Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Cutting transport efficiency prediction using probabilistic CFD and

DOE techniques
Meysam Naderi, Ehsan Khamehchi *
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Hafez Avenue, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Efficient cutting transport plays an important role in drilling operation. This process is controlled by many factors
Cutting transport efficiency such as well geometry, drilling fluid properties, geological features and rate of penetration. In order to minimize
Computational fluid dynamic the operational cost of inefficient hole cleaning, it is crucial to thoroughly investigate the simultaneous effect of
Design of experiment various factors on the process of cutting transport.
Monte Carlo simulation In this regard, computational fluid dynamic (CFD) and design of experiment (DOE) techniques were used to
predict the cutting transport efficiency (CTE) as a function mud velocity (Vm), drilling rate of penetration (ROP),
mud weight (MW), cutting weight (CW), mud viscosity (μm), pipe rotational speed (N), and cutting size (CS).
The results of study based on probabilistic CFD calculations using DOE and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) show
that respectively factors of mud velocity, cutting weight, pipe rotational speed, mud weight, cutting diameter,
mud viscosity, and drilling rate of penetration have the greatest impact on transportation of drilled cuttings from
bottom of the well to the surface. In addition, result of MCS based on analysis of total variance reveals that 86.3%
of cutting transport efficiency variation could be controlled by three factors of mud velocity, cutting weight and
pipe rotational speed. Therefore, these factors should be carefully characterized during drilling and hole cleaning
to maximize the cutting transport efficiency.

1. Introduction
A good drilling operation with maximum rate of penetration and
minimum cost is a function of efficient cutting transport. Several factors
influence the process of cutting motion toward the surface. Typical var-
iables which determine the effectiveness of drilling mud in removing the
cuttings from the wellbore are drilling fluid properties such as viscosity,
yield point, fluid type, hole diameter and length, annular velocity, well
inclination angle, size and shape of cutting, cutting weight, and drilling
rate of penetration. The interaction between various factors makes the
situation more complex. Therefore, it is crucial to estimate the degree of
hole cleaning to reduce drilling problems and consequently unforeseen
costs.
Several authors have investigated the cutting transport problem.
UdoZeidler (1970) studied the effect of cutting dynamics on mud car-
rying capacity in a vertical well. The experimental study of Sifferman
et al. (1974) using a full scale vertical annulus for different systems of
drilling fluid showed that rotary speed, cutting generation rate, annular
size and pipe eccentricity has minimal effect on cutting transport. Casing
size and drilling fluid density showed a moderate effect. However,
annular velocity and mud properties were the most cutting transport
controlling factors. Husssin and Azac (1983) experimental study of cut-
ting transport revealed that increased annular velocity and yield strength
of drilling fluid are favorable conditions for efficient hole-cleaning. Syed
and Jamal (1983) studied the cutting transport problem in vertical and
inclined wellbores experimentally. The experimental study performed by
Okrajni and Azar (1986) showed that transportation of cuttings is not
influenced by yield point, and yield point to plastic viscosity ratio under
turbulent regime. However, higher mud yield value shows a better
transport performance for laminar flow in the range of low-angle wells.
The study also showed that the effect of eccentricity is a function of
inclination angle and flow regime. For high inclination angles between
55 and 90
, the effect of pipe eccentricity on hole cleaning is moderate
under turbulent flow and significant for laminar flow. In general, they
concluded that mud flow rate has a dominant effect on annular
hole-cleaning. The experimental analysis of cutting transport phenome-
non in an included wellbore by Ford et al. (1990) indicated that the
velocity needed to initiates cuttings transport is sensitive to inclination
angle. Pipe rotation significantly reduces the critical fluid transport ve-
locity when circulating with medium or highly viscous fluids, and cutting

