SPE-180380-MS

A Computational Study of Packoff Using a Combined Drill Bit Stabilizer

Particle Tracking Simulation
H. Uddin, N. R. Choudhury, and U. Ansari, Halliburton

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 23–26 May 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The primary cause of packoff in wells is improper hole cleaning resulting from aggregated cuttings and
particles from the bottom hole. Drill-bit geometry and rotation plays an important role in dictating
returning flow paths of drilling mud and thus transportation of debris particles from the bottom hole. This
paper presents an early attempt to investigate the integrated effect of mud flow through drill bit and
stabilizer slots on well packoff using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) -based particle simulations.
A commercially available three-dimensional (3D) flow solver was used to simulate turbulent flow for
both stationary and rotating drill bits and two competing stabilizer designs with different flow by area. The
motion of debris was tracked using a discrete phase model in a Lagrangian framework. A set of parametric
studies was performed to investigate the effect of stabilizer location, particle size, rate of penetration
(ROP), etc. on the hydraulic performance of the integrated assembly in terms of cuttings-transport ratio
[the ratio of average particle velocity to average annulus velocity (Ct)], particle concentration, velocity
profiles, etc. for a range of flow rates.
Results from the combined drill-bit stabilizer simulations were reported and design bottlenecks were
identified for a legacy stabilizer model. New insights were gained for design modifications to address
packoff. Simulation results show that the particles follow the flow path created by the slanted blades of
the drill bit initially and then begin a swirling motion before passing through the stabilizer slots. The new
design has a larger flow by area, and it straightens the rotating flow and hence offers faster evacuation of
cuttings. The flow profile becomes more uniformly distributed and prevents any clustering of particles,
thereby significantly reducing non-productive time (NPT) and improving tripability of the bottomhole
assembly (BHA) in oil fields.
This study provides insight into stabilizer design concepts and the stabilizer’s location as it is combined
with a drill bit. The integrated simulation approach adopted here enables operators to predict the motion
of formation cuttings using a simpler particle model in a larger system and helps prevent drillstring
packoff.
Introduction
A drilling operation consists of a cutting tool (drill bit) upon which a downward force [weight on bit
(WOB)] and rotation [revolutions per minute (rev/min)] are imposed. The drilled cuttings that are
2 SPE-180380-MS

generated as a result of this operation are circulated out by flowing a drilling fluid from the surface to the
bottom hole through the drilling tool and back to the surface through the annulus surrounding the
drillstring.
Hole cleaning is the ability of a drilling mud to transport drilling cuttings from down hole back to the
surface. Poor/inadequate hole cleaning is a major concern in the drilling industry, as it leads to a number
of drilling problems, such as high rotary torque (excessive frictional torque), stuck pipe (fishing or loss
of tool), formation break down, loss of circulation, and slow ROP. Such issues can result in high drilling
operating costs. A few of the parameters/factors that are generally known to affect hole cleaning efficiency
are annular eccentricity, inclination angle, drilling mud flow rate (annular velocity), ROP, drilling mud
density, drill cuttings (density, shape, and size), and mud rheology. Fig. 1 illustrates hole cleaning in a
vertical well. When the cuttings are not transported efficiently out of the well, or if parts of the wellbore
collapse on the drillstring because of an unstable formation, the well can begin to pack off. Packoff is a
partially or complete blocking of a circulating flow in oil and gas drilling, which can lead to costly delays.
Packoff mitigation by effective hole cleaning is crucial to avoid NPT.

Figure 1—Drilling operation illustration (from Rodriguez et al. 2004).

Several studies have been completed over the last few decades using experiments, modelling, or
simulation to understand the cutting transport phenomena and indicate that drillpipe rotation and drilling
mud flow rate have a significantly high positive effect on hole cleaning (cutting transport). It is worth
noting that the increasing drillstem rotation rate can accelerate the rate at which cyclic stess accumulates
and that increasing the flow rate can cause an increase in frictional pressure losses, which results in higher
pump pressure requirements and potential hole erosion.
Most of the work related to cutting evacuation and particle tracking in downhole operations focuses on
evaluating how cuttings are transported through the drillstring annulus and wellbore (Nazari et al. 2010).
The transport problem in vertical wellbores was investigated by Syed et al. (Hussaini and Azar 1983).
Sifferman and Becker (1992) conducted experiments in full-scale inclined wellbores, and Belavadi and
Chukwu (1994) performed experimental work to measure cutting transport efficiency by analysis of the
transport ratio, dimensionless quantities, and graphical correlations. Hussaini and Azar (1983) proved
SPE-180380-MS 3

