SPE/IADC 79856
Cuttings Transport with Foam in Horizontal & Highly-Inclined Wellbores
Evren M. Ozbayoglu / Middle East Technical University - Petroleum Engineering Deparetment,
Stefan Z. Miska, Troy Reed, Nicholas Takach / The University of Tulsa - Drilling Research Projects
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–21 February 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Foams are of considerable interest for annular pressure
management in many drilling applications. While foam
rheology and hydraulics have been studied in the past,
knowledge of cuttings transport with foam is very limited for
vertical wells, and even less well understood for horizontal
and inclined-well configurations. In this paper, cuttings
transport with foam in horizontal and highly-inclined wells
is analyzed.
Using the principles of mass and linear momentum
conservation, a model consisting of three layers (motionless
bed – observed in most experiments, moving foam-cuttings
mixture and foam free of cuttings) is presented. The model
includes seven independent equations and seven unknowns. A
computer simulator was developed to solve simultaneously the
system of equations for flow velocities, cuttings bed height,
slip velocity, the in-situ concentration of flowing cuttings and
pressure drop.
An extensive experimental program on cuttings transport
was conducted using The University of Tulsa Drilling
Research Projects’ full-scale (8” by 4 ½”) flow loop at 70° to
90° inclinations (from vertical). A broad range of annular
velocities and cuttings injection rates was investigated using
foam qualities of 70% to 90%. Results from the experiments
are presented in the form of graphs showing the cuttings bed
cross-sectional area and pressure losses vs. foam flow rate. In
all experiments, the foam behaved as a pseudo-plastic fluid;
foam qualities of 80% and 90% exhibited noticeable wall slip.
At a given flow rate and rate of penetration, bed thickness
increases with an increase in foam quality. There is little effect
of inclination angles in the range of 70°-90°.
The experimental data were used to verify results from the
simulator. The simulator is capable of estimating bed
thickness and pressure drop with an error of less than 20% in
most cases.
Introduction
Inefficient cleaning of wellbore may cause severe problems,
such as stuck pipe, lost circulation, high torque and drag, loss
of control on density and ECDs, poor cement jobs, etc1.
Studies on cuttings transport have been in progress since the
1940’s. Initial investigations focused on terminal velocity
determination for single-phase drilling fluids. Since most of
the wells were vertical, terminal velocity was enough to
address most of the problems. As interest in directional and
horizontal wells increased, studies were shifted to
experimental approaches2-4 and mechanistic models trying to
explain the cuttings transport phenomenon for all inclination
angles. Gavignet and Sobey5 introduced a two-layer model for
explaining the cuttings transport phenomenon in an inclined
wellbore. Their model consists of a stationary bed, and pure
fluid flow in the upper layer. Clark and Bickham6 developed a
mechanistic model, based on forces acting on a particle, which
they claim was developed for the entire well; i.e., from the bit
to the surface. They define three modes for cuttings transport:
rolling, lifting and settling. Nguyen and Rahman7 developed a
three-layer mechanistic model that is similar to the model
developed in the present study. Their model consists of three
components; a stationary bed, a dispersed layer and a fluid
flow layer. Their model works for different modes of
transport, ranging from a stationary bed condition to a fully
suspended flow. They did not verify their model with
experimental data. However, they do present results from a
computer simulator. Later, underbalanced drilling became
more important as an essential tool, and the interest expanded
to include cuttings transport with multi-phase fluids for
inclined and horizontal wells. However, studies conducted on
cuttings transport with aerated fluids, especially with foams in
highly inclined wells are very limited.
Saintpere, et al.8 analyzed hole cleaning with foam in
inclined wells using a fluid mechanics approach that ignores
inertial effects. They introduced a few dimensionless
parameters for describing the fluid rheology, foam properties,
flowing time, etc. They observed the worst hole-cleaning
performance at angles of 40° to 60°. Martins, et al.9
experimentally studied effective hole cleaning with foam.
They developed empirical equations to predict bed erosion in
horizontal wells as a function of foam quality and
Reynolds number.
There are also papers on cuttings transport with foam for
vertical wells. For example, Krug and Mitchell10 developed
charts for estimating the required flow rates for foam drilling
as a function of rate of penetration, depth and bottomhole
2 SPE/IADC 79856
pressure. They assume that foam behaves as a Bingham
Plastic. They ignored the effects of solids in their calculations.
