Accepted Manuscript

Investigating the impact of drillpipe's rotation and eccentricity on cuttings transport

phenomenon in various horizontal annuluses using computational fluid dynamics
(CFD)

Omid Heydari, Eghbal Sahraei, Pål Skalle

PII: S0920-4105(17)30548-X
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2017.06.059
Reference: PETROL 4071

To appear in: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Received Date: 25 February 2017

Revised Date: 10 June 2017
Accepted Date: 22 June 2017

Please cite this article as: Heydari, O., Sahraei, E., Skalle, På., Investigating the impact of drillpipe's
rotation and eccentricity on cuttings transport phenomenon in various horizontal annuluses using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD), Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.petrol.2017.06.059.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The Names of the authors in order for article PETROL_4071.

Title of Article: Investigating the impact of drillpipe's rotation and eccentricity on cuttings transport phenomenon in various
horizontal annuluses using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

First Author is the corresponding author and the order is: First Name, Last Name, Affiliations.

PT
1. Omid Heydari – Department of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of
Technology, Tabriz, Iran

RI
Email: o.heydari@outlook.com
Email: o_heydari@sut.ac.ir

SC
2. Eghbal Sahraei - Department of Chemical Engineering, Sahand University of
Technology, Tabriz, Iran

U
Email: sahraei@sut.ac.ir
AN
3. Pål Skalle - Department of Geoscience and Petroleum, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
M

Email: pal.skalle@ntnu.no
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Investigating the impact of drillpipe’s rotation and eccentricity on cuttings transport phenomenon
in various horizontal annuluses using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

Abstract
Drillpipe eccentricity is a common issue in horizontal drilling operations. The eccentricity is a non-manipulative parameter
by itself but its impact is a function of various parameters such as rate of penetration (ROP), fluid flow rate (Q), cuttings bed

PT
height, wellbore path and drillpipe rotation. The goal of this study is to observe the cutting’s accumulation in different eccentric
annuluses by employing a multiphase Eulerian flow model including a Herschel-Bulkley drilling fluid. Turbulence was
implemented using Reynolds Stress Model which reveals proper results, especially on asymmetric and complex cases. All of
these are developed and calculated through a comprehensive Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to solve the

RI
governing equations in the multiphase medium. A sensitivity analyzes were implemented from concentric to 75% eccentric cases
accompanying different variations of fluid flow rate, ROP, and drillpipe rotation. The results demonstrated that further
eccentricity from a certain amount will abruptly increase the cutting’s accumulation which is a function of bed height, ROP/Q,
and drillpipe rotation. However, rotation’s impact is negligible above a certain speed of rotation after which the sudden increase

SC
of cutting’s accumulation caused by eccentricity is not observable.

Keywords: Hole Cleaning; Cutting Transportation; CFD; Eccentricity; Drillpipe Rotation; Yield power-law

U
AN
1. Introduction
M

There are several reasons to drill a horizontal well; e.g. improving oil recovery from a reservoir or accessing a
reservoir which is hard to drill in conventional ways. One of the most important constituents of drilling system is
drilling fluid’s circulation unit which is responsible for several tasks like controlling wellbore’s pressure for
maintaining its stability. One of the responsibilities of the drilling fluid is carrying the crushed rocks made by bits,
D

called the “cuttings”, through the annulus from bottom hole to the surface. If transportation of cuttings become poor,
cuttings will accumulate and cuttings’ bed could form. Moreover, the increment of cuttings’ bed height could cause
TE

problems while drilling which extends the drilling operation’s time and cost. Some of the consequences are an
increase in drill string torque, higher drag, pipe sticking and other difficulties like problems associated with logging
process (Nazari & Hareland, 2010). Due to gravity, cuttings bed form easier in horizontal wells. Larsen, 1990
suggested that the inclination is a prominent factor of cutting transport. Moreover, drillpipe eccentricity makes the
EP

annulus asymmetric and makes the flow passage narrower beneath the drillpipe and consequently makes the
particles movement through the annulus more complex.

Several parameters have an influence on the cutting’s accumulation. These parameters have been studied by
several researchers; Walker & Li, 2000 studied the impact of the cuttings’ size, drilling fluid rheology and drillpipe
C

eccentricity. The impact of drill pipe rotation was studied by Moroni et al., 2009 and Saasen, 2008. Other concepts
like “cutting transport ratio”, the ratio of cutting phase velocity to the fluid phase velocity, was employed by
AC

Belavadi & Chukwu, 1994 in order to clarify the quality of hole cleaning.

Drilling fluid plays a key role in hole cleaning and its rheological properties are an important attribute which
contributes to an effective cutting transport (Adari et al., 2000). Drilling fluids are non-Newtonian fluids and they
are best suited to the Herschel-Bulkly (also known as Yield power-law) viscosity model. This model shows better
correlation than others due to the studies of Mihalakis et al., 2004 and Maglione et al., 2000 (Ahmed & Miska,
2008).

In horizontal wells, the drillpipe rest against the bottom side of the well due to the weight of the drillpipe. Thus,
a full eccentricity of drillpipe will be expected in inclined wells, which is the objective of this study. Peden et al.,

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1990 developed minimum transport velocity model for predicting cuttings behavior in inclined eccentric wells.
Taghipour et al., 2013 performed a simulation study regarding cutting transport in eccentric cases.

Several numerical methods had been developed in recent decades which can simulate the behavior of the
drilling fluid and solid particles interaction in the annulus. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods are
popular among researchers since they are easier than theoretical models. Moreover, defining a different combination
of various variables are easier using CFD methods. Dykes, 2014 used water as drilling fluid in his CFD simulations
and the effects of drillpipe rotation, flow rate, different rate of penetration (ROP) and eccentricities were examined

PT
in his study. However, as mentioned, Yield power-law (YPL) fluids are more efficient than water as a hole cleaning
fluid. Ofei, 2014 and Mokhtari et al., 2012 have studied the effect of drilling fluid rheological properties in eccentric
annular sections, furthermore, in the study of Ofei, 2015, the effects of the drillpipe’s rotation and YPL fluids were
simulated.

RI
In this study, a finite volume model (FVM) was employed in order to solve the equations of continuity and
momentum. The effects of drillpipe rotation, different rate of penetrations, the flow rate of drilling fluid and the

SC
eccentricity of drillpipe were modeled and the cuttings accumulation were simulated in order to achieve a prediction
about the cutting’s bed height and the impact of mentioned variables on the cuttings’ bed attributes.

