J178436 DOI: 10.
2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 416 Total Pages: 7
A Method for Optimizing Jet-Mill-Bit
Hydraulics in Horizontal Drilling
Xuyue Chen and Deli Gao, China University of Petroleum, Beijing; and
Boyun Guo, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Summary
Efficient cuttings transport is a major challenge in horizontal dril-
ling; one can use a new type of jet-mill bit to overcome the chal-
lenge fundamentally. However, currently, there is no available
method for optimizing jet-mill-bit hydraulics, which restricts the
jet-mill bit from being widely used. In this paper, on the basis of
the high-pressure water-jet comminution and jet-pump theory, a
basic performance model of the jet-mill bit is developed. Then,
the optimal parameter model for the jet-mill bit is presented
according to the multivariable limitation theory; meanwhile, a
method for optimizing jet-mill-bit hydraulics is also developed.
With the method, one can determine the optimal jet-mill-bit
hydraulics. Theoretical analysis and discussion show that the
impact angle and the friction-loss coefficient are the key factors
affecting the efficiency of the jet-mill bit; the impact angle is sug-
gested to be set at approximately 70  and the optimal flow-rate
ratio at appoximately 1.0; and the effect of rate of penetration
(ROP, m/h) is not obvious, and one can ignore it. The optimal
area ratio is almost not related to friction-loss coefficient and
ROP, but it is related to the impact angle significantly. It provides
drilling engineers a practical tool for determining the optimal jet-
mill-bit hydraulics in horizontal drilling and promotes the jet-mill
bit to be widely used.
Introduction
Efficient cuttings transport is a major challenge when a horizontal
well with a horizontal and highly inclined section of more than
20,000 ft is drilled (Guild et al. 1995; Gao and Young 1995;
Schamp et al. 2006). Because of low cuttings-carrying energy of
drilling fluid in horizontal drilling, a cuttings bed could be formed
easily, which would lead to accidents such as wellbore plugging
and pipe sticking. Duan et al. (2008) observed that with drillpipe
rotation and combined with polymeric drilling fluids, smaller cut-
tings are easier to transport in horizontal drilling, and the transport
efficiency of small cuttings is up to twice as high as that of large
cuttings (Duan et al. 2008). Recently, a new type of jet-mill bit
was developed; it can comminute cuttings into the microscale
range and greatly improve the cuttings-carrying capacity in hori-
zontal drilling. However, as a new tool, currently, there is no
available method for optimizing jet-mill-bit hydraulics, which
restricts the jet-mill bit from wide use.
The jet-mill bit is developed on the basis of the high-pressure
water-jet comminution technique, in which particles can be bro-
ken into smaller ones instantly by high-speed impacts of these
particles against a target. As we can see in Fig. 1, when comminu-
tion chamber and target are removed from the jet mill of the jet-
mill bit, it actually is a jet pump. Therefore, the jet-mill-bit-
hydraulics optimization theory can be based on the jet-pump
theory. As an earlier study demonstrated, several theoretical and
analytical approaches were developed to address the design of a
jet pump, and a large body of literature exists on the subject. Only
the key references are discussed here. Jet pumps were first
described by Gosline and O’Brien (1942). Then, Brown and Petrie
(1980) provided a comprehensive discussion and a step-by-step
Copyright V
C 2016 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 17 November 2014. Revised manuscript
received for review 17 June 2015. Paper (SPE 178436) peer approved 19 August 2015.
416