Okpobiri and Ikoku11 developed a semi-empirical correlation
to determine frictional pressure losses that include the effects
of solids in a flowing foam. They predict the minimum
volumetric requirements for foam drilling operations. For a
constant flow Reynolds number, they observed an increase in
friction pressure losses with an increase in solids mass flow
rate. They assume that all foam drilling operations are
performed in the laminar flow region and that foam qualities
vary between 55% and 96%. Guo, et al.12 addressed the
question of determination of bottomhole pressure when foam
is used as a drilling fluid. They used an equation of state for
foam, assumed a cuttings transport velocity around 1.5 ft/sec
at the bottomhole, and then calculated hydrostatic head and
frictional losses along the annulus by following an iterative
procedure. They assumed foam is a Power-Law fluid. They
also compared their proposed model with other models and
calculation procedures. This study is one of the first studies
conducted on modeling of cuttings transport with foam in
horizontal and highly-inclined wells.
Foam Rheology
Data obtained from foam experiments with the rheology
sections of the Low Pressure Ambient Temperature (LPAT)
Flow Loop at The University of Tulsa were used to determine
the rheological parameters. Initial analysis focused on wall
slip effects. If there is slip at the wall, the Newtonian shear
rate should be corrected. After determination of the corrected
 8v 
Newtonian shear rates, ln τ w versus ln   was plotted.
 d 
Then, N was determined for different shear rate values.
3N + 1  8 v 
Finally, τw versus   was plotted and
4N  d 
rheological parameters were determined by statistical analysis
or curve-fitting methods. In this study, the procedure proposed
by Oldroyd and Jastrzebski13 was used for determination of
the wall slip effects.
The analysis showed that the relation between ln τ w
8v
versus ln for all foam qualities was a straight line, i.e., a
d
Pseudo-Plastic or Power Law behavior.14 Regression analysis
showed that for all foam qualities, foam behaved like a
pseudo-plastic type of fluid with an insignificant yield stress.
The resulting parameters for this rheological model are
presented in Table 1.
Changes in quality of a foam, due to changes in pressure
and temperature, can be calculated as follows:
 PT 
Q2 = Q1 (1 − Γ1 ) + 1 2 ( Γ1 )  ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
 P2 T1 
where the indices 1 and 2 refer to the consecutive grid order.
Layered Model
There are different modes of transport that can be observed
depending on the flow rate in horizontal well drilling7. The
number of layers developed in the wellbore decrease as the
flow rate increases. The increase in flow rate causes more
cuttings to go into suspension or move up the wellbore. In this
experimental study with the LPAT Flow Loop, a three-layer
configuration was observed: a stationary bed; a layer in which
cuttings and fluid are in motion (slip between fluid and
cuttings is included); and an upper moving layer with
primarily only fluid.14 The cross-section of the wellbore with
these three layers is shown in Figure 1.
In this study, the wellbore is divided into grids in the flow
direction. The following assumptions are made for each of the
three layers within a single longitudinal grid.
Layer I: Only fluid is flowing in this region. Variations in
physical and chemical properties of the fluid within the layer
are ignored.
Layer II: The cuttings and the fluid form a moving mixture.
There is slip between the cuttings and the fluid. A slurry
velocity is defined in order to simplify the calculations.
Layer III: Cuttings are uniformly compacted, thus porosity is
constant. The cuttings bed is stationary as is the fluid present
in the pores.
In the proposed model, which is a one-dimensional three-
layer model, the wellbore is divided into longitudinal grids of
length ∆L . Within each longitudinal grid, the velocity,
density, fluid properties, etc., are assumed to be constant. In
other words, along the flow direction variations in v1 and v2,
density variations, etc., are neglected within a single wellbore
grid. However, due to pressure change from one wellbore grid
to the other; fluid velocity, density, fluid properties, etc. are
re-calculated for the next grid by using the equation of state
for gases modified for foam. Therefore, although variations of
fluid properties, velocities, etc. within a grid are neglected,
they are included in the overall model. The cuttings are
assumed to be spherical and have a constant diameter
and density.
Mass Balance
Assuming a constant ROP and fluid pump rate, a mass balance
in a control volume (a single grid) can be defined as follows:
For the fluid phase:
( )
vI AI ρ f + vII AII ρ f 1 − CC II = v Aw (1 − CC ) ρ f . . .(2)
For the solid phase:
vII AII CCII ρ c = v Aw CC ρ c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(3)
where vII is the slurry velocity in the second layer, which is
defined as:
vslip ρ c CCII
vII = vII f − .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
ρs
SPE/IADC 79856 3