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khamehchi@aut.ac.ir (E. Khamehchi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.12.083
Received 10 April 2017; Received in revised form 21 December 2017; Accepted 28 December 2017
Available online 2 January 2018
0920-4105/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi
removal is very effective under turbulent flow condition. Sifferman and
Becker (1992a,b) performed an experimental study to evaluate the effect
of several parameters on hole-cleaning in an inclined well. The param-
eters were mud velocity, mud density, mud rheology, mud type, cuttings
size, rate of penetration, rotary speed, drill pipe eccentricity, diameter of
drill pipe, and hole angle. The result of survey showed that mud velocity
and mud weight have the greatest effect on hole-cleaning, and as the mud
weight increases the cutting beds shows decreasing. In addition, the
study revealed that pipe rotation effect on cutting buildup is greater for
inclination angles near horizontal, small cuttings, and low ROP. Harel
and Geir (1993) used two Invert Emulsion Mineral-Oil-Based and
Water-Based Muds systems to experimentally investigate the limestone
cutting transport behavior. For vertical or near vertical inclination an-
gles, the study showed that cuttings transport rate increases as the yield
point and plastic viscosity of both mud systems decreases but this effect is
more severe in the inverted emulsion oil-base muds. For higher inclina-
tion angles, hole-cleaning for both mud types improves by simultaneous
decreasing of yield point and plastic viscosity, and increasing flow rate.
Cho et al. (2002) used continuity and Navier Stokes equations to study
the effect of annular velocity, pressure gradient and mud rheology on
cuttings transport. Ramadan et al. (2002) introduced a mechanistic
model to estimate the critical flow rate in inclined channel by analyzing
the forces acting on spherical bed particles. Saeid et al. (2006) and Phuoc
et al. (2007) experimental study showed that drag reduction and sand
consolidation feature of nano-fluids improves drilling rate of penetration.
Mingqin et al. (2007) developed a mechanistic model to estimate the
critical velocity in order to predict which drilling fluid is effective in bed
formation prevention and particles bed erosion. Mirzaeepeyman and
Bandar (2008) experimental study showed the positive effect of carbon
black nano particles on the drilling mud performance for reducing mud
filtrate and mud cake thickness. Piroozian et al. (2012) experimentally
investigated the effect of the mud viscosity, fluid velocity and hole
inclination on cuttings transport in horizontal and highly deviated wells.
They considered three types of drilling fluid. The results indicated that
cuttings transport efficiency increases by viscosity approximately 8% at
all angles provided the flow regime remained turbulent for constant flow
velocity. However, further increase of viscosity reduces cutting transport
performance by a total average of 12% because of changing flow regime
from turbulent into transient and laminar flow. Li and Luft (2014a,b)
presented a critical review of the previous solids transport theoretical
studies in both drilling and well interventions. In addition, they intro-
duced a methodology for developing the empirical correlations and a
mechanistic model. Li and Luft (2014a,b) studied the cutting transport
experimentally. They presented useful general guide to gather compre-
hensive laboratory flow loop test data required to validate the derived
semi-empirical theoretical model to simulate the hole cleaning process.
Ebrahimi and Khamehchi (2015) developed a robust model using arti-
ficial neural network for computing pressure drop in vertical multiphase
flow that could be possibly used to optimize required surface pressure to
have better mud carrying capacity. Song et al. (2017) experimentally
investigated the effect of the flow rate, cutting diameter, rate of pene-
tration, eccentricity, and wellbore diameter on cleaning performance in
horizontal wells using a full-scale horizontal-cuttings-transport flow
loop. In addition, they proposed a model for prediction of cuttings
volumetric concentration and the cuttings-bed height based on dimen-
sional analysis. The results of their study revealed that cutting transport
efficiency in horizontal wells increases by increased flow rate, decreased
ROP, lower eccentricity, and smaller ratio of drillpipe diameter to well-
bore diameter.
Review of previous studies shows that although many experimental
and simulation works have been done regarding cutting transport pro-
cess, the interaction effect of variables on cutting transport performance
has never been investigated. The interaction effects play a crucial role in
the cutting transport process. Because of complex nature of problem, it is
very important to consider the variables simultaneously in order to find
better hole cleaning strategy and improved drilling operation with
59
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66
minimum costs. In this regard, the paper aims to formulate cutting
transport efficiency (CTE) as a function of mud velocity (Vm), drilling rate
of penetration (ROP), mud weight (MW), cutting weight (CW), mud
viscosity (μm), pipe rotational speed (N), and cutting size (CS) by using
design of experiment (DOE) and computational fluid dynamic (CFD)
calculations. Box-Behnken design (BBD) was used to run CFD to establish
the mathematical relation between cutting transport efficiency and
mentioned independent variables. CFD calculations to study the cutting
transportation in the vertical annulus were done using ANSYS (FLUENT)
commercial code, Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations and
discrete phase model (DPM). Next, the main and interaction effects of
various factors on the transportation of cuttings will be analyzed using
response surface methodology (RSM). Finally, sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis of cutting transport efficiency statistical model will be performed
by applying Monte carlo simulation.
The following section describes the CFD model used for calculating
the cutting transport efficiency as a function of various factors. Section 3
presents the methodology used to derive cutting transport efficiency
response function. Results of applying DOE, RSM and CFD will be pre-
sented and discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 provides the core
findings of this research.
2. Model description
In this survey, the annulus formed by the configurations of the
wellbore and drill pipe is used to simulate virtual fluid flow system. The
inner diameter of wellbore is 245 mm. The outer diameter of drill pipe is
140 mm. The total depth of the well is 1000 m. GAMBIT 2.4.6 software
was used to model the computational mesh of the annulus. Discretisation
of the annulus geometry using structured mesh results a total mesh layout
of 250000 hexahedric cells. Grid sensitivity showed that this number of
cells is adequate for current investigation.
In order to calculate the velocity components, first, it is required to
integrate the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations in each
computational cell throughout the domain, then being discretized using
finite volumes approach, and finally being linearized and solved
numerically.
The PRESTO routine is used for the pressure discretisation scheme.
Although, the CFD calculations based on PRESTO scheme is computa-
tionally costly, the results are more accurate than standard pressure
discretisation. PRESTO discretisation method avoids interpolation errors
and pressure gradient assumptions on boundaries. The SIMPLEC algo-
rithm is used for the pressure-velocity coupling because of its ability to
speed-up convergence by applying the increased under-relaxation factor.
In order to consider the laminar and the turbulent regions by varying
flow rate, the k ε model of Launder and Spalding (1974) is selected to
simulate the turbulent regimes.
The Boussinesq (1987) hypothesis is used in the k ε model. Although
there are various numerical methods for simulation of turbulent flows by
solving the Reynolds equations, the standard k ε model is selected in
this study because it is used in industrial flow simulations with excellent
performance and widely validated as a two-equation eddy viscosity tur-
bulence model.
For discretisation of mass, momentum, turbulent kinetic energy and
turbulent dissipation rate equations, QUICK method is applied because of
its third order accuracy and better adaptation to structured meshes of
hexahedric cells.
All CFD calculations will be conducted using ANSYS (FLUENT) com-
mercial code. In order to calculate the cutting transport efficiency, it is
required to monitor the transportation of cuttings in the annulus from the
well bottom to the surface. Cutting transport efficiency can be determined
by the ratio between mass of drilled cuttings at the surface and the mass of
generated cuttings at the bottom of wellbore under different operational
conditions. This can be done using discrete phase model (DFM). Using
DFM option in FLUENT, the user can inject particles with different injec-
tion rates, shapes, sizes, densities into the fluid flow system.
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