ID: jaganm Time: 18:28 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091
procedure for the design of a jet pump, for the condition under
which the jet-pump power fluid and the suction fluid are both sin-
gle phase and of the same density. One of the most concise treat-
ments of the fundamentals of jet-pump theory was presented by
A. W. Grupping et al. (1988). They treated the situation in which
power and suction fluids are of different densities. However, their
investigation did not include the effect of gas in the system. Cun-
ningham (1957) considered the effect of gas in the system and
concluded that reasonably accurate results can be obtained for
low-to-medium gas/oil ratio multiphase fluids by adding the vol-
ume of the gas to that of the liquid and with single-phase theory.
Noronha et al. (1998) and Corteville et al. (1987) also considered
multiphase-flow effects in the jet pump; Noronha et al. provided
correlations for multiphase flow through the nozzle, throat, and
diffuser, thus covering both multiphase suction fluids and power
fluids. The problem of cavitation and its avoidance during multi-
phase flow through the pump was considered by Cunningham
et al. (1970).
The jet pump was introduced in the oil-and-gas industry in
1970 and widely used for underbalanced drilling. There were
many kinds of tools for underbalanced jet-pump drilling, such as
an annular jet pump fixed inside casing (Suryanarayana et al.
2004; Hughes 2005), an annular jet pump with drillstring rotation
(Hosie et al. 2005), an annular jet-pump depressure joint (Hooper
1986), a jet-pump bit (Lott 1998), and so on. All these tools’
hydraulics can be optimized with the mathematical models for jet
pumps; however, no available model and method exist for opti-
mizing jet-mill-bit hydraulics.
In this paper, on the basis of the high-pressure water-jet com-
minution and jet-pump theory, the basic performance model of
the jet-mill bit is developed. Then, the optimal parameter model
for the jet-mill bit is given on the basis of the multivariable limita-
tion theory; meanwhile, a method for optimizing jet-mill-bit
hydraulics is developed. On the basis of the method, one can
determine the optimal jet-mill-bit hydraulics.
Principle of Hydraulic Jet-Mill Bit
Fig. 1 shows a flow diagram in horizontal drilling system with a
jet-mill bit. Drilling fluid is injected through the drillpipe and then
divided into two streams. One stream is toward the bottom hole
through the bottomhole cuttings agitation and cleaning nozzles.
Asymmetric high-velocity jet affects the bottomhole cuttings into
a highly turbulent flow, which leads to bottomhole cuttings being
sucked into mixing chambers by the cuttings-suction channel
effectively without any accessory device. The bottomhole cuttings
agitation and cleaning nozzles’ asymmetric design improves the
cuttings-agitation efficiency. The highly turbulent cuttings flow
through the cuttings-suction channel into the mixing chamber
under the suction of backward jet nozzles and the lift of bottom-
hole flow. It is understood that the jet-mill bit has no junk slots or
flowby that conventional drillbits have around the bit to allow
drilling fluid and cuttings to flow through annulus between the bit
and the wellbore. The cuttings are circulated out through the cut-
tings-suction channel inside the bit instead of the annulus.
The other stream acts as the power fluid of the jet-mill bit. It
flows through the backward jet nozzle, mixing chamber, throat,
dissociating and accelerating tube, comminution target, comminu-
tion chamber, and diffuser toward the annulus between drillpipe
and open hole. The power fluid flows through the backward jet
April 2016 SPE Journal
 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 417 Total Pages: 7