U
2. Calculation methods
The first step for calculation and modeling is to define the physical model, define a control volume and
AN
investigate the forces acting on the cutting particles and the cutting’s bed. Figure 1 illustrates an annulus in which
the drillpipe is rested on the cuttings’ bed. However, for the purposes of this study, the cases with all eccentricities
were simulated. Figure 2 represents the control volume and the forces acting on a cutting particle in the fluid and the
cuttings bed.
M
D
TE

Figure 1 Schematic of the drilling string laying on the cuttings bed

C EP
AC

Figure 2 Control Volume and the forces acting on the cuttings’ particles in the suspension

Figure 3 shows the ways that cutting particles become separated from the bed and the ways they stick to it.
Moreover, the cuttings bed interactions, mud phase velocity profile and the affecting forces on a single particle in
presence of drillpipe rotation is also presented.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Figure 3 Mud phase velocity profile and the forces acting on the cuttings’ particles on the bed

RI
Now, with an understanding of the physical model and the forces acting on the phases, the governing equations
can be explained.

SC
2.1 Governing Equations
The multiphase flow was simulated employing a CFD analysis, composed of series of numerical algorithms to
solve several partial differential equations (PDE). Finite volume methods (FVM) was used in order to calculate the

U
effect of eccentricity on cuttings transport. (Pletcher et al., 2013).

In the computational fluid dynamics problems, two key equations which need to be solved are the continuity
AN
and the momentum equation. These equations are presented in Equations 1 to 3 (Van Wachem & Almstedt, 2003).

• The continuity equation for both phases can be expressed as:


+ ∇ε = 0
M

(1)



• The equation for drilling fluid’s momentum is:

D


 ε  +  . ∇  = −ε ∇ + ε ∇. ̿ + ε   −  (2)


TE

• The equation for cuttings’ momentum is:


 ε  +  . ∇  = −ε ∇ − ∇ + ε ∇. ̿ + ∇. ̿ + ε   +  (3)


EP

In Equations 1 to 3, ε is the volume fraction of each phase, t is time, v is velocity, P is impulse transfer
between two particles, ρ is the density, τ is viscous stress tensor and I is interphase momentum transfer.
C

In the medium in which the drilling fluid and cuttings are flowing, the Euler-Euler multiphase model was
considered. It models the solid phase as a continuum and the limitations of the Euler-Lagrange discrete phase model
AC

(DPM) is being omitted by using it. Furthermore, since the bed of cuttings has low dispersion and dilution alongside
the fact that the Euler-Euler model allows designation of granular solid phases, this model is more appropriate for
the purposes of this study (ANSYS 2013b, 512-513, 1247-1249).

2.2 Turbulence and Viscosity

2.2.1 Reynolds Stress Model
Herschel-Bulkly fluids can be viscous and the flow regime may become laminar, however, in this study, the
Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) which is a second-order model was implemented in order to model the turbulence
and the viscosity. Although using RSM is more time consuming and needs more powerful hardware for calculations
in comparison with a k-epsilon model which is common among the researchers, it is more accurate and by using it

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

avoidance from k-epsilon limitations such as isotropic eddy viscosity assumptions are possible. The RSM is better
suited for simulating complex flowing systems and it can accurately predict the behavior of turbulence and viscosity
especially in the cases with rotation, anisotropy of the medium and cases with the necessity of near-wall turbulence
modeling. Thus, for better simulating the effect of drillpipe rotation and also the eccentricity of drillpipe on the
turbulence, the RSM was employed.

The equations for the Reynolds Stress Model are stated in Equations 4 to 13 (Karthik & Durst, 2011).

PT
The equation for the transport of the Reynolds Stress is:


=  + ! − " + Π + Ω (4)

The left side of the equation expresses the rate of % = & ******
' &) change. At the right side of the equation, Pij is the
( (

RI
production rate, Dij is transport by diffusion, εij is the dissipation rate, Πij is an expression for transport caused by
turbulent pressure-strain interactions and the Ωij is the transport due to rotation. This equation describes six PDEs.

SC
• Production exact:

-
-
 = − +%, +%, 0 (5)

./
./

U
• Diffusive transport exact:

12
! =
AN
(6)

.2
Where:
3 *********
=& **********************
' &) &4 + 5 67)4 &' + 7'4 &) 8
( ( ( ( ( (
4 (7)
M

• Diffusive transport model

9:
 9:
! = + 0 = <=> ? @A<6% 8B
D

(8)

./ ;2
./ ;2
TE

νt is the kinematic viscosity calculated in the standard way.

• Dissipation exact and model could be written as:

********
EP

EFG
EHG
" = 2D (9)

.2
.2

I
" = "7 (10)
J
C

• Pressure strain exact and model could be also written as:

AC

*******************

E G
E G
Π = −5( K F + H L (11)

.H
.F

O I I
Π = −MN 4 +% − J P7 0 − MI + − J 7 0 (12)

in which P is the pressure.

• And finally the Rotational exact could be written as:

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ω = −2Q4 6% , R4, + %, R 4, 8 (13)

In which R 4 is -1,0 or 1 depending on the indices and the Q4 term is the rotation vector.

2.3 Drilling Fluid Phase

PT
The drilling fluids used in the validation section of this study were Herschel-Bulkly fluids with properties of
2.2 and 2.25 (Pa) for yield stress (τ0,), 2.594 and 3.137 (Pa.sn) for consistency indices (K) and 0.476 and 0.469 for
power-law indices (n) respectively for foams with qualities of 80% and 90% used in the experiments of Chen et al.,
2007 and Duan et al., 2010. However, the main section of this study was simulated by a drilling fluid with properties

RI
of 3.17 Pa, 2.10 Pa.sn and 0.37 of yield stress, consistency index and power-law index with density (ρ) of 9 lb/gal
which was obtained from Baba Hamed & Belhadri., 2009 studies.

