froude, Bingham, and Taylor
Froude dimensionless number is considered according to dimensionless numbers and volume fraction of the solid phase.
Ozbayoglu’s work [33], and is defined as
vc
Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (16) Nomenclature
gdh
a¼ acceleration vector (m/s2)
In this study, the pressure drop was extracted from numerical Bi ¼ Bingham number
simulation and, then, the friction factor was obtained from c¼ continuous phase
Darcy–Weisbach equation. The friction factor correlation, fitted Cf ¼ Fanning friction factor
on numerical results with R2 of 0.92 can be expressed as d¼ diameter of the particles (m)
D¼ diameter (m)
Cf ¼ f1 ðBi; ap ; FrÞðBi=ReÞf2 ðnÞ þ f3 ðTaÞ; (17) dh ¼ hydraulic diameter (m)
DF ¼ drilling fluid
where dr ¼ drift
eff ¼ effective
f1 ðBi; ap ; FrÞ ¼ 1:424ðBi:Frn Þ0:666 þ 2:845ðap Þ0:8998  0:3318; Fr ¼ Froude dimensionless number
in ¼ inner
f2 ðnÞ ¼ 0:5148n0:7899 þ 1:015; K¼ consistency coefficient (Pa.sn)
f3 ðTaÞ ¼ 0:0018Ta0:1284 l¼ viscosity (Pa.s)
m¼ mixture
n¼ power law index
This relation can be used for laminar flows of fluids which obey nb ¼ neighbors
the Herschel–Bulkley model in a wide range of Bingham numbers out ¼ outer
(0.2–26.7). The friction factors predicted for five drilling mud p¼ particles or cuttings phase
types (with different solid volume fractions and velocities in the P¼ pressure (Pa)
annulus) are compared with numerical results in Fig. 10. It can be R¼ radius of cylinder (m)
seen that the proposed equation (Eq. (17)) can predict the results Re ¼ Reynolds number
of the simulation with a maximum relative error of 618%. t¼ time (s)
This relation gives an approximation of frictional pressure drop Ta ¼ Taylor number
required to prevent the kick and fracture formation. Also it can be v¼ velocity vector (m/s)
used for the optimization of mud pressure to provide safety for vf ¼ solid volume fraction
drilling and decrease mud pumping cost. ak ¼ volume fraction of k th phase
c_ ¼ shear rate tensor (s-1)
q¼ density (kg/m3)
5 Conclusions s¼ stress tensor (Pa)
The non-Newtonian drilling mud flow that carries the cuttings sy ¼ Yield stress (Pa)
through a vertical annulus was investigated numerically. The mud u¼ sphericity

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JANUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 012902-7

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 References
[1] Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., and Young, F. S., 2002,
Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Foundation.
[2] Sorgun, M., 2013, “Simple Correlations and Analysis of Cuttings Transport
With Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids in Horizontal and Deviated
Wells,” ASME J. Energy Res. Technol., 135(3), p. 032903.
[3] Ozbayoglu, M. E., and Sorgun, M., 2010, “Frictional Pressure Loss Estimation
of Non-Newtonian Fluids Realistic Annulus With Pipe Rotation,” J. Can. Pet.
Technol., 49(12), pp. 57–64.
[4] Sorgun, M., Ozbayoglu, M. E., and Aydin, I., 2010, “Modeling and Experimen-
tal Study of Newtonian Fluid Flow in Annulus,” ASME J. Energy Res.
Technol., 132(3), p. 033102.
[5] Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, M. E., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A., and May,
R., 2014, “Effect of Drillstring Deflection and Rotary Speed on Annular Frictional
Pressure Losses,” ASME J. Energy Res. Technol., 136(4), pp. 1–10.
[6] Founargiotakis, K., Kelessidis, V. C., and Maglione, R., 2008, “Laminar, Tran-
sitional and Turbulent Flow of Herschel–Bulkley Fluids in Concentric
Annulus,” Can. J. Chem. Eng., 86(4), pp. 676–683.
[7] Sorgun, M., Aydin, I., Schubert, J. J., and Ozbayoglu, M. E., 2010, “Modeling
of Newtonian Fluids in Annular Geometries With Inner Pipe Rotation,” 3rd
Joint US-European Fluids Engineering Summer Meeting Colocated With 8th
International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels, and Minichannels.
[8] Wei, X., Miska, S. Z., Takash, N. E., Bern, P., and Kenny, P., 1998, “The Effect
of Drillpipe Rotation on Annular Frictional Pressure Loss,”ASME J. Energy
Res. Technol., 120(1), pp. 61–66.
[9] Wang, H., Su, Y., Bai, Y., Gao, Z., and Zhang, F., 2000, “Experimental Study of
Slimhole Annular Pressure Loss and Its Field Applications,” IADC/SPE Annular
Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA, Feb. 23–25, Paper No. SPE-59265-MS.
[10] Ozbelge, T. A., and Beyaz, A., 2001, “Dilute Solid–Liquid Upward Flows
Through a Vertical Annulus in a Closed Loop System,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
27(4), pp. 737–752.
[11] Escudier, M. P., Oliveira, P. J., and Pinho, F. T., 2002, “Fully Developed Lami-
nar Flow of Purely Viscous Non-Newtonian Liquids Through Annuli, Including
the Effects of Eccentricity and Inner-Cylinder Rotation,” Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow, 23(1), pp. 52–73.