Diffuser Backward jet nozzle Power fluid P1

Comminution chamber Cuttings suction channel
Throat

P 1–P 2
P2 Discharged fluid

P 2–P 3

Suction fluid
P3 Comminution fluid
Throat
Accelerating tube
Discharged fluid
Dissociating and accelerating tube Power fluid Suction fluid Nozzle Mixing Comminution Diffuser
chamber chamber
Comminution target Mixing chamber
Cuttings agitation and cleaning nozzle
Fig. 2—Pressure distribution with a jet-mill bit.
Fig. 1—Flow diagram of jet-mill bit in horizontal drilling.
The energy provided by the power fluids and the energy obtained
by the suction fluid per unit time are, respectively, given by
nozzle, generates a high-velocity jet, and lowers the pressure at
the bottom of the hole. It can suck and entrap the bottomhole dril- Ej ¼ q1 ðP1  P2 Þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
ling fluid together with cuttings into the jet-mill device. Then, cut-
tings are accelerated and broken by dissociating, shearing, and and
collision with each other in the dissociating and accelerating tube.
Es ¼ q3 ðP2  P3 Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
The accelerated cuttings affect the comminution target with high
velocity and are comminuted into smaller cuttings with instanta- The total dissipating energy is as follows:
neous impact and fluid wedging. The small cuttings with micro-
fractures are further comminuted by multiple reflecting colliding Ef ¼ L þ Fj þ Fs þ Ftd þ Cc þ Wc : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
in the comminution chamber, and then flow into the annulus
through the diffuser. In the expanding-area diffuser, part of the According to the Lorenz mixed-loss model (Wang et al.
fluid’s kinetic energy is converted into potential, and its pressure 2004b), the power-fluid and suction-fluid energy losses by mixing
rises to a level sufficient to lift the mixture of the two fluids to the in the suction chamber and throat are noted next:
surface (pressure distribution caused by the jet mill is shown in  2
Fig. 2). vj  vc ðvs  vc Þ2
L ¼ q1 q1 þ q3 q3 : . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
2 2
Model Development
The friction losses in the nozzle, suction annulus, throat, and
On the basis of the jet-pump theory, energy-conservation law, and diffuser are, respectively, expressed by the following:
the Lorenz mixed-loss model, the basic-performance model of
the jet-mill bit is developed. The following basic assumptions v2j v2 v2
are adopted: Fj ¼ q1 q1 kj ; Fs ¼ q3 q3 ks s ; Ftd ¼ q2 q2 ktd c . . . . . . ð5Þ
2 2 2
• 1D flow conditions apply.
• Power fluids are incompressible. where
• The jet mill operates isothermally and under steady-state
ktd ¼ kt þ kd :
conditions.
• All fluids and cuttings flow through and exit the jet-mill bit.
Energy loss in the bend of the comminution chamber is calcu-
• The fluids are perfectly mixed at the throat outlet.
lated with Eq. 6:
According to jet-pump theory, it is customary to define several
basic nondimensional parameters: P, the dimensionless pressure v2c
ratio; M, the dimensionless flow-rate ratio; R, the dimensionless Cc ¼ q2 q2 n ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
2
nozzle-to-throat-area ratio; q, the dimensionless density ratio; and
E, the efficiency of the jet-mill bit; these are defined as P ¼ where (Li 1989)
ðP2  P3 Þ=ðP1  P2 Þ; M ¼ q3 =q1 ; R ¼ Aj =At ; q ¼ q3 =q1 ; E ¼ PM: h a ai
In designing a jet-mill bit, it is convenient to divide the flow n ¼ 2 0:946sin2 þ 2:047sin4 : . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
region into four areas, as illustrated by Fig. 2: 2 2
• Power flow: Flow of high-velocity jet fluid (power fluid)
The energy loss on cuttings comminution in the jet mill is
from the backward nozzles.
expressed as (Li et al. 2013)
• Suction flow: Flow of drilling fluid and cuttings (suction
fluid) from the bottom of the hole to the suction chamber.  
100D2h wi qs ROP 1 1 q q2 kc v2c
• Comminution flow: Flow of jet fluid (combination of suction Wc ¼ pffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi ¼ 2 : . . . . . ð8Þ
and power fluids) through the throat and accelerating tube to 60 d D 2
the comminution target.
• Discharged flow: Flow of discharge fluids (combination of When the thickness of the nozzle is ignored, As þ Aj ¼ At , so
suction and power fluids) within the jet mill, through the we obtain
comminution chamber and diffuser. RM
Therefore, in a jet-mill bit, the hydraulic energy mainly vs ¼ vj ; vc ¼ Rð1 þ MÞvj : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
presents as the energy provided by the power fluid; the energy 1R
obtained by the suction fluid; energy losses by mixing between By combining Eqs. 3 through 9,
the power fluid and suction fluid in the suction chamber and
throat; the friction losses; and energy losses in the bend of the
Ef ¼ L þ Fj þ Fs þ Ftd þ Cc þ Wc ¼ fq1 q1 v2j =2; . . . . ð10Þ
comminution chamber and on cuttings comminution.

April 2016 SPE Journal 417

ID: jaganm Time: 18:28 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091

 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 418 Total Pages: 7

Table 1—Energy-dissipation coefficients.

 
R
where f ¼ ð1 þ kj Þ þ ð1 þ k1 ÞqM3 ratio of the amount of energy gained by the suction fluid to the
1R amount of energy supplied by the power fluid, which one can
þ ð1 þ ktd n þ kc ÞR2 ð1 þ qMÞð1 þ MÞ2 express as
 