experimentally and Li and Walker (1999) conducted sensitivity analysis to show the direct positive effect
in increasing mudflow rate on hole cleaning.
Volumetric cutting concentration was used to represent hole cleaning efficiency by Dykes (2014). He
concluded that increasing the ROP increases the cutting concentration proportionally, while in cases
where cutting accumulation is high, such as inclined wellbores, a motionless drillpipe can stabilize the
cutting bed, hence further increasing accumulation. Simulations were conducted on the effect of flow rate
and rotary speed and results were compared to experimental data from Sanchez et al. (1999). Tomren et
al. (1986) and Sanchez et al. (1999) conducted experiments to show that there was a moderately negative
effect of increase in ROP in hole cleaning. The hydraulic requirement increases for effective hole cleaning
as the ROP increases. The forces acting on the cutting layers based on a continuity and Navier stokes
equation were analyzed by Cho et al. (2002). They also analyzed the parameters of annular velocity,
pressure gradient, and fluid rheology. They introduced the concept of the three segments on layers
approach. Duan et al. (2007) established a mechanistic model to predict the critical resuspension velocity
(CRV) and the critical deposition velocity (CDV) building on forces that act on the particles. Ramadan
et al. (2005) applied the three-layer model on the inclined channel, set certain hypothesis, and used the
pseudohydrostatic pressure concept in a wide range of their analysis. Another mechanistic model was built
by Ramadan et al. (2003). They examined the forces involved on spherical bed particles in inclined
channels. Then, by forces equilibrium, they determined the critical flow rate.
In practical drilling operations, when problems related to cuttings removal are experienced, the flow
rate and drilling viscosity are increased. However, always using high velocities and thick muds can lead
to a reduction in cleaning action beneath the bit along with hole and tool erosion. Nazari et al. (2010)
reviewed cuttings transport and mention that mud rheology has a moderately positive or negative effect,
depending on cuttings size, hole inclination, etc.
In this paper, the authors focus on the integrated effect of a drill bit and an uphole tool geometry
restriction in the annular flow path that hinders efficient hole cleaning and eventually causes packoff. A
stabilizer in a given rotary steerable system (RSS) can be considered as any geometry and is usually
located close to the drill bit. While understanding the cuttings flow performance through the stabilizer is
the subject of interest, it is important to include the effect of drill bit geometry and rotation in the
investigation scope because the flow physics through the stabilizer inlet will be highly dictated by the drill
bit resulting from its proximity. In this connection, the authors have developed a 3D CFD model to study
the combined drill-bit stabilizer interaction in drilling operations and the effect of stabilizer geometry on
cuttings transport and packoff mitigation. A Lagrangian particle tracking method was used to model the
cuttings as point particles to understand the cuttings transportation and cuttings concentration as they are
directed by the fluid flow. Limited studies have been published addressing the role of a lower stabilizer
in packoff. During drilling operations, when cuttings are formed and cleaned from the drill bit surface,
depending on the flow rate, cutting size, and concentration, they can become clustered around the lower
stabilizer, which results in packoff. This paper highlights the effect of a lower stabilizer geometry and
configurations in effective bottomhole cleaning and packoff mitigation. Geometrical parameters, such as
blade design, were analyzed. A few of the operational parameters that were varied include drill bit
rev/min, drilling tool ROP, and cutting size. Field tests were completed to validate and verify the
successful implementation of the learnings from this study in practical drilling operations, which will be
discussed in later sections of this paper.
Problem Description
Fig. 2 shows the drill-bit stabilizer assembly considered for the current CFD investigation where drilling
mud is flowing through the center of the drillstring and injected out of the rotating drill-bit nozzles. The
high-speed jet returns through the outer annular flow area after contacting the bottomhole formation. The
annular flow passes through the stabilizer slots while carrying formation cuttings with it. The restricted
4 SPE-180380-MS

flow area at the stabilizer creates a potential bottleneck for the particles to become accumulated and hence
decrease drilling efficiency and increase packoff vulnerability. The authors compare the performance of
two competing stabilizer designs (Fig. 3 to understand how CFD modelling can be used as a tool to make
sensible design decisions in the aforementioned drilling scenario. The cleaning performance is qualita-
tively compared and demonstrated in terms of particle clustering and delay and quantitatively reported in
terms of cuttings volume fraction and cuttings transport ratio, Ct, which is defined as

Figure 2—Drill-bit stabilizer assembly in a RSS showing the problem under study.

Figure 3—Four-blade stabilizer (top) and three-blade stabilizer (bottom).