SC
2.4 Cutting’s phase
The drilling cuttings used in this study were considered as sandstone particles with a density of 165.43 lbm/ft3
(2650 kg/m3). Cutting’s phase was defined as a granular phase with a 0.25-in diameter which all considered ideally

U
spherical.
AN
2.5 Interphase interactions
2.5.1 Drag model
The Gidaspow’s drag model was employed for the interphase interactions due to its proper matching with two-
M

phase flow experiments (Lundberg, 2008). The Gidaspow drag model is a combination of Wen and Yu drag model
with the Ergun’s equation (Gidaspow, 1994). Since the flow behavior is affected by the viscous forces in the annulus
and the internal forces are negligible, the Wen and Yu drag model is a proper choice. Moreover, the Ergun equation
D

is a great approach for dense beds and computations in presence of pressure drop through porous media (Lundberg,
2008).
TE

The Wen and Yu drag model is presented in Equation 14:

JT  NU
S = VWX
M |&
ZZZZ[ − &
ZZZ[|ε

UI.\]
(14)

In this equation, M is drag coefficient for a spherical particles and it can be presented as Equation 15 (Schiller,
EP

1935):
IV
M = _1 + 0.15ε %R b.\cd e (15)
 ^
C

The Ergun equation is described as Equation 16. It should be noted that the term “f” is the shape factor which
AC

was considered as 1 for ideally spherical cutting particles.

g NU h T |E
ZZZZ[UE
 ZZZZ[| NU
S = 150 + 1.75 
(16)
 W i h W i

The first and the second term of the Ergun equation are respectively the Kozeny Carman’s and Burke
Plummers’ equations (Ergun, 1952). The Kozeny Carman’s term represents the viscous, low Reynolds number flow
and the Burke Plummer’s term expresses the kinetic, high Reynolds number flow (Niven, 2002).

Gidaspow model is a combination of Wen-Yu and Ergun models and it can be expressed as Equation 17
(Gidaspow, 1994).

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

S mRn o& ε > 0.8

S = k 
S r@&n ε ≤ 0.8
(17)

In this study in most regions the volume fraction of the fluid is more than 0.8, thus, it may follow the Wen Yu’s
equation. However, in some regions with higher accumulation of cuttings, it may follow Ergun’s correlation. The
drag coefficient used in this study was Brucato’s drag coefficient (Brucato et al., 1998) which is mostly function of
the particle size and the Kolmogorov length scale (Karimi et al., 2012).

PT
2.5.2 Other Inter-phase modifications
The lift force model of Saffman-Mei was employed, however, lift forces are mostly negligible on higher

RI
inclinations in comparison with the drag forces. Thus, using correction factors are not necessary in horizontal cases
(Ramadan, 2001).

Since the second phase considered as a granular phase in the Eulerian multiphase flow, the granular bulk

SC
viscosity should be modeled and for this purpose, the Lun et al. model was employed (Lun et al., 1984).

The frictional pressure was defined by employing the concept of kinetic theory and the friction packing limit of
0.05 was used in simulations since it showed better results in the verification simulations brought in Section 3.3.

U
The cuttings will accumulate on the bottom side of the annulus and the accumulated bed will cause a noticeable
frictional interaction between accumulated cuttings and the ones in the fluid phase. Thus, the Johnson et al. frictional
AN
viscosity was used in the modeling of this behavior (Johnson et al., 1987).

2.6 Solution methods

M

In order to solve the equations, the phase coupled SIMPLE (Semi-implicit pressure-linked equation) method
developed by Patankar & Spalding, 1972 were employed for Pressure-Velocity Coupling as a solution method for
the governing equations. This model is widely used in solving CFD problems and its reliability has been proven (Li
D

et al, 2004).
TE

3. Methodology
Drilling fluid and the cuttings flow through an annulus which could be thousands of feet but simulating a
multiphase flow in such an enormous medium is computationally time consuming, thus, by ensuring that the length
EP

of the section is longer than the hydrodynamic entrance length so the flow has a chance to be fully developed, just a
section of a horizontal well was used in the computations. In this study, a horizontal section of 40 feet (12.192 m)
which consists of an 8-inch (20.32 cm) diameter cylinder representative for outer pipe and a 4.5-inch (11.43 cm)
cylinder as drillpipe inside of it was modeled.
C
AC

3.1 Mesh and Geometry

Several simulations demonstrated that the 40 feet section is enough since the hydrodynamic entrance length is
less than 40 feet and the multiphase flow was developed, thus, the 40 feet section was considered in this study but in
the validation section, a 73 feet annulus was considered. Four different meshes were used for the mesh independence
purposes and all of them were compared with the experiments of Chen et al., 2007 and Duan et al., 2010. These
meshes’ layouts are listed in Table 1. The faces were swept by “quad-map” mesh type along the section’s length. In
all the cases the boundary layers’ meshing differs in thickness and considered thinner near the walls in order to
enhance the accuracy of flow and turbulence simulation near the walls. Moreover, in the different eccentricities,
these values were different. The difference between the results obtained from these meshes were compared with
each other in the validation section.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Different mesh layouts with their specifications

Mesh No. 73 feet (Mesh1) 73 feet (Mesh 2) 73 feet (Mesh 3) 73 feet (Mesh 4) 40 feet (Mesh 4)

Hexahedral Cells 350,400 525,600 700,800 876,000 480,000

PT
The cross section of the mesh number 4 for a centric and eccentric cases are presented in Figure 4:

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Figure 4 Cross-Section of the annulus used in the 40 feet calculations

3.2 Boundary conditions

C

Four main boundaries were considered in this study for the assumed section; Inlet, Outlet, the inner wall and
the outer wall.
AC

3.2.1 Inlet and Outlet:

The inlet of drilling fluid and the cuttings was considered as a Mass Flow Inlet in which the mass of each phase
flowing per second was used in the calculations. For correlating the rate of penetration (ROP) with the cutting phase
flow rate, the size of drilling bit should be considered, thus, a bit with a diameter size of 6.275 inches (15.94 cm)
was assumed, however, the size of the bit does not influence the concept of modeling since only the mass flow rate
of the cuttings matters. It should be noted that the ROP in real cases is higher than the ROP values used in this study
because of the porosity of the formation; which means the considered ROP of 20 ft/h could be assumed as ROP of
25 ft/h in cases with 80% porosity (Φ) of the formation. Thus, from this point, every usage of the term “ROP” is
referring to effective ROP which is: Φ×ROP. The ROP to cutting phase flow rate is related to each other by the
terms of density (which considered as sandstone) and the bit size for calculating the area of the rocks crushed by the

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

bit (considering the ideal distribution of cuttings generated by the bit). In the cases used in this study, the drilling
fluid flow rate varied between the values of 45, 60 and 75 lbm/s (20.4, 27.2 and 34 kg/s) which are representative for
300, 400 and 500 gallons per minute (GPM) (18.93, 25.24 and 31.55 lit/s) with the fluid density (mud weight) of 9
lbm/gal (PPG). The cuttings’ flow rate considered as 0.188 and 0.47 lbm/s (0.085 and 0.213 kg/s) which are
representative for effective ROPs of 20 and 50 ft/h (6.096 and 15.24 m/h) whilst the bit diameter considered as
6.275 inches. The outlet was considered on the opposite side of the inlet through which the cuttings and the drilling
fluid is being carried out.