R gf
 2Rð1 þ MÞ 1 þ qM :           ð11Þ E ¼ PM ¼ M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð18Þ
1R gM þ f
In the suction annulus, according to Bernoulli’s equation, we as
can obtain
  gM þ f ¼ sð1 þ MÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ
1 þ Kj q1 v2j ð1 þ Ks Þq3 v2s
P1  ¼ P3  : . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ where
2 2
From Eq. 12, s ¼ ð1 þ kj Þ þ ð1 þ ktd þ n þ kc ÞR2 ð1 þ qMÞð1 þ MÞ
 
qv2j P1  P3 P1  P2 R
¼ ¼ ; . . . . ð13Þ  2R 1 þ qM2 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ
2   M 2 R2 g 1R
1 þ Kj  ð1 þ Ks Þq
ð1  RÞ2 Then, one can express Eq. 16 as
g 
where E¼  1 M: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð21Þ
s
  M 2 R2
g ¼ 1 þ kj  ð1 þ ks Þq : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ According to the multivariable limitation theory and Eq. 21,
ð1  RÞ2 @E
by setting ¼ 0, we can obtain the optimal parameters for the
According to the energy-conservation law, we have @M
jet-mill bit:
Ej ¼ Es þ Ef : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ sðs  gÞ
Mopt ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð22Þ
g0 s  gs0
By combining Eqs. 1, 2, 10, and 13,
where
P1  P2
q1 ðP1  P2 Þ ¼ q3 ðP2  P3 Þ þ fq1 : . . . . . . . . ð16Þ  2
g R
g0 ¼ 2ð1 þ ks ÞqM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð23Þ
1R
From Eq. 16, we can obtain the basic-performance model
R2
gf s0 ¼ ð1 þ ktd þ n þ kc ÞR2 ð1 þ q þ 2qMÞ  4qM :
P¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð17Þ 1R
gM þ f
                   ð24Þ

Table 1, from Grupping et al. (1988), shows different values for

Methodology the energy dissipation coefficient, as suggested by many authors.
When the dissipation coefficient and density ratio are given, we
We assume that the jet-mill-bit exit energy is adequate to lift the
can obtain the optimal flow-rate ratio Mopt under different nozzle-
discharged fluid and cuttings to the surface. Then, the goal of jet-
to-throat area ratios R by iterative calculating. By inserting the
mill-bit design is to find the optimal flow-rate ratio, nozzle-to-
optimal flow-rate ratio Mopt into Eq. 17 and Eq. 18, the maximum
throat area ratio, and pressure ratio that will maximize the jet-
efficiency Eopt and optimal pressure ratio Popt can be obtained.
mill-bit’s efficiency. The jet-mill-bit efficiency is defined as the

Results and Discussion

Table 2—Basic data for sensitivity analysis and discussion.
Jet–Mill-Bit Dimensionless Curves. On the basis of the data
shown in Table 2, we can optimize jet-mill-bit hydraulics and an-
alyze the main affecting factors of jet-mill-bit performance. In
this case, the initial cuttings size can be estimated on the basis of
rate of penetration (ROP) and rotary speed by the equation (Guo
and Ghalambor 2002): D ¼ ROP=ð60  NÞ.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the jet-mill-bit dimensionless-performance
curves. With a nozzle-to-throat area ratio, there is an optimum
flow-rate ratio to maximize the lifting capacity and the efficiency
of the jet-mill bit. We define the flow-rate ratio as the optimum
flow-rate ratio for the specific nozzle-to-throat area ratio. For dif-
ferent nozzle-to-throat area ratios, their optimal flow-rate ratios,
maximum efficiencies, and optimal pressure ratios are different
from each other. Therefore, there are a pressure-ratio envelope
curve (shown in Fig. 3) and an efficiency envelope curve (shown

418 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:29 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091

 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 419 Total Pages: 7

0.45 0.1
R = 0.04
R = 0.04 R = 0.06 R = 0.08 R = 0.1
R = 0.15 R = 0.2 R = 0.3 E (opt)
0.4
R = 0.06
0.08
0.35 R = 0.08

0.3 R = 0.1
0.06
0.25 R = 0.15
P

E
R = 0.2
0.2
0.04
R = 0.3
0.15
P (opt)
0.1 0.02

0.05
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
M
M
Fig. 4—Dimensionless performance curves (E and M).
Fig. 3—Dimensionless performance curves (P and M).