(1)

Where Vp is the average particle velocity and Vf is the average flow velocity calculated at a plane
normal to the annular flow area. Ct is a measure of hole cleaning, where a higher Ct refers to faster
transport of cuttings relative to the velocity of the carrier fluid. A stabilizer design will be selected after
comparing the CFD results, which will be used for further parametric studies to understand the effect on
flow rate, drill-bit rotation, ROP, cuttings size and shape, etc.
Another metric used to evaluate hole cleaning efficiency is volumetric cuttings concentration. This
value is calculated by dividing the volume of cuttings by the volume of drilling fluid in any given plane.
Dykes (2014) uses this metric to establish a methodology to model cuttings transport in an annulus while
drilling and to compare the effects of different drilling parameters. In this report, measuring the volumetric
cuttings concentration at a plane before the lower stabilizer will indicate whether a stabilizer is able to
effectively clear the encountered cuttings and whether the possibility of packoff is increased because of
cuttings clustering below the stabilizer.
SPE-180380-MS 5

Solution Strategy
The flow field and particle tracking simulations were performed using a commercially available fluid flow
solver called ANSYS® Fluent. A discrete phase model (DPM) was used to compute the particle
trajectories in a Lagrangian frame where the particle motion was obtained by coupling with fluid in the
Eulerian frame. Although DPM allows a two-way exchange of mass, momentum, and energy between the
fluid and the particles, the authors decided to obtain a steady-state solution using a moving reference
frame technique to implement drill-bit rotation, and then a coupled DPM was performed for one iteration
for all of the cases to reduce computational time (instead of unsteady particle tracking). The particle-
particle interaction was also ignored, which is a well-accepted assumption in the literature for particle
concentrations below 10% (ANSYS 2015). The authors are aware that although it is desirable for
large-size particles to resolve the particle boundaries and consider particle collision and both-way
interaction, often this is not a realistic technique because of the significant computational time and
overhead required. The authors’ goal here is to provide the design engineers a computationally amenable
(less expensive) modeling technique that can produce reasonable results in a limited amount of time and
help reduce the total design cycle.
ANSYS Fluent uses the finite volume method to discretize the governing equations. For the spatial
discretization, a first-order upwind scheme was used for the velocity, pressure, and turbulence quantities.
SIMPLE (ANSYS 2015) algorithm was chosen for the pressure-velocity coupling. Convergence was
determined by absolute residual criteria of 1 ⫻ 103 for all of the quantities, including continuity, along
with observing the stability of other carefully selected pressure and velocity data monitored in the
computational domain.
The governing fluid was primarily assumed to be incompressible water with Newtonian viscosity, as
it was intended to study particle physics regardless of mud rheology at this point. Non-Newtonian mud
properties will be considered for future investigation. First, a well-converged steady-state fluid flow
solution was obtained. Drill-bit rotation was implemented with the help of a moving reference frame
(MRF), which does not require expensive remeshing. The bottomhole surface was selected as the injection
surface for cuttings particles in the DPM approach. A discrete random walk model was used for the
turbulence dispersion of the particles, and sufficient particle tracking steps were performed to ensure all
of the particles escaped the computational domain.

Governing Equations
Flow Equations
The flow physics is described by the conservation laws of mass and momentum for the incompressible
flows, which is given by
(2)

(3)

where are the source-terms gravitational body force and external body forces. In the current study,
these source terms include the forces to represent the interaction with the dispersed particle phase. ␳, Uj,
p, and ␶ij are density of the fluid, velocity vector, pressure, and stress tensor, respectively. Given that ␮
is the viscosity of the governing fluid, the viscous stress tensor is written as
(4)

where ␦ij is the Kronecker delta. The Reynolds number (Re) of the governing flow is described by
6 SPE-180380-MS

(5)

using a characteristic length defined by the hydraulic diameter Dh of the inlet flow area and averaged
inflow velocity U, which is obtained from the prescribed mass inflow rate. Primarily, the authors decided
to use water as the governing fluid at room temperature, which yields a high Re. All of the simulations
use a Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) modeling approach to represent the turbulent flow
physics.
The authors applied the realizable k ⫺ 僆 model with scalable wall functions for this study and assumed
an inflow turbulence intensity of 5%, and a turbulence length scale was set to the hydraulic diameter of
the cylindrical inflow area. At the turbulence boundary layer
(6)

where ⌬y is the normal length of the first grid neighboring the wall and Ut is the tangentially
transformed velocity component along the wall. To obtain the proper result of computation without wall
functions, the dimensionless wall distance should be guaranteed y⫹ ⬍1, as in the entire computational
domain. However, the required number of grids can be reduced with the use of wall function
(7)

where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and C␮ is a variable coefficient for scalable wall functions which
produce consistent results for arbitrary grid refinement and avoid deterioration below y⫹ ⬍11. The
constants used in the realizable k ⫺ 僆 turbulence model are shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Turbulence modeling constants.