where the in-situ slurry density, ρs is: The force balance for the second layer is:

∆P AII + τ I − II S I − II ∆L − τ II − III S II − III ∆L

ρ s = ρ f (1 − CC ) + ρC CC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(5) . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
II II
−τ II − w S II − w ∆L − ρ s g AII ∆LSinα = 0 .
Transport velocity of the solids, vT , is defined as: The force balance for the stationary cuttings bed is:

vT = vII f − vslip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(6) ∆P AIII + τ II − III S II − III ∆L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(13)
− f III − w ρb g AIII ∆LCosα = 0 .
On the right sides of Equation 2 and Equation 3, the terms v
and CC are the average velocity in the wellbore and the feed In Equation 11, Equation 12 and Equation 13, shear stress
cuttings concentration, respectively, which are defined as: terms, τ i − j , are defined as:

Q f + Abit ROP
ρi ( vi − v j )
2
v= ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(7)
Aw τ i− j = f f i− j ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
2
and
where indices i and j indicate the surfaces where shear takes
place. One of the key points for this model is determining the
ROP
CC = λ ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) interfacial shear stress between the bed surface and the second
  d 2  layer. This shear stress defines whether the bed is under
v 1 −  i   erosion, development or steady state. It is known that there is a
  d o   critical interfacial shear stress at which the bed is neither
developing nor eroding. Thus, momentum equations are
solved when interfacial shear stress is equal to the critical
where λ is a correction factor (see Appendix).
interfacial shear stress. The term f III − w is the static friction
It is important to note that C C is not the total cuttings
factor between the bed and the wellbore, and was determined
concentration in the wellbore. It only gives an estimate of the
amount of cuttings in motion that are introduced to the Abed
experimentally as a function of :
wellbore. The in-situ cuttings concentration in the second Aw
layer can be derived as:
0.252
A v A 
CCII = CC w .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(9) f III − w = 0.617 bed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(15)
AII vII  Aw 

This equation shows that if vII decreases, cuttings The interfacial shear stress between the layer boundaries
can be expressed in terms of a friction factor. In this study, an
concentration in the second layer increases, indicating cuttings
empirical correlation developed by Televantos15 is used:
accumulation. Thus, the total in-situ cuttings concentration
present in the system is
 dc 
CCtotal = CCII + CCbed .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) d 
1 2.51
= −0.86ln  hyd +  . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
2 ff  3.7 N Re 2 f f 
Momentum Balance  
The free body diagram of a wellbore section with layers is  
presented in Figure 2. In a wellbore grid, the fluid density and
velocity are assumed to be constant. Also, steady state flow is The friction factor between the first layer and the second
assumed. According to Figure 2, the force balance for the first layer is determined by modifying Televantos’ equation
layer is: as follows.

∆P AI − τ I − II S I − II ∆L − τ I − w S I − w ∆L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
− ρ f g AI ∆LSinα = 0 .
4 SPE/IADC 79856

 d chr  In-Situ Cuttings Concentration

d  Determination of the in-situ concentration of the cuttings in
1 2.51 the second layer is very important for accurately defining the
= −0.86ln  hyd +  . . . . . . . . . . .(17)
mixture density and viscosity in this layer. By using the
2 f fa  3.7 N Re 2 f fa 
  equation of continuity, in-situ cuttings concentration can
  be derived:
and
CCII =
2
( )
2 ` C CCbottom − CCtop + CCtop hII v y − ξ
2 2