0.85 0.27
0.8 Impact angle = 40°
0.75 Impact angle = 50° 0.24
0.7
0.65 Impact angle = 60° 0.21
0.6 Impact angle = 70°
0.55 0.18
0.5 Impact angle = 80°
0.15
P

0.45 Impact angle = 90°

0.4 E 0.12
0.35
0.3 0.09
0.25
0.2 0.06
0.15 Impact angle = 40° Impact angle = 50°
0.1 0.03 Impact angle = 60° Impact angle = 70°
0.05 Impact angle = 80° Impact angle = 90°
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
M M

Fig. 5—The effect of impact angle on pressure-envelope curve. Fig. 6—The effect of impact angle on efficiency-envelope curve.

in Fig. 4). For the efficiency envelope curve, there is also an opti- to-throat area ratio regardless of the number of nozzles. On the
mum flow-rate ratio to maximize the efficiency of the jet-mill bit. basis of the previous basic data, Ropt ¼ 0:0879; Mopt ¼ 0:9769;
Because its corresponding jet-mill-bit efficiency is the highest of Popt ¼ 0:0927; and Eopt ¼ 9:054%. When we ignore the energy
all the different nozzle-to-throat area ratios, we define this opti- loss on cuttings comminution and in the bend of the comminution
mum flow-rate ratio as the jet-mill bit’s optimum flow-rate ratio chamber, it is a jet pump; then, Ropt ¼ 0:2799; Mopt ¼ 1:0689;
Mopt . Its corresponding pressure ratio and nozzle-to-throat area ra- Popt ¼ 0:3740; and Eopt ¼ 39:978%. It is quite close to the results
tio are defined as the jet-mill bit’s optimum pressure ratio and of Winoto et al. (2000) and Wang et al. (2004a) (Winoto:
nozzle-to-throat area ratio, respectively. Because these curves are Ropt ¼ 0:300; Wang: Ropt ¼ 0:280) and validates the basic-per-
dimensionless, they are valid for jet-mill bits of the same nozzle- formance model and methodology.

The Effect of Impact Angle on Envelope Curve. The impact

50
angle (the angle between the nozzle and the target) has a great
Mass Fraction of 60 Mesh (<205 µm) (%)

45 effect on the envelope curve. As Figs. 5 and 6 indicate, with the

impact angle increasing, the jet-mill-bit’s efficiency and lifting
40
capacity decrease obviously. If impact angle ¼ 40  , Popt ¼
35 0:2589, and Eopt ¼ 26:29%, the maximum efficiency of jet-mill
30 bit is approximately 2.9 times that in the case that impact
angle ¼ 90  (Popt ¼ 0:0927, Eopt ¼ 9:05%). However, as Fig. 7
25 (Ghambari et al. 2012) shows, with the impact angle increasing,
20 the comminution effect is increasing. From 70 to 90  , the commi-
nution effect shows little difference, but the jet-mill-bit efficiency
15
and lifting capacity have decreased. Therefore, we suggest that
10 the impact angle should be set around 70  (Popt ¼ 0:1307,
Eopt ¼ 12:67%). As shown in Table 3, with the increase of impact
5
angle, the optimal flow-rate ratios are almost 1.0, so we suggest
0 that the flow rate should be set at approximately 1.0.
50 60 70 80 90
Impact Angle (°)
The Effect of Dissipation Coefficient on Envelope Curve. As
Fig. 7—Effect of impact angle on fragmentation. shown in Figs. 8 and 9, the dissipation coefficient also affects the

April 2016 SPE Journal 419

ID: jaganm Time: 18:29 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091

 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 420 Total Pages: 7

Table 3—Optimal jet-mill-bit hydraulics on the basis of different impact angles.

0.25 0.1
Petrie: Kj = 0.03, Ktd = 0.20

Gosline & O’Brien: Kj = 0.15, Ktd = 0.38

0.2 Gunningham: Kj = 0.1, Ktd = 0.3 0.08

0.15 0.06

E
P

0.1 0.04

0.05 0.02 Petrie: Kj = 0.03, Ktd = 0.20

Gosline & O’Brien: Kj = 0.15, Ktd = 0.38

Gunningham: Kj = 0.1, Ktd = 0.3

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

M M

Fig. 8—The effect of dissipation coefficient on pressure-enve- Fig. 9—The effect of dissipation coefficient on efficiency-enve-
lope curve. lope curve.