3. Methodology Table 1
The range of factors, coded variables and transfer functions.

The present study investigates the effect of several important vari- Factor Coded Minimum Mean Maximum Transfer
ables on cutting transportation inside annulus of vertical wells. There are Factor Value Value Value Function
many numbers of factors which control the transport efficiency in vertical CS (mm) X1 2 5 8 CS5
3
wells. Typical factors include size, density and shape of cuttings, mud ROP X2 0.1 0.3 0.5 ROP0:3
0:2
density, fluid viscosity and velocity, hole-pipe configuration, pipe ec- (Kg/s)
MW (Kg/ X3 1000 1250 1500 MW1250
centricity and pipe rotational speed. However, it is not affordable to 250
m3)
include all variables in the model because the required number of CFD μm(cp) X4 10 20 30 μm 20
10
simulations increases very rapidly by the number of factors. In this re- CW (Kg/ X5 2200 2600 3000 CW2600
400
gard, based on previous studies, experience and preliminary analysis of m3)
field data; seven major variables have been identified to be included in Vm (m/s) X6 0.5 1.3 2.1 Vm 1:3
0:8
N10
the CTE model. These factors are mud velocity, drilling rate of penetra- N (rad/s) X7 0 10 20 10
tion, mud weight, cutting weight, mud viscosity, pipe rotational speed,
and cutting size.
In order to estimate the CTE, we used Box-Behnken design (1960) to
þ1 with mean and variance of respectively 0 and 1. For example, the
perform CFD calculations. Box-Behnken design (BBD) is a type of
range of cutting size from 2 mm to 8 mm can be normalized between 1
response surface design that allows efficient estimation of the first- and
second-order coefficients. Box-Behnken design often reduces the and þ1 using transfer function of CS5
3 .

required number of simulation runs, and consequently it is less expensive
to run than other response surface designs with the same number of
factors.
Based on Box-Behnken design, it is required to model and simulate 57
different CFD models for analyzing the effect of seven factors on cutting
transport efficiency.
Next, in order to establish the mathematical relation between inde-
pendent factors and cutting transport efficiency, response surface meth-
odology (RSM) was used. Response surface methodology is a collection of
mathematical techniques to predict the relation between dependent and
independent variables. More details about response surface methodology
are given in Box and Wilson (1951). Various optimization and DOE
techniques have been successfully used in petroleum industry including
sand production onset (Khamehchi et al., 2014), gas well production
optimization (Khamehchi et al., 2014) gas-lift performance prediction
and long-term gas-lift allocation optimization (Rasouli et al., 2015),
history matching (Askari Firoozjaee and Khamehchi, 2015), gas lit
optimization (Khamehchi et al., 2009; Khishvand and Khamehchi, 2012;
Hamedi and Khamehchi, 2012; Mahdiani and Khamehchi, 2015) pro-
duction optimization based on nonlinear risk approach (Naderi and
Khamehchi, 2016), well placement and individual well control optimi-
zation (Naderi and Khamehchi, 2017a,b), and well placement optimi-
zation (Naderi and Khamehchi, 2017a,b). We used full quadratic form of
multiple regression equation in order to predict CTE as a function of
seven independent variables. The full quadratic form of a response sur-
face is given by:
X
N X
N N 1 X
X N
FðX1 ; X2 ; X3 …XN Þ ¼ α0 þ αi Xi þ αii Xii2 þ
i¼1 i¼1 j<i i¼2
Table 2 shows the result of CFD calculations for estimation of CTE
based on BBD for seven factors. By applying response surface method-
ology, the following response function was developed for CTE.
CTE ¼ 0:384 þ 0:12⋅X1 þ 0:017⋅X2  0:013⋅X3  0:098⋅X4 þ 0:046⋅X5
þ 0:0453⋅X6 þ 0:0552⋅X7 þ 0:07⋅X1 2 þ 0:093⋅X2 2 þ 0:081⋅X3 2
 0:073⋅X5 2  0:09⋅X6 2 þ 0:07⋅X7 2  0:125⋅X1 X4 þ 0:091⋅X1 X7
 0:087⋅X3 X6  0:062⋅X4 X7 þ 0:067⋅X6 X7
(2)
where X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 are coded variables between 1 and
þ1 for mentioned factors in Table 1. The coefficient of determination
(R2) and adjusted coefficient of determination (R2adj) for CTE response
function are 86.56 and 80.19% respectively. R2 is a measure of the
proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable
from the fitted model. R2adj shows the goodness of fit for the regression
adjusted for the number of terms. The low difference between R2adj and
R2 indicates that the significant terms have been included in the model
(Myers and Montgomery, 1995).
The derived proxy has been validated by plotting predicted CTE using
Eq. (2) versus actual values of CTE in Fig. 1. In addition, analysis of
variance for derived proxy shows that all terms of Eq. (2) are significant
at 5% of significance level for prediction at 95% confidence interval.
Therefore, all performed tests on CTE response function reveal that Eq.
(2) is statistically significant to study the transportation of drilled cut-
tings from well bottom to surface.
The following section investigates the main and interaction effects of
αji Xi Xj (1) factors on the variation of cutting transport efficiency.