PT
3.2.2 Walls:
Two walls were considered in the defined geometry. The outer wall considered as a stationary wall while the
inner wall had a clockwise rotation in order to simulate the drillpipe’s rotation. However, in some cases, both walls
considered stationary in order to simulate cases with no drillpipe rotation. The rotation’s varied from 0 to 150 RPM

RI
in the main simulations and from 0 to 120 RPM in the verification ones. The translational movement of the drillpipe
is insignificant and could be neglected since even on higher ROPs, its value is negligible.

SC
3.3 Model validation and mesh independence
A simulation of a phenomenon needs to be verified with the results of an experimental study to be ensured
about the applicability and reliability of the simulations. Thus, two sets of simulations were performed in order to
avouch the accuracy of Herschel-Bulkly model and validate the results with Chen et al., 2007 studies. The drillpipe

U
rotation’s impact is being verified with experiments of Duan et al., 2010.

Different mesh layouts were investigated by changing the mesh size in boundary layers and also the face’s
AN
mesh as mentioned in Section 3.1. Fluid velocity and drilling fluid of the simulations were defined as same as the
Chen et al., 2007’s experiment. The Herschel-Bulkly fluids with 80% and 90% foam quality were simulated and the
flow velocity variated from 2 ft/s to 6 ft/s. Drillpipe rotation’s impact was studied with the 90% quality foam drilling
fluid and its rotation varied from 0 to 120 RPM according to Duan et al., 2010’s experiment.
M

Figure 5 shows the mesh independence based on Duan et al., 2010’s experiment with cases with different fluid
velocities and no rotation of drillpipe and as it seems, by improving mesh quality from No.3 to No.4 (Table 1) the
improvement is approximately 0.004% of the result from the Mesh No.3, thus, further improving of the meshing
D

accuracy is not necessary since the improvement in the results are negligible and lessening cell sizes are just an extra
need for resources and time. Therefore, mesh No.4 with 876,000 cells was used in the validation simulations. For the
TE

main part of this study, this meshing layout, but with the length of 40ft, was implemented since its results are
appropriate.

0.024
V.F changes compared to previous

3ft/s
EP

0.02
4ft/s
0.016 5ft/s
C mesh (%)

0.012

0.008
AC

0.004

0
1 2 3 4
Accuracy improvement Between Mesh changings (No1. to No.4)

Figure 5 Cuttings Concentration changes compared to previous mesh (Horizontal axis is the mesh number)

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6 and 7 are representing Chen et al., 2007 and Duan et al., 2010 studies respectively. As Figure 6
depicts, the results of the simulations are correlating properly with the results of Chen et al., 2007’s experiment.
Figure 7 demonstrates the simulations’ accuracy in various drillpipe rotations in comparison with Duan et al., 2010
simulations. The simulations correlate well with the experiments, especially in higher fluid flow rates.

30 30

PT
25 25
Volume Fraction (%)

20 20

RI
15 Experiment 80% 15
CFD - 80%
10 10

SC
Experiment - 90%
5 CFD - 90% 5

0 0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

U
Drilling Fluid Velocity (ft/s)
AN
Figure 6 Comparison of simulations with Chen et al.’s experiments
M

30
3 ft/s Exp 3 ft/s CFD
4 ft/s Exp 4 ft/s CFD
D

25
Volume Fraction (%)

5 ft/s Exp 5 ft/s CFD

20
TE

15
EP

10

5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
C

Drillpipe Rotation (RPM)

AC

Figure 7 Comparison of simulations with Duan et al.’s experiments

4. Results and discussion

The main goal of this study was to show the effects of several parameters, especially the eccentricity, on the
cutting transport phenomenon, thus, the main output of the calculations is the cutting’s concentration in the assumed
annuli after the enough time given to the calculations to simulate a fully developed multiphase flow in which the lift
and the drag forces are converged and the residuals in the calculations are negligible (<10-5). The cuttings
concentration was recorded in order to have a comparison with the consequences of changing each affecting

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

parameter. Therefore, several cases consisting different variations of drilling fluid flow rate from 300 to 500 GPM,
the effective ROP of 20 and 50 ft/h and the eccentricity of 0 to 75% in intervals of 12.5% were considered. The
constant parameters in these simulations were drilling fluid’s properties, cutting’s properties and the annuli’s
diameters. Typically, the increment of flow rate and deduction of ROP are a helping factor for hole cleaning,
however, their exact impacts are not completely predictable.

Naturally, the drillpipe has a tendency to rest on the cuttings’ bed except some few instances like the build
section in which the drillpipe may stay at the top side of the annulus. However, this study’s goal is investigating the

PT
impact of various eccentricities on cuttings’ accumulation. Thus, some cases which may not always happen also
considered in this study. In order to clarify why the upward eccentricities are not as important as downward
eccentricities in the amount of cuttings’ phase settlement, a set of simulations performed and presented in Figure 8.

RI
24
ROP20 - RPM0

SC
21
ROP20-RPM100
18
Cuttings VF (%)
ROP50-RPM0
15
ROP50-RPM100

U
12
AN
9

3
M

0
-0.75 -0.625 -0.5 -0.375 -0.25 -0.125 0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75
Eccentricity (To left: Upward - To Right: Downward)
D

Figure 8 Effect of upward and downward eccentricity on cutting’s accumulation – 500GPM flowrate
TE

In Figure 8 the horizontal axis represents the drillpipe eccentricity which is upward for negative values and
downward for positive ones. The vertical axis is representative for cutting concentration in the annulus. The first
exquisite point is downward eccentricities will cause extra accumulations of cuttings which will harden the hole
cleaning but the upward eccentricity’s impact on decreasing the volume of accumulated cuttings are not significant
EP

and since this kind of eccentricity rarely happens naturally, further studies on them are not necessary. The main
reason behind the apparent abnormality in the trend of the “ROP50-RPM100” curve is when the ratio of ROP to
fluid flowrate increases, the level of cuttings in the cross section of annulus grows up and if the eccentricity was
C

high, the drillpipe will have more contact with the cuttings’ bed surface and its rotation will apply drag force directly
on the cutting particles and disperse the particles in to the medium. This phenomenon may even reduce the cuttings’
accumulation and change the volume fraction value as it is on lower eccentricities. In sections 4.2 and 4.3 it is
AC

discussed in more detail.