envelope curve. With the decrease of dissipation coefficient, the
pressure envelope and efficiency curves move upward. It means
that with lower dissipation coefficient, the jet-mill bit has a higher
suction capacity, and it will reduce the bottomhole pressure to a
lower degree, which will increase the ROP. With a low dissipation
coefficient (Petrie et al. 1983; Kj ¼ 0:03; Ktd ¼ 0:20), Mopt ¼
0:9769, Popt ¼ 0:0879, and Eopt ¼ 9:05%, whereas with a high dis-
sipation coefficient [Gosline and O’Brien (1942): Kj ¼ 0:15;
Ktd ¼ 0:38], Mopt ¼ 0:9978, Popt ¼ 0:0753, and Eopt ¼ 7:51%. It
indicates that, with the decrease of dissipation coefficient, the opti-
mal efficiency point will move toward the direction of lower flow-
rate ratio.
The Effect of ROP on the Envelope Curve. ROP determines
the cuttings feeding rate and the density ratio, so it also affects the
pressure and efficiency envelope curves. As shown in Figs. 10
and 11, with ROP increasing, the jet-mill-bit efficiency and lifting
capacity are decreasing. However, the effect is not obvious, so we
can ignore the ROP’s effect.
The Optimal Nozzle-to-Throat Area Ratio. When the jet-mill-
bit’s optimal flow-rate ratio is given, its optimal nozzle-to-throat
area ratio can be determined by checking Figs. 12 and 13. This
optimal nozzle-to-throat area ratio just corresponds to the jet-mill-
bit optimal efficiency; it has no relation to the comminution
effect. On the basis of the previous basic data, Mopt ¼ 0:9769.
Then, according to Fig. 12, Ropt ¼ 0:0879. When ROP and dissi-
pation coefficient change, jet-mill-bit optimal nozzle-to-throat
area ratio also changes. The effects of dissipation coefficient and
ROP on optimal nozzle-to-throat area ratio are shown in Figs. 12
and 13. With the increase of dissipation coefficient and ROP, the
jet-mill-bit optimal nozzle-to-throat area ratio decreases, but the

0.1
0.25
ROP = 24 (m/h)
ROP = 18 (m/h)
0.2 0.08
ROP = 12 (m/h)
ROP = 6 (m/h)

0.15 0.06
ROP = 24 (m/h)
E
P

ROP = 18 (m/h)
0.1 0.04
ROP = 12 (m/h)
ROP = 6 (m/h)
0.05 0.02

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

M M

Fig. 10—The effect of ROP on pressure-envelope curve. Fig. 11—The effect of ROP on efficiency-envelope curve.

420 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 18:29 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091

 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 421 Total Pages: 7

0.5 0.6
Petrie: Kj = 0.03, Ktd = 0.20 ROP = 24 (m/s)
ROP = 18 (m/s)
Gosline & O’Brien: Kj = 0.15, Ktd = 0.38 0.5
0.4 ROP = 12 (m/s)
Gunningham: Kj = 0.1, Ktd = 0.3
ROP = 6 (m/s)
0.4
0.3
0.3

R
R

0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

M M

Fig. 12—The effect of dissipation coefficient on optimal nozzle- Fig. 13—The effect of ROP on optimal nozzle-to-throat area
to-throat area ratio. ratio.