4. Results and discussion

where F is the response function; α0 is the intercept; αi, αii, αji are
respectively the main, quadratic and interaction terms coefficients; Xi
and Xj are independent factors and N is the number of independent
factors. After collecting all necessary data, the regression coefficients can
be estimated by applying least square method to minimize the error
between observed and fitted data. It is worth to note that all collected
data including mud weight, cutting weight, fluid velocity, mud viscosity,
drilling rate of penetration, drill-string rotational speed and all related
turbulency factors which have been used in this study are based on actual
wells drilled in south of Iran.
Table 1 shows the range of factors, coded variables and transfer
functions. In this table, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 are coded variables
between 1 and þ1 respectively for cutting size (CS), drilling rate of
penetration (ROP), mud weight (MW), mud viscosity (μm), cutting
weight (CW), mud velocity (Vm), and pipe rotational speed (N). Transfer
functions are used for normalizing the range of factors between 1 and
Investigation of Eq. (2) reveals that cutting transport efficiency is a
function of main effects, interaction effects, and square power effects of
factors. The constant in the first of equation implies that the cutting
transport efficiency for base case model is equal to that constant.
4.1. Main effects
Fig. 2 shows the main effects plot for cutting transport efficiency. The
main effects plot shows the influence of individual factors while the other
factors are kept constant at their middle values in coded units. The
interaction between various factors can affect the main effect of factors
on the response function. Therefore, the main effect of factors in Fig. 2 is
only plotted for middle values of other factors.
As can be seen, increasing cutting size and fluid viscosity respectively
increases, and decreases cutting transport efficiency.

60
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

Table 2
The result of CFD calculation based on BBD for seven factors.

# CS ROP MW μm CW Vm N CTE

1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.36
2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.47
3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.12
4 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.52
5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.36
6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.35
7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.48
8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.45
9 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.85
10 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.46
11 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.03
12 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.39
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43
14 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.38
15 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.43
16 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.37
17 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.72
Fig. 1. Predicted CTE using Eq. (2) versus actual values of CTE.
18 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.44
19 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1.00
20 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.37 transport than the middle and light weight muds. On the other hand, for
21 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.37 normalized fluid velocity of þ1 (2.1 m/sec), as mud weight increases the
22 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.41
cutting transport efficiency decreases. In this case, the light muds give
23 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.56
24 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.35 better cutting transport than the middle and heavy weight muds. How-
25 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.35 ever, for middle values of normalized fluid velocity of 0 (1.3 m/sec)
26 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.37 which is shown in Fig. 2, as mud weight increases the cutting transport
27 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.37
efficiency first decreases and then increases.
28 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.46
29 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.38 Increasing pipe rotation speed in the range of 10–20 rad/s (X7 be-
30 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.47 tween 0 and þ 1) shows significant increase in cutting transport effi-
31 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.39 ciency. In the range of 0–10 rad/s (X7 between 1 and 0), the effect of
32 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.38 pipe rotation speed shows insignificant changes. However, the effect of
33 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.94
pipe rotation speed on cuttings transportation is a complex process and it
34 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.41
35 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.77 depends on various factors like drilling fluid rheology, shape and size of
36 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.50 cuttings, and flow rate. In sum, increasing pipe rotation reduces the mud
37 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.63 viscosity which is normally a desirable property because it reduces
38 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.57
pumping pressures inside drill pipe and increases cutting carrying ca-
39 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.44
40 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.39
pacity in the annulus showing effective hole cleaning.
41 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.34 Cutting transport efficiency first increases and then decreases by
42 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.41 increasing cutting weight. Increasing cutting weight, increases the par-
43 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.55 ticle slip velocity and consequently reduces the mud carrying capacity.
44 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.72
Increasing the drilling fluid velocity increases the annular velocity
45 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.49
46 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.61 and consequently cuttings carrying capacity of fluid. However, frictional
47 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.46 pressure drop increases by excessive drilling fluid velocity. In order to
48 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.54 compensate the pressure drop, the pumping pressure should be increased
49 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.37
which reduces the mud carrying capacity. Therefore, excessive flow rate
50 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.47
51 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0.41
is detrimental to the bottom hole cleaning which cause a reduction in the
52 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.35 rate of penetration.
53 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.00
54 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.00
4.2. Interaction effects
55 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.46
56 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.37
57 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.40 Fig. 3 shows the interaction effects plot for cutting transport effi-
ciency. As can be seen from derived response function for CTE, five
interaction terms of CS  μm (X1  X4), CS  N (X1  X7), MW  Vm
Increasing drilling fluid viscosity is desirable to suspend cuttings in- (X3  X6), μm  N (X4  X7), and Vm  N (X6  X7), are the most impor-
side the well and to avoid them from falling and settling at the wellbore tant pairs.
bottom. However, high viscous drilling fluid increases the pumping Fig. 4 through 8 show the variation of cutting transport efficiency as a
pressures and consequently reduces the cutting carrying capacity. function of these interaction terms.
Increasing rate of penetration, first decreases cutting transport effi-
ciency and then increases it. High rate of penetration limits the cutting 4.2.1. Interaction between cutting size and mud viscosity (CS  μm)
transport efficiency due to increasing hydraulic requirement for effective Fig. 4 shows that increasing mud viscosity reduces cuttings removal
wellbore cleaning. from the well for almost all size of cuttings. This reduction of transport
As can be clearly seen from Eq. (2), the main effect plot for mud efficiency is due to increased pumping pressure and decreased cutting
weight could be changed because it has an interaction with fluid velocity. carrying capacity of the drilling fluid. However, for a small range of
For example, for three different values of fluid velocity, the main effect of cutting sizes between 2 mm (X1 ¼ 1) and 2.75 mm (X1 ¼ 0.75), hole
mud weight varies differently. Eq. (2) indicates that for normalized fluid cleaning improves by increasing mud viscosity. As can be seen, cuttings
velocity of 1 (0.5 m/sec), as mud weight increases the cutting transport transport efficiency increases by decreasing mud viscosity as the cutting
efficiency increases. In this case, the heavy muds give better cuttings size increases.