4.1 Effects of eccentricity and rotation on the cuttings concentration

With an increment of drilling fluid’s velocity in the annulus, the cuttings concentration will reduce because the
volume fraction and the bed height of cuttings will decrease. This fact is also expandable to higher ROPs and the
fact that by increasing the rate of drilling, the amount of cuttings generated by the bit will increase and this will add
up to the volume fraction and the bed height of cuttings settled in the annulus (Walker, 2000). Moreover, this may
cause extra drag and inter-particle frictional forces which decrease the kinetic energy of cutting particles and
consequently the velocity of them. Thus, the cuttings will lose velocity and eventually settle in the medium they are
flowing through. Therefore, the rate of penetration and fluid flow rate should be chosen properly in order to have a
successful drilling operation.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In Figure 9, 10 and 11 the cuttings concentration in different eccentricities is demonstrated. All the cases have
the same effective ROP of 20 ft/h and different flow rates of 300, 400 and 500 GPM respectively.

18

RPM0
15
RPM50

PT
RPM100
Cuttings VF (%)

12
RPM150
9

RI
6

SC
0
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75
Eccentricity

U
Figure 9 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 300 GPM – 20 ft/h ROP
AN
18

15 RPM0
M

RPM50
Cuttings VF (%)

12
RPM100
D

9 RPM150

6
TE

0
EP

0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75

Eccentricity
C

Figure 10 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 400 GPM – 20 ft/h ROP
AC

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

RPM0
15
RPM50
12
Cuttings VF (%)

RPM100

PT
9 RPM150

RI
3

SC
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75
Eccentricity

Figure 11 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 500 GPM – 20 ft/h ROP

U
Figure 9, 10 and 11 show the cuttings concentrations on different eccentricities. The first egregious point is
AN
with higher fluid flow rates, the cutting concentration will decrease. However, as it could be observed even in Figure
8, with a slow rotation of drillpipe, the cuttings accumulation experiences a dramatic drop in their amount which
means that in the horizontal cases the rotation is a necessity, especially in cases with high eccentricities. For
shedding light on this concept, two cases are compared in Table 2 and 3 which are two series of cases with easiest
M

and hardest situations studied with 20 ft/h ROPs. As the values shows, the improvement in the hole cleaning by
rotating is different in various cases. For instance, in easiest series of simulation in this study, above the rotation of
50 RPM, further rotation is unnecessary since the improvement is negligible. However, in severe cases, more
rotation shows a significant change in the results but still the optimum rotation should exist in which above that
D

threshold further rotation is not helpful for cuttings transportation.

TE

Table 2 Comparison of hole cleaning improvement in different rotations of drillpipe in a case in which the ratio of ROP/Q
is low.

ROP: 20 ft/h – 500 GPM – 0% Ecc

EP

RPM VF (%) Improvement from last Improvement from no

case (%) rotation (%)
0 1.78 - -
C

50 1.03 42 42

100 1 3 44
AC

150 0.97 3 46

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Comparison of hole cleaning improvement in different rotations of drillpipe in a case in which the ratio of ROP/Q
is high.

ROP: 20 ft/h – 300 GPM – 75% Ecc

RPM VF (%) Improvement from last Improvement from

case (%) no rotation (%)
0 14.46 - -

PT
50 9.13 37 37

100 4.45 51 69

RI
150 2.71 39 81

SC
Table 2 and 3 declare that the rotation is more effective in eccentric cases especially in the cases with a higher
value of ROP/Q. This might be the result of drillpipe’s contact with the cuttings bed and the friction between these
two faces which causes diversion of cutting’s bed into the wider areas of the annulus. This will explain the behavior
of some curves in Figure 9 and Figure 10 which was also observable in the Figure 8. Eventually, the higher drillpipe

U
rotations (if possible) will somehow equalize the cuttings concentrations in different eccentricities. These results are
also presented in Figure 12 in which the improvement from last rotating case is depicted and the existence of
AN
effective RPM threshold is observable.

100
Improvement from last rotatiing case

E:0 - Q:500gpm
M

80
E:0.75 - Q:300gpm
60
D
(%)

40
TE

20

0
0 50 100 150
EP

DrillPipe Rotation (RPM)

Figure 12 Improvement caused by Drillpipe’s rotation from stationary and relative to last rotation speed
C

Another conclusion which can be made from Figure 9, 10 and 11 is the importance of ROP/Q value. As it is
AC

conspicuous, in various cases, cuttings’ concentration initiate to increase abruptly after reaching a certain
eccentricity which are represented in Table 4.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4 The eccentricity point in which the cuttings’ accumulation experience an abrupt increase – 20ft/h ROP

Flow Rate (GPM) 0 RPM 50 RPM 100 RPM 150 RPM

300 0.25 0.375 0.5 -

PT
400 0.375 0.5 0.625 -

500 0.5 0.625 0.75 -

RI
Table 4 demonstrates approximate eccentricity in which the cuttings’ accumulation experiences an abrupt
increase. Also, at this point, the cuttings’ bed is in direct contact with the drillpipe which happens commonly in

SC
drilling operations. At higher rotation rates like 150 RPMs, no sudden change is being observed which means the
stationary cutting’s bed height will not reach to the drillpipe’s nether side. At 500 GPM, a leap in cuttings’
concentration will occur nearly at 50% and 62.5% eccentricities in absence and presence of drillpipe rotation
respectively, however, in the cases with 300 GPM flow rate, these values are 25% in absence of drillpipe rotation

U
and 37.5% in presence of it. These will prove the importance of maintaining a proper ROP/Q ratio.
AN
30
RPM0
25
RPM50
M

RPM100
Cuttings VF (%)

20
RPM150
15
D

10
TE

0
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75
EP

Eccentricity

Figure 13 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 300 GPM – 50 ft/h ROP
C
AC

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30
RPM0
25
RPM50
RPM100
Cuttings VF (%)
20
RPM150
15

PT
10

RI
0
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75

SC
Eccentricity

Figure 14 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 400 GPM – 50 ft/h ROP

U
AN
30
RPM0
25
RPM50
M
Cuttings VF (%)