effect is not obvious, so we can ignore the dissipation-coefficient Cc ¼ energy loss in the bend of the comminution chamber, J
and ROP effects. D ¼ initial cutting diameter, m
As shown in Fig. 14, the impact angle has a significant effect Dh ¼ hole diameter, m
on the optimal nozzle-to-throat area ratio. With the increase of E ¼ jet-mill-bit hydraulic efficiency
impact angle, the optimal nozzle-to-throat area ratio obviously Ef ¼ total dissipating energy, J
decreases. Ej ¼ energy provided by the power fluids per unit time, J
Es ¼ energy obtained by the suction fluids per unit time, J
Conclusions Fj ¼ friction losses in nozzle, J
In this paper, with the high-pressure water-jet comminution and Fs ¼ friction losses in suction annulus, J
jet-pump theory, the basic-performance model of a jet-mill bit is Ftd ¼ friction losses in throat and diffuser, J
developed. Then, the optimal parameter model for a jet pump is kc ¼ comminution coefficient
presented on the basis of the multivariable limitation theory; kd ¼ dissipation coefficient for the diffuser
meanwhile, a method for optimizing jet-mill-bit hydraulics is also kj ¼ dissipation coefficient for the nozzle
developed. On the basis of the method, one can determine optimal ks ¼ dissipation coefficient for the suction
jet-mill-bit hydraulics. Theory analysis and discussion show that kt ¼ dissipation coefficient for the throat
the impact angle and friction-loss coefficient are the key factors ktd ¼ dissipation coefficient for the throat and diffuser
affecting the efficiency of the jet-mill bit; the impact angle is sug- L ¼ energy losses by mixing, J
gested be set at approximately 70  , and the optimal flow-rate ratio M ¼ dimensionless volume-flow ratio
is approximately 1.0; the effect of ROP is not obvious, and one N ¼ rotary speed, rev/min
can ignore it. The optimal area ratio is not obviously related to P ¼ dimensionless pressure-recovery ratio
friction-loss coefficient and ROP, but it is related to the impact P1 ¼ pressure at backward high-speed jet-nozzle exit, MPa
angle significantly. It provides drilling engineers with a practical P2 ¼ pressure at jet-mill-bit suction, MPa
tool for determining the optimal jet-mill-bit hydraulics in horizon- P3 ¼ pressure at jet-mill-bit discharge, MPa
tal drilling and promotes wide use of the jet-mill bit. q1 ¼ power-fluid flow rate, m3/s
q2 ¼ comminution or discharged-fluid flow rate, m3/s
q3 ¼ suction-fluid flow rate, m3/s
Nomenclature R ¼ dimensionless nozzle-to-throat area ratio
Aj ¼ nozzle cross-sectional area, m2 vj ¼ jet velocity, m/s
At ¼ throat cross-sectional area, m2 vs ¼ average suction-fluid velocity, m/s
vc ¼ average comminution-fluid velocity, m/s
Wc ¼ energy loss on cuttings comminution, J
1 wi ¼ fragmentation energy, 6.30 kW h/t for clay and 12.74
Angle = 40°
0.9 kW  h/t for limestone (Pan 1990)
Angle = 50° a ¼ impact angle, degrees
0.8 n ¼ local resistance coefficient in the comminution chamber
Angle = 60°
0.7 Angle = 70° q ¼ dimensionless-density ratio
0.6
q1 ¼ power-fluid density, kg/m3
Angle = 80°
q3 ¼ suction-fluid density, kg/m3
0.5 Angle = 90° qs ¼ cuttings density, kg/m3
E

0.4
0.3
0.2 Acknowledgments
0.1 This research was financially supported by the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (NSFC, 51221003, U1262201) and other
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 projects (Grant numbers: 2016ZX05009-005, 2013AA064803).
M
References
Fig. 14—The effect of impact angle on optimal nozzle-to-throat Brown, K. E. and Petrie, H. 1980. The Technology of Artificial Lift Meth-
area ratio. ods,.2b, Chapter 6. Tulsa, USA: The Petroleum Publishing Co.

April 2016 SPE Journal 421

ID: jaganm Time: 18:29 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091

 J178436 DOI: 10.2118/178436-PA Date: 29-March-16
Corteville, J. C., Ferschneider, G., Hoffman, F. C. et al. 1987. Research on
Jet Pumps for Single and Multiphase Pumping of Crudes. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA,
27–30 September. SPE-16923-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16923-
MS.
Cunningham, R. G. 1957. Jet Pump Theory and Performance With Fluids
of High Viscosity. Trans. ASME 79: 1807–1820.
Cunningham, R. G., Hansen, A. G., and Na, T. Y. 1970. Jet Pump Cavita-
tion. J. Basic Engineering Trans. ASME 92: 483–492 (Series D1970).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3425040.
Cunningham, R. G. 1974. Gas Compression With the Liquid Jet Pump.
J. Fluids Eng. 96 (3): 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3447143.
Duan, M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M. et al. 2008. Transport of Small Cuttings in
Extended-Reach Drilling. SPE Drill & Compl 23 (3): 258–265. SPE-
104192-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/104192-PA.
Gao, E. and Young, A. C. 1995. Hole Cleaning in Extended Reach Wells:
Field Experience and Theoretical Analysis Using a Pseudo-Oil (Ace-
tal) Based Mud. Presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, 28 February–2 March. SPE-29425-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/29425-MS.
Ghambari, M., Shaibani, M. E., and Eshraghi, N. 2012. Production of
Grey Cast Iron Powder Via Target Jet Milling. Powder Technology
221: 318–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2012.01.020.
Gosline, J. E. and O’Brien, M. P. 1942. The Water Jet Pump. University
of California Publications in Engineering: University of California
Press Vol. 3, No. 3, 167–170.
Grupping, A. W., Coppes, J. L. R., and Groot, J. G. 1988. Fundamentals of
Oil Well Jet Pumping. SPE Prod Eng 3 (1): 9–14. SPE-15670-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15670-PA.
Guild, G. J., Wallace, I. M., and Wassenborg, M. J. 1995. Hole Cleaning
Program for Extended Reach Wells. Presented at the 1995 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February–2 March. SPE-29381-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29381-MS.
Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A. 2002. Gas Volume Requirements for Underba-
lanced Drilling, 26–27. Tulsa, USA: PennWell Books.
Hooper, D. W. 1986. Annulus Bypass Peripheral Nozzle Jet Pump Pres-
sure Differential Drilling Tool and Method for Well Drilling. US Pat-
ent Pending, 1986-12-33.
Hosie, D., Bansal, R. K., and Moyes, P. B. 2005. Apparatus and Method to
Reduce Fluid Pressure in a Wellbore. US Patent Pending, 2005-01-04.
Hughes. W. J. 2005. Downhole Drilling Assembly With Independent Jet
Pump. US Patent Pending, 2005-04-12.
Li, S. 1989. Engineering Fluid Mechanics, 140–141. China Machine Press.
Li, J., Guo, B., Liu, G. et al. 2013. The Optimum Range of Nitrogen Injec-
tion Rate in Shale Gas Well Drilling. SPE Drill & Compl 28 (1):
12–15. SPE-163103-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163103-PA.
Lott, W. G. 1998. Jet Pump Drilling Apparatus and Method. US Patent
Pending, 1998-07-07.
422
ID: jaganm Time: 18:29 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150091/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150091
Stage: Page: 422 Total Pages: 7
Noronha, F. A. F., Franca, F. A., and Alhanati, F. J. S. 1998. Improved
Two-Phase Model for Hydraulic Jet Pump. SPE J. 3 (3): 227–231.
SPE-50940-PA. http://dx.doi.org/0.2118/50940-PA.
Pan, X. 1990. Calculation Method for Fragmentation Energy. J. China
Building Equipment, No. 1, 13–15.
Petrie, H. L. et al. 1983. Jet Pumping Oil Wells. World Oil 197 (6): 51.
Schamp, J. H., Estes, B. L., and Keller, S. R. 2006. Torque Reduction
Techniques in ERD Wells. Presented at the 2006 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 21–23 February. SPE-98969-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98969-MS.
Suryanarayana, P. V., Hughes. W. J., and Hasan, ABM K. 2004. Technical
Feasibility and Applicability of a Concentric Jet Pump in Underba-
lanced Drilling. Presented at the SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technol-
ogy Conference and Exhibition, Houston, USA, 11–12 October. SPE-
91595-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/91595-MS.
Wang, Changbin, Lin, Jianzhong, and Shi, Xing. 2004a. Method of Opti-
mal Parameter Ascertainment of Jet Pump. Fluid Machinery 39 (2):
21–25.
Wang, Changbin, Lin, Jianzhong, and Lin, Jiang. 2004b. Research on
Energy Distribution and Efficiency Characteristics of Jet Pumps Sys-
tems. China Mechanical Engineering 15 (4): 297–300.
Winoto, S. H., Li, H., and Shah, D. A. 2000. Efficiency of Jet Pumps. J.
Hydraulics Engineering 126 (2): 150–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:2(150).
Xuyue Chen is a PhD degree candidate in oil and gas well en-
gineering in China University of Petroleum, Beijing. He holds a
BS degree in petroleum engineering from Yangtze University
and an MS degree in oil and gas well engineering from China
University of Petroleum, Beijing. Chen’s research mainly
focuses on downhole mechanics and horizontal drilling engi-
neering for oil and gas.
Deli Gao is a chair professor of petroleum engineering in China
University of Petroleum, Beijing, and a member of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences. He holds BS and PhD degrees in petro-
leum engineering from China University of Petroleum and an
MS degree in solid mechanics from the Southwest Petroleum
University, China. Gao has 30 years’ research and teaching
experience in the field of petroleum engineering. He is com-
mitted to research on downhole mechanics and control engi-
neering for oil and gas.
Boyun Guo is a Chevron Endowed Professor at the University of
Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. He holds a BS degree
from Daqing Petroleum Institute (China), an MS degree from
Montana Tech, and a PhD degree from New Mexico Tech, all
in petroleum engineering. Guo’s research interest is in the
area of productivity enhancement of oil and gas wells.
April 2016 SPE Journal