61
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

Fig. 2. The main effects plot for cutting transport efficiency (the existence of interaction between factors can change the trend of main effect of factors on response
for other levels than middle values).

Fig. 3. The interaction effects plot for cutting transport efficiency.

62
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

Fig. 7. The variation of cutting transport efficiency as a function of mud

Fig. 4. The variation of cutting transport efficiency with cutting size and viscosity and pipe rotation speed.
mud viscosity.

Fig. 5. The variation of cutting transport efficiency with cutting size and pipe Fig. 8. The variation of cutting transport efficiency with fluid velocity and
rotation speed. pipe rotation speed.

4.2.2. Interaction between cutting size and pipe rotation speed (CS  N)
Fig. 5 reveals that cutting transport efficiency improves by increasing
pipe rotation speed for cutting sizes greater than 7.5 mm (X1 ¼ 0.83). For
values between 2 mm (X1 ¼ 1) and 7.5 mm (X1 ¼ 0.83), increasing pipe
rotational speed first decreases cutting transport efficiency and then in-
creases it. Figure also shows that cuttings removal increases by increasing
pipe rotation speed as the cutting size increases.

Fig. 6. The variation of cutting transport efficiency as a function of mud
weight and fluid velocity.
4.2.3. Interaction between mud weight and fluid velocity (MW  Vm)
Fig. 6 indicates that for all values of constant mud weight, increasing
fluid velocity first increases cuttings removal efficiency and then de-
creases it. On the other hand, for all values of constant fluid velocity,
increasing mud weight first decreases cuttings removal efficiency and
then increases it. Therefore, as the mud weight increases, the fluid ve-
locity should be optimally lowered in order to maximize cuttings trans-
port efficiency. As can be seen from the figure, when the mud weight is
low, it is required to keep the fluid velocity between 1.42 m/s (X6 ¼ 0.15)
and 2.06 m/s (X6 ¼ 0.95) in order to maximize the cutting transport ef-
ficiency. However, for high values of mud weight, fluid velocity should
be kept between 1.02 m/s (X6 ¼ 0.35) and 1.66 m/s (X6 ¼ 0.45). In
general, during drilling as depth gets deeper, mud weight should be
increased in order to keep the wellbore stability and to overcome