,. . (23)
2 2
 d − dc  hII v y
f f = f fa  chr + 1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
 2 dc 

where the characteristic diameter is defined as: where: ξ=

(C Cbottom )
− CCtop hII v y ( 2` C + hII v y )
.
hII v y

e `C − 1
CCII
d chr = d c 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
Wellbore Geometry
CCbed
In order to solve the mass and momentum equations, the area
and contact surfaces have to be determined for each layer.
This equation also reduces to the well known Colebrook Layer boundary alignment in the wellbore can be categorized
friction factor equation when the cuttings concentration into six major cases, as shown in Figure 4. Any other type of
approaches zero. alignment can be explained by using these six cases. For each
For determining viscosity of the cuttings-fluid mixture in case, the area, contact surfaces, etc., was determined by using
the second layer, correlations are available in the literature for basic trigonometry and geometry.
spherical particles. In this study, it is assumed that K ' is a
function of the cuttings concentration. Thus, the empirical Experimental Work
equation developed by Thomas16 was modified and used in the Experiments were conducted at The University of Tulsa
following form. Drilling Research Projects’ LPAT Flow Loop (Figure 5). The
test section is approximately 100 ft. long and it consists of an
 1 + 2.5 CC + 10.05 CC 2  8 in. inner diameter transparent casing (¾ in. wall thickness)
K 'suspension = K ' II II
 . . . . . . . .(20) and a 4.5 in. diameter aluminum alloy pipe to simulate a
 +0.00273 e CII
16.6 C  drillstring. The cuttings are introduced into the annular section
  from a 650-gallon capacity injection tank using a rotating
auger system. Downstream of the test section, an industrial-
Slip Velocity size shale shaker separates the fluid from the cuttings, which
Derivation of the slip velocity between the fluid and the are then accumulated in a holding tank. One end of the flow
cuttings is based on the free body diagram shown in Figure 3. loop is attached to a movable platform, while the other end is
If the sum of the moments is computed for point C with connected to a pulley and a winch that enable the annular test
respect to point P, the following equation is obtained. section to be inclined at any angle between 0° to 90° from
vertical. A 75-HP centrifugal mud pump (maximum capacity
 FD + ( Fb − W ) Sin α  d c f (θ , β ) 650 gpm) is used to supply liquid, and a compressor (with
,. . . . . . . (21) working pressures of 0-100 psi and a maximum 800 scfm
+  FL + ( Fb − W ) Cos α  d c f (θ , β ) = 0 capacity) is used to supply air. Both gas and liquid flow rates
are measured using Micro-motion mass flow meters. The
control, measurement and recording of the flow rates for both
where θ and β are dependent on the compaction type. Slip phases (air and liquid), drillpipe rotation, flow loop
velocity can be determined by solving Equation 21 for vslip : inclination, pressure and temperature are carried out from a
control room using the commercial data acquisition
K system, LabView.
4 dc g  Tests related to cuttings transport can be categorized into
vslip =   ( Ψ ) , . . . . . . . (22)
 3 ( CL Sin β + CD Sin θ ) 
two groups: water tests and foam tests. The matrix for water
with cuttings tests is presented in Table 2 and the matrix for
foam with cuttings tests is presented in Table 3.
ρc − ρ f
where Ψ= ( Cos α Sin β + Sin α Sin θ ) . Results & Discussions
ρf Model predictions and the experimental results for cuttings
A detailed derivation is presented in the Appendix. transport tests with water are compared in Figure 6 and Figure
7 for bed area and total pressure drop, respectively, for 90°,
80° and 70° wellbore inclinations. The plots related to cuttings
SPE/IADC 79856 5