C2e 1.9
Prt 1.00
␴k 1.00
␴僆 1.2

The set of equations was transformed into a moving reference frame to implement the drill-bit rotation
in a steady-state manner. Readers should refer to ANSYS (2015) for further details.
Particle Tracking
The motion of the discrete formation cuttings was modeled using a Lagrangian framework with ANSYS
Fluent’s DPM. In this paper, the Lagrangian particle tracking method is used to solve the individual
trajectories of the theoretical point particles by equating their inertia with external forces; for example,
hydrodynamic forces, including drag and gravity acting on individual particles. The governing equation
for the particle motion can be written as
(8)

The second term on the right-hand side is the gravitational acceleration per unit mass, which is ignored
in the current investigation. The first term on the right-hand side is the drag force defined by the spherical
drag law of Morsi and Alexander (1972), such that
(9)
SPE-180380-MS 7

where Rep is the particle Reynolds number, which is defined as

(10)

The drag coefficient CD is defined by

(11)

Constants a1, a2 and a3 vary over ranges of Re (Morsi and Alexander 1972). The magnitude of the
Saffman lift force (ANSYS 2015) is typically at least one order of magnitude lower than the drag force
for small particle sizes (ⱕ 100 ␮m) and generally recommended for submicron particle size; therefore, it
is not accounted for in the analysis. Similarly, because of the large density difference between the particles
and the fluid, the virtual mass force can be ignored.
Because of the rotation of the reference frame, additional force terms are added to the particles. For
given rotation, ⍀, defined about the z-axis, the forces in particles in the Cartesian x and y axis can be
written as in ANSYS (2015):
(12)

(13)

which contribute to the Fadditional in Eq. 8.

up,y, uy, and up,x, uy are the particle and fluid velocities in the Cartesian y and x direction, respectively.

Assumptions and Boundary conditions

The governing fluid was assumed to be incompressible, and the viscosity was assumed Newtonian. All of
the simulations were performed in a constant temperature environment. At the inlet, the authors assumed
the turbulent flow to be fully developed, which was implemented by a sufficiently long entry region
greater than 30 Dh.
A mass inflow rate (950 gal/min for the baseline case) was imposed at the circular inlet boundary, and
a pressure outlet boundary condition (1,000 psi) was defined at the annular outlet boundary. Drill-bit
rotation was imposed using a MRF technique (ANSYS 2015), where the rotational speed was specified
at the rotating walls. All other walls were specified to have a no-slip wall boundary condition.
The leading cause of packoff is insufficient hole cleaning, which is more likely to occur in a restricted
mud flow path. A stabilizer is usually located in close proximity of the bit and hence the evacuation of
formation cuttings through the stabilizer flow by area is expected to be highly influenced by the bit
rotation and the flow profiles coming out of the helical drill-bit slots. Because of the location of the
stabilizer with respect to the bit, it is reasonable to assume the computational domain to be straight (not
deviated) and ignore the gravitational force acting on the particles. In addition, the calculated ROP-based
volume fraction for the injected particles in the particle tracking simulations was below 10%, which
enabled considering the DPM assumptions to be valid.
The formation cuttings were assumed to be spherical sand particles with a density of 0.0624 lbm/ft3.
The bottomhole surface was specified as the injection surface for the particle tracking simulation. The
particle injection flow rate and velocity were determined based on the ROP. The baseline simulation used
the boundary conditions as shown in Table 2.
8 SPE-180380-MS

Table 2—Assumptions and boundary conditions.

Mass inflow rate (gal/min) 950
Drill bit rotation (rev/min) 250
Pressure outlet (psi) 1,000
Rate of penetration (ft/hr) 98
Particle size (in.) 0.1
Injection surface Bottomhole
Particle turbulence interaction Discrete random walk model

Domain and Mesh Independence

The computational fluid domain (Fig. 4) was extracted from the original computer-aided design (CAD)
assembly models for both the three- and four-blade stabilizer designs having the same drill-bit geometry.
The domain was extended more than 30 Dh at the inlet and more than 20 Dh at the outlet. The total domain
length was more than 10 times the drill-bit diameter. No separate domain sensitivity analysis was
performed.

Figure 4 —Computational flow domain.

ANSYS Meshing software was used to generate a hybrid mesh, as shown in Fig. 5. In general, a
tetrahedral mesh was used in the complex geometrical parts and a straight-forward hexahedral mesh was
used for the sweepable bodies to reduce computational complexity. The mesh has four inflation layers to
represent the turbulent boundary layer, with a first layer thickness as small as 0.010 in.

Figure 5—Generated hybrid mesh for the computational domain (four-blade stabilizer).