63
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

formation pore pressure. In this situation, in order to maximize the cut-
ting transport efficiency, the fluid velocity should be optimally decreased
from 2.1 (X6 ¼ þ1) to 1.3 m/sec (X6 ¼ 0). The exact optimum value of
fluid velocity could be determined by using some optimization algo-
rithms for various values of mud weight in order to maximize jet impact
force or hydraulic horse power required for highest hole cleaning per-
formance. In fact, the simultaneous increasing of mud weight and fluid
velocity is not an optimum choice for efficient hole cleaning. Increasing
fluid velocity above its optimum value results in additional frictional
pressure drop and consequently the available energy at the bit for effi-
cient hole cleaning reduces.
4.2.4. Interaction between mud viscosity and pipe rotation speed (μm  N)
Fig. 7 shows that cutting transport efficiency increases by increasing
pipe rotational speed for mud viscosity between 10 cp (X4 ¼ 1) and 14.5
cp (X4 ¼ 0.55). For values greater than 14.5 cp, increasing pipe rotation
first decreases and then increases cutting transport efficiency. On the
other hand, increasing mud viscosity reduces efficiency of cutting
transportation regardless of pipe rotational speed. As can be seen, this
reduction is very sensitive for pipe rotational speed between 4.5 rad/s
(X7 ¼ 0.55) and 17 (X7 ¼ 0.7) rad/s. As can be seen, maximum hole
cleaning occurs at the low mud viscosity and high value of pipe rotation
speed.
4.2.5. Interaction between fluid velocity and pipe rotation speed (vm  N)
Fig. 8 shows the contour plot of CTE versus fluid velocity and pipe
rotation speed. As can be seen, cutting transport efficiency could be
maximized by simultaneous increasing of fluid velocity and pipe rotation
speed. On the other hand, by increasing pipe rotation speed above
7.5 rad/s (X7 ¼ 0.25), cuttings removal gets better regardless of fluid
velocity.
In sum, analysis of variance (Table 3) for CTE reveals that interaction
terms of CS  μm (X1  X4), CS  N (X1  X7), MW  Vm (X3  X6), μm  N
(X4  X7), and Vm  N (X6  X7) respectively are the most significant
terms in estimation of cutting transport efficiency. Therefore, they should
be continuously optimized during drilling operation in order to have
efficient hole cleaning. Cutting transport efficiency is a function of both
controllable and uncontrollable variables. Cutting size, mud weight, mud
viscosity and cutting weight are classified as uncontrollable variables
because they are dependent on formation type, pore pressure and well
Table 3
The result of Analysis of Variance for CTE response.
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
depth. Factors of drilling rate of penetration, fluid velocity and pipe
rotation speed are controllable factors. Optimizing controllable factors
during drilling operation are practical and economical. Therefore,
changing a controllable variable is preferred over uncontrollable factor.
However, in order to maximize the cuttings removal efficiency at the
given range of factors, it is required to determine all possible combina-
tions of controllable and uncontrollable variables by applying an
appropriate optimization method.
4.3. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of CTE response function
The sensitivity analysis and uncertainty assessment of cutting trans-
port efficiency was conducted using analysis of variance and performing
Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulation is applied to model the
probability of different values of response function in a process that is
under uncertainty and variability of the problem. Prior to Monte Carlo
simulation and generation of output distribution, it is required to assign
appropriate probability distribution function for all factors included in
the model. By using probability distribution functions, factors can have
different probabilities of different outcomes occurring. Common proba-
bility distributions include normal, lognormal, uniform, triangular, etc.
For the current study, statistical analysis of available data from real field
revealed that truncated normal distribution is suitable one for all coded
variables.
During a Monte Carlo simulation, random sampling from the input
probability distribution functions is done. We used Latin Hypercube
Sampling (LHS) to ensure sampling from the entire range of distribution
functions. In addition, Latin hypercube sampling is more efficient than
pure random sampling because it reduces iterations without changing the
level of precision. Also LHS reflect more precisely the shape of a sampled
distribution than pure random samples.
Fig. 9 shows the cumulative distribution of predicted CTE using Eq.
(1) based on performing Monte Carlo simulation by considering Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and generating 1000 random numbers from
entire range of factors. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the cutting transport
efficiency could be accurately predicted at 95% confidence interval be-
tween 23% and 68%.
Fig. 10 shows the results of sensitivity analysis in terms of contribu-
tion to total variance. As can be seen, respectively mud velocity (Vm),
cutting weight (CW), pipe rotational speed (N), mud weight (MW), cut-
ting size (CS), mud viscosity (μm), and drilling rate of penetration (ROP)
have the greatest effect on final distribution of CTE. The sensitivity and
uncertainty analysis of CTE in terms of contribution to total variance
shows that cutting transport efficiency variation is dependent on three
factors of mud velocity, cutting weight and pipe rotational speed by

Regression 18 1.64173 1.64173 0.091207 13.60 .000

Linear 7 0.75962 0.75962 0.108517 16.18 .000
CS 1 0.34492 0.34492 0.344915 51.42 .000
ROP 1 0.00669 0.00669 0.006689 1.00 .324
MW 1 0.00362 0.00362 0.003620 0.54 .467
μm 1 0.23227 0.23227 0.232270 34.63 .000
CW 1 0.04996 0.04996 0.049957 7.45 .010
Vm 1 0.04918 0.04918 0.049184 7.33 .010
N 1 0.07299 0.07299 0.072987 10.88 .002
Square 6 0.56497 0.56497 0.094162 14.04 .000
CS*CS 1 0.04649 0.04849 0.048490 7.23 .011
ROP*ROP 1 0.12211 0.08481 0.084807 12.64 .001
MW*MW 1 0.13286 0.06389 0.063892 9.53 .004
CW*CW 1 0.05670 0.05197 0.051968 7.75 .008
V*V 1 0.15790 0.07937 0.079372 11.83 .001
N*N 1 0.04892 0.04892 0.048920 7.29 .010
Interaction 5 0.31713 0.31713 0.063426 9.46 .000
CS*μm 1 0.12425 0.12425 0.124249 18.52 .000
CS*N 1 0.06642 0.06642 0.066420 9.90 .003
MW*Vm 1 0.06045 0.06045 0.060445 9.01 .005
μm *N 1 0.03043 0.03043 0.030431 4.54 .040
Vm*N 1 0.03559 0.03559 0.035586 5.31 .027
Residual Error 38 0.25489 0.25489 0.006708
Fig. 9. The cumulative distribution of predicted CTE based on performing
Total 56 1.89662
Monte Carlo simulation by considering Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS).

64
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66

drilling conditions in order to minimize the frictional pressure

drop.
 Interaction term of μm  N shows that maximum hole cleaning
occurs by simultaneous increase of pipe rotational speed and
decrease of mud viscosity.
 Interaction term of Vm  N shows that cutting transport efficiency
can be maximized by simultaneous increase of fluid velocity and
pipe rotation speed.

Nomenclature

μm Mud viscosity
CS Cutting size
CTE Cutting transport efficiency
CRF Cutting recovery factor
Fig. 10. The results of sensitivity analysis in terms of contribution to total
variance for CTE response function. CW Cutting weight
MW Mud weight
N Pipe rotational speed
86.3%. Therefore, these factors should be carefully characterized prior to
R2 Coefficient of determination
drilling of a well for increasing cutting transport efficiency.
R2adj Adjusted coefficient of determination
ROP Drilling rate of penetration
5. Conclusion
Vm Mud velocity
X1 Coded variable for cutting size
In the present study, we examined the effect of various factors on
X2 Coded variable for drilling rate of penetration
cutting transport efficiency inside vertical well. The important factors
X3 Coded variable for mud weight
that have been studied based on actual field data include mud velocity
X4 Coded variable for mud viscosity
(Vm), drilling rate of penetration (ROP), mud weight (MW), cutting
X5 Coded variable for cutting weight
weight (CW), mud viscosity (μm), pipe rotational speed (N), and cutting
X6 Coded variable for mud velocity
size (CS). Design of experiment (DOE) was used to perform the compu-
X7 Coded variable for pipe rotational speed
tational fluid dynamic (CFD) calculations in order to predict cuttings
removal percentage from the well.
References
After simulating all CFD models and extracting necessary informa-
tion, response surface methodology (RSM) was used to develop a statis- Askari Firoozjaee, R., Khamehchi, E., 2015. A novel approach to assist history matching
tical mathematical model for prediction of CTE as a function of seven using artificial intelligence. Chem. Eng. Commun. 202 (4), 513–514.
mentioned variables. In addition, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of Boussinesq, J., 1987. Essaisur la theorie des eauxcourantes. Memoirespresentes par divers
savants a l'Academie des Sci. 23 (1), 1–680.
derived response function was done using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). Box, G.E.P., Behnken, D.W., 1960. Some new three level designs for the study of
The main conclusions from this study are as follow: quantitative variables. Technometrics 2 (4), 455–475.
Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B., 1951. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions.
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 13, 1–45.
1. Proposed statistical model based on combination of CFD calculations Cho, H., Shah, S.N., Osisanya, S.O., 2002. A three-segment hydraulic model for cuttings
with DOE and MCS provides detailed insight into the complex nature transport in coiled tubing horizontal and deviated drilling. J. Can. Petrol. Technol.
of cutting transport process by considering interaction terms between 41, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.2118/02-06-03.
Ebrahimi, A., Khamehchi, E., 2015. A robust model for computing pressure drop in
controllable and uncontrollable variables.
vertical multiphase flow. Nat. gas sci. Eng. 26, 1306–1316.
2. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of CTE response function in Ford, J.T., Peden, J.M., Oyeneyin, M.B., Gao, E., Zarrough, R., 1990. Experimental
terms of contribution to total variance shows that factors of fluid investigation of drilled cuttings transport in inclined boreholes. In: SPE 20421, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 23–26 September.
velocity, cutting weight, pipe rotational speed, mud weight, cutting
Hamedi, H., Khamehchi, E., 2012. Nonlinear approach to gas-lift allocation optimization
size, mud viscosity, and drilling rate of penetration respectively have with operational constraints using particle swarm optimization and penalty function.
the greatest effect on CTE variation. In addition, three factors of mud J. Pet. Sci. Tech. 30 (8), 775–785.
velocity, cutting weight and pipe rotational speed control CTE vari- Harel, Geir, 1993. Comparison of cuttings transport in directional drilling using low-
toxicity invert emulsion mineral-oil-based and water-based muds. In: SPE 25871-MS
ation by 86.3%. Therefore, these factors should be carefully charac- SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, 26–28 April, Denver, Colorado.
terized prior to drilling of a well to increase cleaning efficiency. Husssin, S.M., Azac, mrdJ., 1983. Experimental study of drilled cutting transport using
3. The statistical model of cutting transport efficiency reveals that five common drilling muds. SPE J. 11–20.
Khamehchi, E., Rahimzadeh Kivi, I., Akbari, M., 2014. A novel approach to sand
interaction terms of CS  μm (X1  X4), CS  N (X1  X7), MW  Vm production prediction using artificial intelligence. PSE 123, 147–154.
(X3  X6), μm  N (X4  X7), and Vm  N (X6  X7) are the most Khishvand, M., Khamehchi, E., 2012. Nonlinear risk optimization approach to gas lift
important pairs. allocation optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (6), 2637–2643.
Khamehchi, E., Rashidi, F., Omranpour, H., Shiry Ghidary, S., Ebrahimian, A., Rasouli, H.,
 Interaction term of CS  μm shows that as the cutting size increases, 2009. Intelligent system for continuous gas lift operation and design with unlimited
cuttings transport efficiency could be increased by decreasing mud gas supply. J. Appl. Sci. 9 (10), 1889–1897.
viscosity. Launder, B., Spalding, D., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 3, 269–289.
 Interaction term of CS  N shows that as the cutting size increases,
Li, J., Luft, B., 2014a. Overview of solids transport studies and applications in oil and gas
cuttings removal improves by increasing pipe rotation speed. industry - experimental work. In: SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration & Production
 Interaction term of MW  Vm shows that as the mud weight in- Technical Conference and Exhibition, 14–16 October, Moscow, Russia. SPE-171285-
MS.
creases, the fluid velocity should be optimally lowered in order to
Li, J., Luft, B., 2014b. Overview solids transport study and application in oil-gas industry-
maximize cuttings transport efficiency. The simultaneous theoretical work. In: International Petroleum Technology Conference, 10–12
increasing of mud weight and fluid velocity is not an optimum December, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. IPTC-17832-MS.
choice for efficient hole cleaning. The optimum fluid velocity Mahdiani, M.R., Khamehchi, E., 2015. Stabilizing gas lift optimization with different
amounts of available lift gas. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 26 (2015), 18–27.
should be determined based on the value of mud weight for various

65
M. Naderi, E. Khamehchi
Mingqin, D., Stefan, M., Claudia, Z., Nicholas, T., Ramadan, A., 2007. Critical Condition
for Effective Sand-sized Solids Transport in Horizontal and High Angle Wells. SPE
paper 106707-MS.
Mirzaeepeyman, A., Bandar, D.A., 2008. Using Nanoparticles to Decrease Differential
Pipe Sticking and its Feasibility in Iranian Oil Fields. Oil and Gas Business.
Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., 1995. Response Surface Methodology: Process and
Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Naderi, M., Khamehchi, E., 2016. Nonlinear risk optimization approach to water drive gas
reservoir production optimization using DOE and artificial intelligence. J. Nat. Gas.
Sci. Eng. 31 (2016), 575–584.
Naderi, M., Khamehchi, E., 2017a. Application of DOE and metaheuristic bat algorithm
for well placement and individual well controls optimization. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 46
(2017), 47–58.
Naderi, M., Khamehchi, E., 2017b. Well placement optimization using metaheuristic bat
algorithm. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 150 (2017), 348–354.
Okrajni, S.S., Azar, J.J., 1986. The Effects of Mud Rheology on Annular Hole Cleaning in
Directional Wells. SPEDE 297–308; Trans.. AIME, p. 285.
Phuoc, X., Tran, R., Gupta, L.W., 2007. Nanofluids for Use as Ultra Deep Drilling Fluids.
R&D Facts National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Piroozian, A., Issham, I., Zulkefli, Y., Babakhani, P., Ismail, A.S.I., 2012. Impact of drilling
fluid viscosity, velocity and hole inclination on cuttings transport in horizontal and
highly deviated wells. J. Petrol Explor. Prod. Technol. 2, 149–156.
66
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 163 (2018) 58–66
Ramadan, A., Skalle, P., Johansen, S.T., 2002. A mechanistic model to determine the
critical flow velocity required to initiate movement of spherical bed particles in
inclined channels. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 2153–2163.
Rasouli, H., Rashidi, F., Karimi, B., Khamehchi, E., 2015. A surrogate integrated
production modeling approach to long-term gas-lift allocation optimization. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 202 (5), 647–654.
Saeid, M., Mariela, A.F., Rafiqul, I.M., 2006. Applications of nanotechnology in oil & gas E
& P. J. Petrol. Technol. 58.
Sifferman, T.R., Becker, T.E., 1992a. Hole Cleaning in Full Scale Inclined Wellbores. SPE
Drilling Engineering. June.
Sifferman, T.R., Becker, T.E., 1992b. Hole Cleaning in Full-scale Inclined Wellbores. SPE
Paper 20422-PA.
Sifferman, T.R., Myers, G.M., Haden, E.L., Wahl, H.A., 1974. Drill cutting transport in
Full-scale vertical annuli. J. Pet. Tech. 26 (11).
Song, X., Xu, Z., Wang, M., Li, G.N., Shah, S., Pang, Z., 2017. Experimental study on the
wellbore-cleaning efficiency of microhole-horizontal-well drilling. SPE J. 22 (4). SPE-
185965-PA.
Syed, M.H., Jamal, J.A., 1983. Experimental Study of Drilled Cuttings Transport Using
Common Drilling Mud. SPE Paper 10674-PA.
UdoZeidler, H., 1970. An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of Drilled Particles. SPE
Paper 3064-PA.