20 RPM100
RPM150
15
D

10
TE

0
0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75
EP

Eccentricity

Figure 15 Cuttings Volume Fraction vs. Eccentricity – 500 GPM – 50 ft/h ROP
C
AC

Figure 13, 14 and 15 are representative for ROP of 50 ft/h. Since the value of ROP/Q is increased in
comparison with previous cases, the hole cleaning becomes more severe and this will increase the cuttings’ bed
height, thus, higher flow rates are essential for the same hole cleaning behavior. Furthermore, in highly eccentric
cases, when the ratio of ROP/Q is high (e.g. 300GPM and 50ft/h ROP), the volume fraction of cuttings are increased
and the level of the cuttings’ bed raises. In some highly eccentric cases the bed’s surface reaches to the upper areas
of the annuli and this will provide wider passage for the cuttings’ to flow. Thus, in some cases like Figure 13
cuttings’ accumulation in 75% eccentric cases does not differ a lot with 50% eccentric cases. The good example of
this phenomenon is represented in Figure 18. With the rotation of drillpipe, as it is discussed before, the 75%
eccentric cases experience more improvement than 50% eccentric cases.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5 Comparison of hole cleaning improvement in different rotations of drillpipe in a case in which the ratio of ROP/Q
is low.

ROP: 50 ft/h – 500 GPM – 0% Ecc

RPM VF (%) Improvement from last Improvement from no

case (%) rotation (%)
0 4.76 - -

PT
50 2.78 42 42

100 2.59 7 46

RI
150 2.42 7 49

Table 6 Comparison of hole cleaning improvement in different rotations of drillpipe in a case in which the ratio of ROP/Q

SC
is high.

ROP: 50 ft/h – 300 GPM – 75% Ecc

U
RPM VF (%) Improvement from last Improvement from no
case (%) rotation (%)
AN
0 23.81 - -

50 19.14 20 20

100 10.22 47 57
M

150 7.71 25 68
D

The first exquisite point from Table 5 and 6 is its similarity with the behavior of Table 3 and 4 for easiest and
hardest cases. Figure 16 represents drillpipe rotation improvement in comparison with the last rotating case; for
TE

easier cases, 50 RPM is enough but for severe cases, drillpipe should rotate in higher rotational velocities.

100
Improvement from last rotating

E:0 - Q:500gpm
80
EP

E:0.75 - Q:300gpm
60
case (%)

40
C

20
AC

0
0 50 100 150
DrillPipe Rotation (RPM)

Figure 16 Improvement caused by Drillpipe’s rotation from stationary and relative to last rotation speed

Table 7 shows the values of eccentricities in which after that an abrupt increase in cuttings’ accumulation can
be observed for ROP of 50 ft/h.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7 The eccentricity point in which the cuttings’ accumulation experience an abrupt increase – 50 ft/h ROP

Flow Rate (GPM) 0 RPM 50 RPM 100 RPM 150 RPM

300 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.375

400 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.375
500 0.25 0.375 0.375 0.375

PT
As Table 7 depicts, in higher ROPs, hole cleaning become severe with a small deviation of drillpipe from its
axis, and with 12.5% of deviation, cuttings started to accumulate rapidly because the cutting’s bed will have a direct

RI
contact with the drillpipe. Although with the rotation of drillpipe this behavior will be postponed to higher
eccentricities like 37.5%, the need for maintaining a proper ratio of ROP/Q is a necessity since as studies of Adari et
al., 2000 suggested, not much can be done to keep the drillpipe in the center. So, the easiest option regardless of

SC
changing the drilling fluid’s rheology, is maintaining this ratio.

Other specific behaviors which can be concluded from Figure 13, 14 and 15 are an eccentricity point in which
above that the cuttings accumulation would not increase while maintaining a proper value of ROP/Q. The main
reason behind this phenomenon is the fact that the drillpipe will have a lot more contact with the bed and it will

U
immerge into the cuttings, thus, its rotation is more influential because it will disperse and throw the settled cuttings
into the wider areas (Compare Figure 18(d) and 19(d)). It should be noted that in these cases, drillpipe’s behavior is
AN
considered ideally because immergence of drillpipe into the cuttings’ bed will cause huge friction and drag which
may cause drillpipe’s sticking. However, for the purposes of this study, this phenomenon’s limitations are neglected
but it should be noted that if the cuttings’ concentration in cases with 75% eccentricities are similar with cuttings’
concentration in 50% eccentric cases, it does not mean that their drilling operation will be same because another
M

difficulty might emerge since cuttings bed will act as a mechanical obstacle in drilling operations and it will cause
extra torque and drag on drill string (Fazaelizadeh et al., 2010).

As it was said before, keeping the proper ratio of ROP to flow rate is the key for successful hole cleaning. For
D

the proposes of this concept, Figure 17 compares the cuttings’ accumulation in different flow rates for four cases of
concentric and 75% eccentric drillpipe without and with rotation of 150 RPM. It should be noted that ROP
TE

considered the constant value of 50 ft/h.

25
EP

20
Ecc 0 - 0 RPM
Cuttings VF (%)

15 Ecc 0 - 150 RPM

Ecc 0.75 - 0 RPM
C

10 Ecc 0.75 - 150 RPM

AC

0
300 350 400 450 500
Fluid Flow Rate (GPM)

Figure 17 Effect of fluid flow rate on cuttings’ Volume Fraction – 50 ft/h ROP

Figure 17 says that drillpipe rotation can reduce cuttings’ accumulation dramatically and the flow rate of fluid
is always a helping factor.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2 Cuttings concentration profile

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 18 Cross section of annulus in different eccentricities with no rotation and ROP of 200 ft/h – points in which VF is
over 1%

Figure 18 demonstrates cross sections of various cases with different eccentricity of drillpipe in which the
locations with the volume fraction of over 1% are shown in order to depict the cuttings’ accumulation in a horizontal
M

annuli. In all the cases the drillpipe is stationary and as Figure 18 shows, the cuttings volume fraction and the
perimeter of drillpipe which is surrounded by cuttings will increase by increment of the eccentricity.
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 19 Cross section of annulus in different eccentricities with 150 RPM rotation and ROP of 200 ft/h – points in which
VF is over 1%

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 19 represents the same cases of Figure 18 but with 150 RPM of the drillpipe’s rotation. The main point
of Figure 19 is to present the importance of drillpipe rotation and the cuttings bed’s response to it. It should be noted
that the range of Figure 18 and 19 are from 0.01 to 0.63, thus, in other regions the cutting particles might be present
but they concentration is not significant. By comparing Figure 18 and 19, it can be notice that the cuttings’ beds are
diverted to the sides of the annulus, however, by itself, it may not affect the total accumulation of cuttings but by
rotating, extra tangential velocity will increase the turbulence of the fluid and change the pressure difference
between inlet and the outlet of the section which could help the cuttings to carry alongside the annulus properly.
Also, since the drillpipe is closer to the cuttings’ bed, it can apply extra tangential velocity and shear force directly

PT
to the particles.