Table 3 summarizes the results from a systematic mesh sensitivity analysis that was performed for both
the three- and four-blade models. For the three-blade model, the minimum mesh size was further reduced
to obtain a finer mesh, which is Mesh B in this case. Mesh B had approximately a 120% increase in
computation resulting from the higher number of nodes. The total pressure drop between the inlet and
SPE-180380-MS 9

outlet and area averaged velocity at the midplane across the stabilizer were measured for both meshes,
keeping all the boundary conditions and simulation algorithms identical. A 2.4% variation was observed
in the calculation of total pressure drop, while the area averaged flow velocity at the selected plane varied
only 0.3%. Another mesh was generated for the four-blade model using similar meshing criteria,
producing more than 3.2 million nodes, to investigate the sensitivity of the first layer thickness at the
inflation layer. A thinner first layer thickness might be desirable to maintain recommended y⫹ criteria at
the region of interest. Reducing the first layer thickness helped to obtain a better y⫹ profile, while only
a 3.25% deviation was observed in terms of total pressure drop and 1% variation in terms of area averaged
velocity. The authors decided to use Mesh B for the four-blade model as a standard for all simulations.

Table 3—Mesh independence study for the rotating drill-bit stabilizer system.
Area Averaged yⴙ at SSP
Computation Total Pressure Variation Velocity at Variation Wall Range
Design Mesh Nodes Increase (%) Drop (psi) (%) Stabilizer Midplane (%) (average)

Three blade A 2036123 120 254 2.4 16.49 0.3 10-87, 44

B 4462242 248 16.54 10-88, 43
Four blade A 3239784 2.8 254 3.25 12.05 1 10-147, 39
B 3326911 246 12.19 10-70, 21

Results
Stabilizer Packoff Study
Comparative particle tracking simulations (Fig. 6) were performed for the competing stabilizer designs
using the baseline conditions to understand their packoff vulnerability. Pressure gradient force and virtual
mass force were activated for the particle trajectory calculation, where the discrete random walk model
was used to consider turbulence dispersion. The authors observed a higher delay in particle travel time and
also higher particle clustering just in front of the stabilizer for the three-blade design. The four-blade
design straightened the flow (resulting from the length of the slots) and helped allow faster evacuation.

Figure 6 —Comparison of four-blade (above) and three-blade (below) stabilizer in terms of particle time.
10 SPE-180380-MS

The four-blade design had twice the flow by area compared to the three-blade design. Hence, particles
traveled much faster through the three-blade slots because the current model considers point particles
while particle-particle interaction and particle-wall interaction is ignored. As a result, cleaning perfor-
mance cannot be correctly represented by the cuttings transport ratio at a plane across or near the
stabilizer. Hence, the authors decided to measure the cuttings transport ratio, Ct, at planes which are at a
distance of 4D and 5D downstream from the stabilizer (D is the stabilizer diameter) and have the same
flow area for both designs. However, the smaller flow area in the three-blade design should have
experienced increased cuttings congestion for a similar particle concentration. Table 4 shows a compar-
ison of Ct in terms of both maximum particle velocity and area averaged particle velocity at planes 4D
and 5D, where a higher Ct of the four-blade design indicates better cleaning performance and lower
packoff probability.

Table 4 —Comparison of cuttings transport ratio for competing stabilizers.

Four-Blade Stabilizer Three-Blade Stabilizer

Plane 4D Plane 5D Plane 4D Plane 5D

Velocity (ft/s) Ct Velocity (ft/s) Ct Velocity (ft/s) Ct Velocity (ft/s) Ct

Vp_max 8.19 0.92 7.95 0.89 7.12 0.80 6.81 0.76

Vp_avg 6.49 0.73 6.56 0.73 1.61 0.18 1.47 0.16

The authors also measured the cuttings volume fraction (which is a measure of concentration) at a
plane just in front of the stabilizer because it is believed that Ct alone cannot be a measure for this kind
of problem configuration. A higher concentration of particles just in front of the stabilizer plane (1 in.
upstream) would be an indicator for a situation causing packoff. Fig. 7 shows the contour plots of cuttings
volume fraction at the aforementioned plane in front of the stabilizer. Most of the particles are radially
pushed outward and concentrated near the outer diameter (formation wall) as an effect of the drill-bit
rotation. The maximum volume fraction is more than twice as high for three-blade design as opposed to
the four-blade design, which indicates that the three-blade design is more susceptible to packoff.

Figure 7—Comparison of volume fraction distribution.

SPE-180380-MS 11

Field Testing
The results and findings shown in the previous sections were used to design a new stabilizer, which was
field tested in similar drilling operating conditions. Using the new stabilizer, a 50% reduction was
observed in time required to drill through the cement, wiper plug, and float joint, and a 60% reduction in
weight on bit (WOB) applied was measured compared to an older stabilizer that was used previously. The
new design and hole cleaning features of the enhanced stabilizer were successful in reducing the packing
off tendency and spudding of the plug and eliminating the time spent on reciprocating the string while
drilling through cement. The flow parameters of the test well were similar to those used in the numerical
analysis presented in the previous sections.