bed area show that the model has a slight tendency to mL

overestimate the cuttings bed. As seen in Figure 6, the F Force ( )
difference between the model estimated results and the T2
experimental data are mostly within an error range of 25%. f As a function of
However, the difference increases for lower bed thicknesses. ff Friction Factor
In addition, the model predicts smaller pressure losses in the L
g Gravitational Acceleration ( )
system than the experimental values. But the difference T2
between experimental data and the estimated results are
mostly within 20%, as shown in Figure 7. Therefore, although mT N − 2
K Consistency Index ( )
the model is developed for compressible fluids, the model can L
be used confidently for incompressible fluids as well.
Experimental data and model predictions are compared in mT N − 2
K’ Generalized Consistency Index ( )
Figures 8 and 9 for cuttings transport with foam at foam L
qualities varying from 70% to 90 % and inclination angles L Length (L)
ranging from 70° to 90°. Figure 8 shows that all of the bed m Fluid Behavior Index
thickness estimations are close to the experimental data, with a m Mass (m)
difference less than 20%. Whereas Figure 9 shows some of the n Fluid Behavior Index
model’s estimates of pressure drop data are outside a ± 25% N Generalized Fluid Behavior Index
window. The experimental data, especially for high foam NRe Reynolds Number
qualities at low flow rates, exhibit a wider range of scatter. m
The major reason for this is thought to be the presence of P Pressure ( )
uncontrolled gas slugs that develop because of low back- LT 2
pressure in the system. In turn, this causes lower pressure L3
drop measurements. Q Flow Rate ( )
It should be noted that the model has some limitations. The T
model only applies to a three-layer case with a stationary bed. R Radius (L)
Also, the bed will begin sliding back down the hole after a L
critical inclination angle; therefore, the model must be used ROP Rate of Penetration ( )
for inclinations greater than the critical sliding angle.
T
S Perimeter (L)
Conclusions T Temperature (θ)
Consistent with the experimental observations, a three-layer, L
v Velocity ()
one-dimensional model and a corresponding computer T
simulator were developed using the principles of mass and
momentum conservation for steady, isothermal flow
mL
W Weight ( 2 )
conditions. Theoretically, cuttings bed thickness, mixture T
thickness, clear fluid velocity, mixture velocity, slip velocity
between the cuttings and the fluid in the mixture, in-situ Greek Letters
cuttings concentration of the mixture and total pressure drop α Inclination Angle (from horizontal)
can be determined. While a number of simplifying β Angle
assumptions have been introduced to develop a workable m
model, the calculated results are considered to be reasonable. ρ Density ( )
Cuttings bed thickness and total pressure drop for water were L3
predicted within 15% and mostly within 25% of experimental ` Diffusion Coefficient
results for foam. φ Porosity
Γ Quality
Acknowledgements θ Angle
This paper was written with support of the U.S. Department of m
Energy under Contract No. DE-FG26-99BC15178. The τ Shear Stress ( )
Government reserves for itself and others acting on its behalf a LT 2
royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license for m
Governmental purposes to publish, distribute, translate, µ Viscosity ( )
duplicate, exhibit and perform this copyrighted paper. LT

Nomenclature Subscripts
2 b Bed, Buoyancy
A Area ( L )
C Concentration, Coefficient c Cuttings
d Diameter (L) D Drag
eq Equivalent
6 SPE/IADC 79856

f Fluid 13. Jastrzebski, Z.D., “Entrance Effects and Wall Effects in an

hyd Hydraulic Extrusion Rheometer During the Flow of Concentrated
I First Layer Suspensions”, Ind.Eng.Chem.Fund. 6, 445-453, (1967)
II Second Layer 14. Ozbayoglu M.E., “Cuttings Transport with Foam in
Horizontal and Highly-Inclined Wellbores”, Ph.D.
III Third Layer Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa (2002)
L Lift
p Particle Appendix
r Relative Slip Between Cuttings and the Fluid
s Slip, Suspension From Figure 3, taking the moment from point C with respect
T Transport to point P gives Equation 22, where
term terminal settling velocity
w Wall, Wellbore
π
W= d c3 ρ c g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.1)
References 6
1. Sanchez, R. A., Azar, J. J., Bassal, A. A., and Martins, A.
L., “The Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning
1 π
FD = CD d c2 ρ f ( v fluid − vT ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.2)
2
During Directional Well Drilling”, SPE 37626, Presented at
the 1997 Drilling Conference, Amsterdam-Holland 2 4
(March 4-6, 1997)
2. Tomren, P. H., “The Transport of Drilled Cuttings in an
1 π
FL = CL d c2 ρ f ( v fluid − vT ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.3)
2
Inclined Eccentric Annulus”, M.S. Thesis, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa (1979) 2 4
3. Iyoho, A. W., “Drilled-Cuttings Transport by Non-
Newtonian Drilling Fluids Through Inclined Eccentric
Annuli”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa π
(April 1980)
Fb = d c3 ρ f g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.4)
6
4. Larsen, T. I., “A Study of Critical Fluid Velocity in
Cuttings Transport For Inclined Wellbores”, M.S. Thesis,
University of Tulsa, Tulsa (1990) and
5. Gavignet, A. A. and Sobey, I. J., “A Model for the
Transport of Cuttings in Highly Deviated Wells”, SPE vslip = v fluid − vT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A.5)
15417, Presented at the 61st Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans-Louisiana
(October 5-8, 1996) When Equation 21 is solved for vslip , Equation 22 is obtained,
6. Clark, R. K., and Bickham, K. L., “A Mechanistic Model
for Cuttings Transport”, SPE 28306, Presented at the 69th where β and θ take values depending on the packing type.
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans-Louisiana (September 25-28, 1994) In-Situ Cuttings Concentration
7. Nguyen, D., and Rahman, S. S., “A Three-Layer Hydraulic Determination of the in-situ concentration of the second layer
Program for Effective Cuttings Transport and Hole is very important. Assuming a rectangular coordinate system,
Cleaning in Highly Deviated and Horizontal Wells”, the quation of continuity can be written as follows.
IADC/SPE 36383, Presented at the 1996 Asia Pacific
Drilling Technology, Kuala Lumpur-Malaysia (September
9-11, 1996) ∂C  ∂C ∂C ∂C 
8. Saintpere S., Marcillat Y., Bruni F., Toure A., “Hole +  vx + vy + vz 
Cleaning Capabilities of Drilling Foams Compared to ∂t  ∂x ∂y ∂z 
Conventional Fluids”, SPE 63049, Presented at the 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A.6)
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas-  ∂ 2C ∂ 2C ∂ 2 C 
= `C  2 + 2 + 2 
Texas (October 1-4, 2000)
9. Martins A.L., Lourenco A.M.F., de Sa C.H.M., “Foam  ∂x ∂y ∂z 
Property Requirements for Proper Hole Cleaning While
Drilling Horizontal Wells in Underbalanced Conditions”, ∂C ∂C ∂C
SPE Drilling and Completion (December 2001) Let = = 0, = 0 , density and the diffusion
10. Krug, J.A., and Mitchell, B.J., “Charts Help Find Volume ∂x ∂z ∂t
Pressure Needed for Foam Drilling,” OGJ, pp.61-64, coefficient all be constant. Then, the continuity equation
(February 7, 1972) becomes:
11. Okpobiri, G.A., “Experimental Determination of Solids
Friction Factors and Minimum Volumetric Requirements in
Foam and Mist Drilling and Well Cleanout Operations”, ∂C ∂ 2C
vy = `C 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.7)
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, (1982) ∂y ∂y
12. Gou B., Miska S., Harelard G., “A Simple Approach to
Determination of Bottom Hole Pressure in Directional
Foam Drilling”, ASME, Jan., (1994) where
SPE/IADC 79856 7

v y = vterm Cosα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.8) π π

ROP λ
4
do ρc = v
2

4
(d o
2
− di
2
)ρ C c C . . . . . . . . .(A.12)

Actually, from Stokes’ Law

Solving for CC gives Equation 8, where λ is a correction
K
4 dc g  ρc − ρ f  factor for the feed cuttings concentration, CC . As drilling is
vterm =   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.9)
3 CD  ρ f  in progress, the length of the wellbore is increasing
continuously. Therefore, a bed develops not only away from
the drillbit (left side of shaded portion in Figure A.1), but also
The boundary conditions for this second order differential at the recently drilled section (right side of shaded portion).
equation are:
≈ ∆L
y = 0 , CC = CCbottom ,
y = hII , CC = CCtop .

Thus, solution of this second order differential equation is

hII v y
∆L
−CCbottom + CCtop e ` C + ς Figure A.1 Bed development in an actual drilling
CC ( y ) = hII v y
. , . . . . . . . . . . . (A.10) operation

e `C − 1 As seen in Figure A.1, a new bed develops at the recently

drilled section with a length of ∆L ; therefore, the amount of
v y ( hII − y )
cuttings being transported along the wellbore is reduced. Thus,
where ς = CC ( bottom
− CCtop e ) `C
. The average cuttings λ can be determined as follows:
The amount of cuttings in the bed that develops in the recently
concentration in layer 2 can be determined by integration of
drilled section is:
CC ( y ) over the thickness of layer 2.
*
mbed = ROP ∆t Abed
*
(1 − φbed ) ρ c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.13)
hII v y
hII
−CCbottom + CCtop e ` C + ζ The total amount of cuttings generated by the bit is:
∫ hII v y
ydy
0
e `C − 1 mtotal = ROP ∆t Abit ρ c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A.14)
CCII = hII
. . . . . . . . . (A.11)

∫ ydy
0
Therefore, λ can be defined as follows.

v y ( hII − y ) λ=
mtotal − mbed
*
=
Abit − Abed
*
(1 − φbed ) . . . . . . . . . (A.15)
where ζ = CC ( bottom
− CCtop e ) `C
, which leads to
mtotal Abit

Equation 23, where the diffusion coefficient ` C is available Equation A.15 shows that there is a reduction in the feed
in the literature. cuttings concentration due to the continuous formation of new
bed as a well is drilled. Equation A.15 also shows that the feed
Feed Cuttings Concentration cuttings concentration in a flow loop (like TUDRP’s LPAT),
It has been pointed out that a cuttings bed builds and moves is only equivalent to a drilling ROP when there is no
stationary bed of cuttings; i.e., when Abed = 0 .
*
down the hole, following the drillbit. The cuttings injection
rate used during the steady state flow loop tests represents the
portion of cuttings that are being transported out of the hole at
a particular hole angle and for a given set of flow conditions.
The amount of cuttings going into the stationary bed must be
added to the flow loop injection rate to obtain the equivalent
rate of penetration for a drill bit. Therefore, the solids mass
balance at the bit is:
8 SPE/IADC 79856

Tables & Figures

Table 1 – Foam rheological model parameters

τ = µ (γ ) τ = τ y + µ p (γ ) τ = K (γ )
n
τ = τ y + K (γ )
m

µ R2 τy µp R2 K n R2 τy K m R2
70 % 6.0 10-6 0.63 8.14 10-4 4.0 10-6 0.82 1.02 10-4 0.53 0.94 5.8 10-8 1.0 10-4 0.53 0.94
-5 -3 -6 -4 -9
80 % 1.0 10 0.58 1.76 10 6.0 10 0.80 2.92 10 0.45 0.92 1.3 10 2.9 10-4 0.45 0.92
-5 -3 -6 -4 -7 -4
90% 1.2 10 0.45 2.22 10 7.0 10 0.81 4.15 10 0.42 0.90 2.0 10 4.1 10 0.42 0.90

where τ and τy are in psi, and µ and K are in lbf sn/in2.

P2
Table 2 - Experimental matrix for cuttings experiments with water
Minimum Maximum WI
Average Annular Velocity (ft/s) 1 6
ROP (ft/hr) 20 60
τI-w
WII
Inclination 70 90 τI-II
P1 τI-II
τII-III
τII-w τII-III
Table 3 – Experimental matrix for cuttings experiments with foam
Velocity (ft/s) ROP (ft/hr) Inclination fstatic
70 % quality
2 10 70
( min ) 12 80 90 α
max
80 % quality
2 10 70 Figure 2 - Free body diagram of a wellbore grid
( min ) 15 90 90
max with flow upward (left to right)
90 % quality
3 10 70
( min ) 18 90 90
max
FL

Fb
α
Layer-I

g
C
FD

O
P
Layer-II
A
Layer-III W

Figure 1 - Cross-section of the wellbore Figure 3 - Free body diagram for determination of slip velocity
SPE/IADC 79856 9

0.25

0.2

0.15

Calculated
Case 1-1 Case 1-2-1 Case 1-2-2
0.1

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Ex perime ntal

Figure 7 - Total pressure gradient (psi/ft) of water,

Case 2-1 Case 2-2-1 Case 2-2-2 calculated versus experimental

Figure 4 - Alignment of a layer boundary in a wellbore

100
90

80
70
60
Calculated

50
40
30

20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Experime ntal

Figure 8 - Ratio of bed area over wellbore area of foam,

calculated versus experimental

Figure 5 – TUDRP Low Pressure–Ambient Temperature Flow Loop

0.25

80
0.2
70

60 0.15
Calculated

50
Calculated

0.1
40

30
0.05
20

10 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 Experimental
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ex perimenta l Figure 9 - Total pressure gradient (psi/ft) of foam,
calculated versus experimental
Figure 6 - Ratio of bed area over wellbore area of water,
calculated versus experimental