RI
4.3 Cuttings’ velocity profile
Figure 20 and 21 depict the axial velocity of cutting’s phase in the annulus after a fully developed multiphase
flow. The main point of these two figures is to depict the main flow passage for the cuttings in which they flow

SC
easier.

Figure 20 is representing cases with no drillpipe rotation and high ROP in which the hole cleaning process
experiences difficulties. The cuttings velocity is lower at the top of the annulus due to lack of their presence because
of the gravity. However, in cases with higher eccentricities, the unused spaces by cuttings at the top of the annulus

U
will be invaded by cutting particles because at the nether parts of the annulus, the cuttings initiate to form a bed and
consequently decrease the available flow area for the cuttings. Therefore, the cuttings maximum velocity may
AN
increase by an increment of the eccentricity but the average velocity of cuttings will eventually experience a drop.

The other exquisite point is that near the walls, the cuttings transportation velocity is almost zero and due to the
extra friction in those places, the cuttings’ will not flow easily at there. This behavior is observable in all cases with
M

or without rotation.

Figure 18 and 19 are correlating with the Figure 20 and 21 in the concept of cuttings’ bed formation because at
the regions with high concentration of cuttings, the cuttings move slowly which verifies the stable bed’s formation.
D
TE
C EP
AC

Figure 20 Cross section of cuttings velocity in annulus in cases with no rotation of drillpipe and ROP of 200 ft/h

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Figure 21 Cross section of cuttings velocity in annulus in cases with 150 RPM rotation of drillpipe and ROP of 200 ft/h
M

Rotation of the drillpipe and the tangential velocity it causes will affect the axial velocity of cuttings’ phase.
Furthermore, the tangential velocity and the extra drag will disperse and divert the cuttings bed to the wider areas of
the medium (Figure 21). With the comparison of Figure 20 and 21, it can be seen that the top side of the annulus is
D

now occupied by more cuttings which is a confirmation for the importance of drillpipe rotation because the flow
passage for the cuttings will enlarge. This will escalate the cuttings average velocity which can be compared in
Figure 21(a) and Figure 20 (a). The cutting’s bed diversion to the sides of the annulus is also observable in Figure 21
TE

but even with 150 RPM rotation, at the walls, cuttings velocities are almost negligible.
EP

5. Conclusions
In this study, CFD analysis was developed and the Eulerian multiphase model was utilized in order to observe
the impact of drillpipe’s rotation in accompany with drillpipe’s eccentricity. The following conclusions can be
drawn:
C

• Drillpipe rotation’s role in distributing accumulated cuttings in the annulus is prominent in the horizontal
AC

sections of a well due to the extra tangential velocity it causes which increases the shear force applied to
each cuttings’ particle.
• Drillpipe eccentricity can increase the cutting’s accumulation since its tendency to lean downward will
reduce and narrow the flow passage available for the cuttings which causes the settlement of them. The
more the drillpipe lean downward, the more the cuttings will accumulate.
• The cuttings’ accumulation is highly correlated with the ratio of the rate of penetration (ROP) to the flow
rate of the fluid. This means higher ROPs need higher fluid rates in order to prevent further accumulations
which can cause drillpipe sticking and extra drag and torque between drillpipe and surface of cutting’s bed.
• Drillpipe rotation is more effective when higher ROPs are applied while drilling with a low flow rate of
mud, which means in more severe cases the drillpipe rotation has its most efficiency. However, its rotation
has a threshold above that further rotation is not showing any significant improvement.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Rotation of drillpipe reveals favorable response when it is applied to higher eccentric cases because the
drillpipe will have more direct contact with the cutting’s bed and apply drag force directly on the bed and
disperse the cutting’s particles into the drilling fluid phase.
• Tangential velocity caused by drillpipe rotation will divert the cuttings’ bed toward the sides but diversion
is different from a centric case to fully eccentric cases and it will increase by the increment of the
eccentricity.
• With a higher flow rate of the fluid, the abrupt increase in cuttings’ accumulation will occur on cases with

PT
higher eccentricities. Thus, if decreasing rate of penetration is not financially possible, by increasing
drilling fluid flow rate the hole cleaning problem in eccentric cases can be partially overcome.
• The tangential velocity of drillpipe will help the cuttings’ particles to occupy more area of a cross-section
of the annulus and give them more area to flow through which increases the average axial velocity of

RI
cuttings.
• Eccentricity is mostly causing problems when the bed’s surface is in contact with drillpipe, thus, in upward
eccentricities a significant change in cuttings’ accumulation is not observable.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nomenclature

ROP: Rate of penetration

Q: Fluid flow rate
ε: Volume fraction

PT
t: Time

v: Velocity

RI
P: Impulse transfer between two particles

g: Gravitational constant

SC
τ: Viscous stress tensor

I: Interphase momentum transfer

Rij: Reynolds Stress

U
Pij: Production Rate
AN
Dij: Transport by diffusion

εij: Dissipation rate

Πij: Transport caused by turbulent pressure-strain interactions

M

Ωij: Transport due to rotation

Ωk : Rotation Vector
D

τ0: Yield Stress

TE

K: Consistency Index

n: Power-law index

ρ: Density
EP

Ksl: Interphase momentum transfer coefficient between solid and liquid phase
C D: Drag coefficient
C

µ: Viscosity
AC

Re: Particles Reynolds number

ds: Particle diameter

ϕ: Particles shape factor.

Φ: Porosity

RPM: Rotations per minute

VF: Volume Fraction

ECC: Eccentricity

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References
Adari, R. B., Miska, S., Kuru, E., Bern, P., & Saasen, A. (2000). Selecting drilling fluid properties and flow rates for effective
hole cleaning in high-angle and horizontal wells. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.

Ahmed, R. M., & Miska, S. Z. (2008). Experimental Study and Modeling of Yield Power-Law Fluid Flow in Annuli With
Drillpipe Rotation. In IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

ANSYS (2013). ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide. Release 15.0. Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS, Inc.