Parametric Study
A set of numerical simulations were performed to understand the effect of various parameters on the
packoff performance of a stabilizer in the presence of a rotating drill bit. Although similar CFD-based
particle tracking studies have been performed previously to understand drill-bit hydraulics and cuttings
deposition in a deviated wellbore, etc., an integrated study for a drill-bit stabilizer is yet to be published.
For the parametric studies, the authors decided to use a simplified four-blade model to have a better
behaved mesh and also reduce DPM particle tracking simulation time. All of the results are presented in
terms of Ct at Planes 4D and 5D and in terms of volume fraction at the plane just before the stabilizer.
The results are normalized by the values obtained for the baseline case (950 gal/min, 250 rev/min)
presented in Table 2.

Effect of Flow Rate

Fig. 8a shows a strong positive relation between Ct and the flow rate at Plane 5D, which is farther away
from the stabilizer. This observation is in agreement with many of the previous researchers’ observations
(Hussaini and Azar 1983; Tomren et al. 1986). At Plane 4D, Ct increases from 700 to 950 gal/min but does
not show an increase at 1,200 gal/min. This might be an effect of the fact the rotational forces arising from
the rotating drill bit (250 rev/min) are dominating at Plane 4D over the axially imposed flow rate. In
general, better cleaning performance is expected for higher flow rates because of the higher inertia of the
flow, which carries the cuttings away along with it.

Figure 8 —Cuttings transport ratio and volume fraction vs. flow rate.
12 SPE-180380-MS

Fig. 9 shows the contours of volume fraction at a plane before the stabilizer, which indicates a higher
accumulation of particles for the 700 gal/min flow case. The maximum volume fraction is plotted as a
function of the flow rate in Fig. 8b. Cutting concentration at the selected plane reduces almost linearly,
with an increasing flow rate indicating better cleaning performance. For all of the cases, cuttings are
accumulated at the outer diameter because of the rotational force exerting from the drill-bit rotation.

Figure 9 —Contours of volume fraction at the plane before the stabilizer.

Effect of Drill-Bit Rotation

The effect of drill-bit rotation on the efficient evacuation of formation cuttings has been studied for ranges
between 150 to 250 rev/min. It should be noted that the drill-bit rotation represents different physics
compared to the drillstring rotation, which has been popularly discussed in related literature. This
investigation attempts to observe the sole effect of the rotating drill bit, where the outer annular flow area
is stationary. In general, a rotation in the bit is expected to exert a rotational force in the governing fluid
and hence push the cuttings radially outward. A sufficiently large rotating force is likely to influence the
cuttings transportation in the axial direction as well. Fig. 10a shows a stronger effect of bit rotation at
Plane 4D, where Ct increases with rev/min. However, at Plane 5D, this effect becomes weaker and no
significant effect is observed for an increase of rotational velocity from 200 to 250 rev/min. This
observation is consistent with the discussion in the previous section where weakening of the flow rate
effect was observed at Plane 4D and it was attributed to the rotational force. It is likely to observe a
stronger combined effect of bit rotation and flow rate closer to the bit as opposed to farther away. This
impacts the design of a lower stabilizer because the location of the stabilizer is usually in closer proximity
to the drill bit.
SPE-180380-MS 13

Figure 10 —Cuttings transport ratio at Planes 4D and 5D as a function of bit rotation.

Fig. 11 shows the distribution of volume fraction on the selected plane just before the stabilizer for 150,
200, and 250 rev/min. A higher deposition of particles is observed for the 150 rev/min case. Fig. 10b
reports a strong negative relation between the rotational speed and maximum volume fraction, which is
in accordance with the observation of Dykes (2014), who investigated the rotation effect for a simulated
drillstring.

Figure 11—Comparison of volume fraction contour.

Effect of Rate of Penetration

ROP changes the drilling conditions drastically. In the current simulations, a change of ROP is reflected
by changing the particle injection rate and particle injection velocity in the DPM particle tracking
simulation.
Fig. 12a shows a variation in the cuttings transport ratio as a function of ROP at Plane 4D and Plane
5D, where a clearly defined relationship between the two parameters could not be observed. A linear
increase in particle concentration at the plane just before the stabilizer was observed with an increase in
ROP (Fig. 12b), which is in agreement with the observation of Dykes (2014). In reality, a higher ROP
should produce more cuttings, which will generate a higher concentration of particles that need to pass
14 SPE-180380-MS

through the stabilizer slots. As a result, a higher ROP (Fig. 13) is more likely to cause drillstring packoff,
which might be aggravated by the lower stabilizer design. In addition, a higher ROP will increase the
possibility of particle-to-particle collision and hence the current DPM approach will become less reliable.

Figure 12—Cuttings transport ratio and volume fraction vs. ROP.

Figure 13—Volume fraction contours for variations in ROP.

Effect of Cutting Size and Shape

Furthermore, it was necessary to investigate the effect of cuttings size and shape, which varies from well
to well because of variations in formation characteristics. In contrast to previously explained parameters,
drilling engineers do not have control on dictating cuttings size and shape. In Fig. 14, cuttings transport
ratio, Ct, reduces for cuttings sizes of 0.01 to 0.05 in. A similar trend was observed by Moslemi and
Goodarz (2014) for a similar particle size range. But for larger particles, Ct increases with size, which
might be an effect of larger particles undergoing greater pressure gradient forces. The cutoff particle size
where the trend reverses could also be dictated by the cell size in the current simulation. Duan et al. (2008)
and Bilgesu et al. (2007) conclude that smaller cuttings are more difficult to remove. It is important to
resolve the boundaries of the cuttings, which are large compared to the flow dimensions. Only a more
sophisticated and computationally highly intensive simulation approach can provide such high fidelity.
SPE-180380-MS 15

The objective of the current effort is to propose a computationally amenable solution that provides design
insights to the engineers within acceptable error bounds.

Figure 14 —Cuttings transport ratio and volume fraction vs. particle size.

The effect of cell size and other related simulation parameters on the performance of DPM particle
transportation physics will be studied in a future investigation to limit the current scope. Fig. 14b shows
a decline in maximum volume fraction for larger particles. A similar trend is observed by previous
researches (Dykes 2014), who conclude that smaller particles are more likely to have a greater effect of
drag and dispersion modeling.
All of the simulations discussed previously assume spherical particles. ANSYS allows users to impose
the shape effect (sphericity) by shape factor. During drilling operations, cuttings are produced in different
shapes and sizes, depending on the ROP, drill-bit type, formation type, etc. Several previous studies also
conclude that as shape factor increases, hole cleaning efficiency increases (Al-Kayiem et al. 2010). This
investigation considers three shape factors: 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 in., of which the latter represents spherical
particles. As expected, much better cleaning performance was observed for spherical particles in terms of
Ct (Fig. 15a). Fig. 15b shows the spherically shaped particles are less likely to become accumulated before
the stabilizer and hence reduce packoff vulnerability.

Figure 15—Cuttings transport ratio and volume fraction vs. shape factor.
16 SPE-180380-MS

Discussion
The experimental resources and techniques required to understand drillstring packoff and to assist
innovation to help prevent packoff can be both cost- and time-prohibitive. Considering the increasing need
for low-cost, efficient horizontal and directional drilling solutions in the current economic condition of the
oil industry, it is a matter of utmost importance for design engineers to reduce costs and time in the
technology development process. In this endeavor, CFD can play an important role. In this research, a
CFD-based technique is proposed to help such design efforts ultimately prevent packoff and increase
drilling efficiency. Previous studies used the cuttings transport ratio, Ct, as a measure of hole cleaning,
while others used volume fraction. The current study finds that once the DPM-based technique is followed
to reduce computational costs and time, the cuttings concentration should be considered along with Ct.
It should be mentioned that, in general, CFD-based studies are performed under simplified assumptions
and highly idealized boundary conditions to model a complex realistic drilling situation. In addition,
turbulent structures and eddies are modeled rather than resolved in a RANS-based approach because often
it is not possible to perform a more accurate large eddy simulation (LES) or solve all of the length scales
using a direct numerical simulation (DNS) as a result of a lack of computational resources and time
constraints. Similarly, the formation cuttings have various shapes and distribution of sizes. It is very
important to account for the fact that complex-shaped large particles will have a coupled effect on the fluid
flow, where computing the forces on the particle surface is not straight forward. Despite all of these
limitations, the CFD-based particle tracking technique can be successfully used to model packoff
vulnerability once the user is aware of the error bounds and associated uncertainty.
In this current investigation, an improved design was developed based on CFD-based particle tracking
simulation results, which proved to be successful in a field study. Then, a set of parametric studies were
performed where some of the parameters were flow-dependent and others particle-dependent. The results
presented in this paper agree better with those presented in other literature for flow-dependent parameters
than particle-dependent parameters. This indicates that the current particle tracking modeling approach
(DPM) is likely to be more sensitive to simulation conditions as opposed to the flow modeling approach.

Conclusions
A computationally amenable CFD-based modeling approach is presented in conjunction with Lagrangian
discrete phase particle trajectory tracking to simulate the transport of formation cuttings in an integrated
drill-bit stabilizer assembly. Bit rotation and the blade profile of the bit geometry dictate the incoming
cuttings concentration distribution for a lower stabilizer. Hence, a stabilizer design was optimized for the
bit rotation effect, and the improved design performed favorably in field tests. A set of parametric studies
suggests that cuttings evacuation through the stabilizer can also be enhanced by controlling certain
parameters, such as mud flow rate and bit rotation. The results obtained in the current simulation efforts
also suggest important insights into planning a drilling activity and provide the operators (customers) a
technically advanced method to mitigate packoff. The authors recommend pursuing an improved mod-
eling approach, especially for cases where cutting size is large compared to the flow area.

Nomenclature
Ct ⫽ cuttings-transport ratio, dimensionless
Vp ⫽ average velocity of particles, ft/sec
Vf ⫽ average flow velocity, ft/sec
␳ ⫽ density, slugs/ft3
Uj ⫽ vector velocity, ft/sec
␶i, j ⫽ stress tensor
␮ ⫽ viscosity of governing fluid, lbf.s/ft3
SPE-180380-MS 17

␦i, j ⫽ Kronecker delta

Dh ⫽ hydraulic diameter, in.
k ⫽ turbulent kinetic energy, ft-lbf

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Halliburton for permission to publish this paper.

References
Al-Kayiem, H. H., Zaki, N. M., Asyraf, M. Z. et alet al. 2010. Simulation of the Cuttings Cleaning During the Drilling
Operation. American Journal of Applied Sciences 7 (6): 80 –806.
ANSYS. 2015. ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
Belavadi, M. N. and Chukwu, G. A. 1994. Experimental Study of the Parameters Affecting Cutting Transportation in a
Vertical Wellbore Annulus. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, 23–25
March. SPE-27880-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27880-MS.
Bilgesu, H. I,. Mishra, N., and Ameri, S. 2007. Understanding the Effect of Drilling Parameters on Hole Cleaning in
Horizontal and Deviated Wellbores Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Presented at the Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA, 17–19 October. SPE-111208-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/111208-MS.
Cho, H., Shah, S. N., and Osisanya, S. O. 2002. A three-segment hydraulic model for cutting transport in coiled tubing
horizontal and deviated drilling. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 41 (6): 32–39.
Duan, M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M. et alet al. 2007. Critical Conditions for Effective Sand-Sized Solids Transport in Horizontal
and High-Angle Wells. Presented at the Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 31
March–3 April. SPE-106707-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106707-MS.
Duan, M., Miska, S. F., Yu, M. 2008. Transport of Small Cuttings in Extended Reach Drilling. SPE Drill & Comp 23 (03):
258 –265. SPE-104192-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/104192-PA.
Dykes, G. B. 2014. Cutting transport implications for drill string design: A study with computational fluid dynamics. MS
thesis, College of Earth Resource Sciences and Engineering, Golden, Colorado.
Hussaini, S. M. and Azar, J. J. 1983. Experimental Study of Drilled Cuttings Transport Using Common Drilling Muds.
SPEJ 23 (01): 11–20. SPE-10674-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10674-PA.
Li, J. and Walker, S. 1999. Sensitivity Analysis of Hole Cleaning Parameters in Directional Wells. SPEJ 6 (04): 356 –363.
SPE-74710-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74710-PA.
Morsi, A. and Alexander, A. J. 1972. An investigation of particle trajectories in two-phase flow systems. J Fluid
Mechanics 55 (02): 193–208.
Moslemi, A. and Goodarz, A. 2014. Study of the Hydraulic Performance of Drill Bits using a Computational Particle
Tracking Model. SPE Drill & Comp 29 (01): 28 –35. SPE-169812-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169812-PA.
Nazari, T., Hareland, G., and Azar, J. J. 2010. Review of Cuttings Transport in Directional Well Drilling: Systematic
Approach. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, 27–29 May. SPE-132372-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/132372-MS.
Ramadan, A., Skalle, P., and Johansen, S. T. 2003. A mechanistic model to determine the critical flow velocity required
to initiate movement of spherical bed particles in inclined channels. Chemical Engineering Science 58 (10):
2153–2163.
Ramadan, A., Skalle, P., and Saasen, A. 2005. Application of a three layer modeling approach for solids in horizontal and
inclined channels. Chemical Engineering Science 60 (10): 2557–2570.
Rodriguez, H. H., Ramirez, J. B., Velazquez, D. C. et alet al. 2004. Annular flow analysis by tracers in drilling operations.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 41 (4): 287–296.
Sanchez, R. A., Azar, J. J., and Bassai, A. A. 1999. Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning During Directional Well
Drilling. SPEJ 4 (02): 101–108. SPE-56406-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/56406-PA.
Sifferman, T. R., Becker, T. B. 1992. Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale Inclined Wellbores. SPE Drill Eng 7 (02): 115–120.
SPE-20422-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20422-PA.
Tomren, P. H., Iyoho, A. W., and Azar, J. J. 1986. Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in Directional Wells. SPE
Drill Eng 1 (01): 43–56. SPE-12123-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12123-PA.