[12] Zhou, Y., and Shah, S. N., 2004, “Rheological Properties and Frictional Pres-
sure Loss of Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation Fluids in Coiled Tubing,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng., 126(2), pp. 153–161.
[13] Woo, N., Kim, Y., and Hwang, Y., 2006, “Experimental Study on the Helical
Flow in a Concentric Annulus With Rotating Inner Cylinder,” ASME J. Fluids
Eng., 128(1), pp. 113–117.
[14] Kelessidis, V. C., Maglione, R., Tsamantaki, C., and Aspirtakis, Y., 2006,
“Optimal Determination of Rheological Parameters for Herschel–Bulkley Dril-
ling Fluids and Impact on Pressure Drop, Velocity Profiles and Penetration
Rates During Drilling,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 53(3-4), pp. 203–224.
[15] Pereira, F. A. R., Barrozo, M. A. S., and Ataide, C. H., 2007, “CFD Predictions
of Drilling Fluid Velocity and Pressure Profiles in Laminar Helical Flow,”
Braz. J. Chem. Eng., 24(4), pp. 587–595.
012902-8 / Vol. 138, JANUARY 2016
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/13/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[16] Escudier, M. P., Oliveira, P. J., Pinho, F. T., and Smith, S., 2002, “Fully Devel-
oped Laminar Flow of Non-Newtonian Liquids Through Annuli: Comparison
of Numerical Calculations With Experiments,” Exp. Fluids, 33(1),
pp. 101–111.
[17] Ahmed, R., and Miska, S., 2008, “Experimental Study and Modeling of Yield
Power-Law Fluid Flow in Annuli With Drillpipe Rotation,” SPE Drilling
Conference, Orlando, FL.
[18] Zhi-ming, W., Xiao-le, G., Ming, L., and Yu-kui, H., 2009, “Effect of Drillpipe
Rotation on Borehole Cleaning for Extended Reach Well,” J. Hydrodyn., 21(3),
pp. 366–372.
[19] Han, S. M., Hwang, Y.-K., Woo, N.-S., and Kim, Y. J., 2010, “Solid–Liquid
Hydrodynamics in a Slim Hole Drilling Annulus,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 70(3),
pp. 308–319.
[20] Gumati, A., and Takahshi, H., 2011, “Experimental Study and Modeling of
Pressure Loss for Foam-Cuttings Mixture Flow in Horizontal Pipe,” J. Hydro-
dyn., 23(4), pp. 431–438.
[21] Haciislamoglu, M., and Langlinais, J., 1991, “Effect of Pipe Eccentricity on
Surge Pressures,” ASME J. Energy Res. Technol., 113(3), pp. 157–160.
[22] Hajidavalloo, E., Sadeghi-Behbahani-Zadeh, M., and Shekari, Y., 2013,
“Simulation of Gas–Solid Two-Phase Flow in the Annulus of Drilling Well,”
Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 91(3), pp. 477–484.
[23] Sorgun, M., Osgouei, R. E., Ozbayoglu, M. E., and Ozbayoglu, A. M., 2011,
“Gas–Liquid Flow Through Horizontal Eccentric Annuli: CFD and Experi-
ments Compared,” ASME Paper No. AJK2011-2400.
[24] Njobuenwu, D. O., and Wobo, C. A., 2007, “Effect of Drilled Solids on Drilling
Rate and Performance,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 55(3-4), pp. 271–276.
[25] Versteeg, H. K., and Malalasekera, W., 2007, An Introduction to Computational
Fluid Dynamics, The Finite Volume Method, 2nd ed., Pearson Education
Limited, New York.
[26] Tu, J., Heng Yeoh, G., and Liu, C., 2013, Computational Fluid Dynamics
(A Practical Approach), 2nd ed., Elsevier, New York.
[27] Pereira, F. A. R., Ataide, C. H., and Barrozo, M. A. S., 2010, “CFD Approach
Using a Discrete Phase Model for Annular Flow Analysis,” Latin Am. Appl.
Res., 40(1), pp. 53–60.
[28] Heng Yeoh, G., and Tu, J., 2009, Computational Techniques for Multiphase
Flows, Elsevier, New York.
[29] Chhabra, R. P., and Richardson, J. F., 2008, “Non Newtonain flow and Applied
Rheology,” Elsevier, New York.
[30] Firouzi, M., and Hashemabadi, S. H., 2008, “Analytical Solution for
Newtonian–Bingham Plastic Two-Phase Pressure Driven Stratified Flow
Through the Circular Ducts,” Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer, 35(5), pp.
666–673.
[31] Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N., 2002, Transport Phenomena,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
[32] Mitsoulis, E., 2007, “Annular Extrudate Swell of Pseudoplastic and Viscoplas-
tic Fluids,” Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 141(2-3), pp. 138–147.
[33] Ozbayoglu, M. E., Saasen, A., Sorgun, M., and Svanes, K., 2010, “Critical Fluid
Velocities for Removing Cuttings Bed Inside Horizontal and Deviated Wells,”
Pet. Sci. Technol., 28(6), pp. 594–602.
Transactions of the ASME