PT
Belavadi, M. N., & Chukwu, G. A. (1994). Experimental study of the parameters affecting cutting transportation in a vertical
wellbore annulus. In SPE Western Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., & Young, F. S. (1986). Applied drilling engineering.

RI
Brucato, A., Grisafi, F., & Montante, G. (1998). Particle drag coefficients in turbulent fluids. Chemical Engineering
Science, 53(18), 3295-3314.

SC
Chen, Zhu, et al. (2007) "Experimental study on cuttings transport with foam under simulated horizontal downhole conditions."
SPE Drilling & Completion 22.04: 304-312.

Duan, Mingqin, et al. (2010) "Experimental study and modeling of cuttings transport using foam with drillpipe rotation." SPE
Drilling & Completion 25.03: 352-362.

U
Dykes, G. B. (2014). Cutting transport implications for drill string design: A study with computational fluid dynamics. MS thesis,
AN
College of Earth Resource Sciences and Engineering, Golden, Colorado.

Ergun, S. (1952). Fluid flow through packed columns. Chem. Eng. Prog., 48, 89-94.

Fazaelizadeh, M., Hareland, G., & Aadnoy, B. (2010). Application of New 3-D Analytical Model for Directional Wellbore
M

Friction. Modern applied science, 4(2), 2.

Gidaspow, D. (1994). Multiphase flow and fluidization: continuum and kinetic theory descriptions. Academic press.

Johnson, P. C., & Jackson, R. (1987). Frictional–collisional constitutive relations for granular materials, with application to plane
D

shearing. Journal of fluid Mechanics, 176, 67-93.

Karimi, M., Akdogan, G., Dellimore, K. H., & Bradshaw, S. M. (2012). Comparison of different drag coefficient correlations in
TE

the CFD modelling of a laboratory-scale Rushton-turbine flotation tank. In The Ninth International Conference on CFD in the
Minerals and Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.

Karthik, T. S. D., & Durst, F. (2011). Turbulence models and their applications. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras, India.
EP

Larsen, T. I. F. (1990). A study of the critical fluid velocity in cuttings transport for inclined wellbores.

Li, Y., Bjorndalen, N., & Kuru, E. (2007). Numerical modelling of cuttings transport in horizontal wells using conventional
drilling fluids. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 46(07).
C

Lun, C. K. K., et al. (1984) "Kinetic theories for granular flow: inelastic particles in Couette flow and slightly inelastic particles
AC

in a general flowfield." Journal of fluid mechanics 140: 223-256.

Lundberg, J. (2008). CFD study of a bubbling fluidized bed. In 6th International Conference on Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics
and Thermodynamics, Paper number: HB1.

Maglione, R., Robotti, G., & Romagnoli, R. (2000). In-situ rheological characterization of drilling mud. SPE Journal, 5(04), 377-
386.

Mihalakis, T. S., Makri, P. G., Kelessidis, V. C., Christidis, G. E., Foscolos, A. E., & Papanikolaou, C. E. (2004). Improving
rheological and filtration properties of drilling muds with addition of Greek lignite. In 7th National Congress on Mechanics,
June (pp. 24-26).

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mokhtari, M., Ermila, M., & Tutuncu, A. N. (2012). Accurate Bottomhole Pressure For Fracture Gradient Prediction And
Drilling Fluid Pressure Program-Part I. In 46th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock Mechanics
Association.

Montante, G., & Bakker, A. (2004). Solid-Liquid Multiphase Flow Validation in Tall Stirred Vessels with Multiple Impeller
Systems. Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH.

Moroni, N., Ravi, K., Hemphill, T., & Sairam, P. (2009). Pipe Rotation Improves Hole Cleaning and Cement-Slurry Placement:
Mathematical Modeling and Field Validation. In Offshore Europe. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

PT
Naumann, Z., & Schiller, L. (1935). A drag coefficient correlation. Z Ver Deutsch Ing, 77, 318-323.

Nazari, T., Hareland, G., & Azar, J. J. (2010). Review of cuttings transport in directional well drilling: systematic approach.
In SPE Western Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

RI
Niven, R. K. (2002). Physical insight into the Ergun and Wen & Yu equations for fluid flow in packed and fluidised
beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 57(3), 527-534.

SC
Ofei, T. N., Irawan, S., & Pao, W. (2014). CFD method for predicting annular pressure losses and cuttings concentration in
eccentric horizontal wells. Journal of Petroleum Engineering, 2014.

Ofei, T. N., Irawan, S., Pao, W., & Osgouei, R. E. (2015). Modified Yield Power‐Law fluid flow in narrow annuli with inner
rotating pipe. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 93(1), 150-165.

U
Ozbayoglu, M. E., Saasen, A., Sorgun, M., & Svanes, K. (2008). Effect of pipe rotation on hole cleaning for water-based drilling
AN
fluids in horizontal and deviated wells. In IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.

Patankar, S. V., & Spalding, D. B. (1972). A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional
parabolic flows. International journal of heat and mass transfer, 15(10), 1787-1806.
M

Peden, J. M., Ford, J. T., & Oyeneyin, M. B. (1990). Comprehensive experimental investigation of drilled cuttings transport in
inclined wells including the effects of rotation and eccentricity. In European Petroleum Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
D

Pletcher, R. H., Tannehill, J. C., & Anderson, D. (2012). Computational fluid mechanics and heat transfer. CRC Press.

Ramadan, A. M. (2001). Solids Bed Removal in Deviated Boreholes (Doctoral dissertation, PhD thesis).
TE

Van Wachem, B. G. M., & Almstedt, A. E. (2003). Methods for multiphase computational fluid dynamics. Chemical Engineering
Journal, 96(1), 81-98.

Walker, S., & Li, J. (2000). The effects of particle size, fluid rheology, and pipe eccentricity on cuttings transport. In SPE/ICoTA
EP

Coiled Tubing Roundtable. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Ytrehus, J. D., Carlsen, I. M., Melchiorsen, J. C., Abdollahi, J., Skalle, P., Saasen, A., ... & Lund, B. (2013). Experimental Study
of Friction and Cutting Transport in Non Circular Borehole Geometry. In SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
C

Conference & Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

AC

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:

An Eulerian multiphase model for cuttings transport is proposed.

Drillpipe rotation effects more when the portion of cuttings to fluid is high.

Rotation has more impact when drillpipe leans downward.

RPM value has a threshold above which no significant improvement is observed.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC