PAPER 2009-041

Optimization of Liquid & Gas Flow

Rates for Aerated Drilling Fluids
Considering Hole Cleaning For
Vertical and Low Inclination Wells
M.E. OZBAYOGLU
Middle East Technical University

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals.
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction.

Abstract
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) is one of the most widely
used technologies preferred in depleted and/or low pressured
formations. In order to achieve underbalanced conditions,
drilling fluids are usually gasified. Major drilling fluids
preferred during UBD are pure gas, gas-liquid mixtures, foams,
etc. This study is focused on gas-liquid mixtures. As the gas is
introduced, the behavior of the drilling fluid becomes hard to
explain due to many reasons. First of all, gas is compressible
and physical properties of gas are very sensitive to changes in
pressure and temperature. Second, a multiphase flow
phenomenon arises. When there is multiphase flow, flow
patterns should be considered. It is known that, there is a
difficulty to predict hydraulic behavior of gas-liquid mixtures
due to this flow pattern dependence. During a drilling
operation, one of the parameters that should be well considered
is hole cleaning. Hole cleaning is a challenging task even for a
single phase drilling fluid. Moreover, there is still a lack of
information how the cuttings are transported when gas-liquid
mixtures are used as drilling fluids. Flow rate optimization
during UBD operations for liquid and gas phases are usually
conducted based on formation pressures only. However, only
considering this criteria alone as the optimization objective is
misleading and may cause serious problems during the drilling
operation. In this study, gas and liquid flow rates during UBD
operations are conducted not only based on formation
pressures, but also based on effective hole cleaning. It is
assumed that liquid phase is the major contributor for cuttings
transport, and gas phase is only influencing the bottom hole
pressure. A mechanistic model is introduced for estimating the
hydraulic behavior of gas-liquid mixture drilling fluids under
different flow patterns. Based on the bottom hole pressure and
effective hole cleaning point of view, an algorithm is proposed
for estimation the optimum required flow rates for liquid and
gas phases based on the introduced mechanistic model. Also,
the model predicts the required backpressure that has to be
applied.
Introduction
Underbalanced drilling operations are increasingly applied,
especially when new wells are required at depleted reservoirs in
order to conduct enhanced oil recovery techniques or secondary

1
recovery applications. Usually, gas-liquid mixture fluids are Bubble Flow – Slug/Churn Flow Transition
preferred for applying underbalanced techniques. However, one
of the main problems for applying underbalanced drilling The minimum conduit size In order to observe bubble flow is
techniques is te selection of proper liquid and gas volumetric given as
flow rates. Generally, these rates are selected based on the
formation pressure, i.e., at static conditions, the hydrostatic
pressure of the mixture is selected to handle the formation d min = ξ
( ρ L − ρG ) σ L
g ρL
pressure. But, in such a case, at dynamic conditions, bottomhole 2
pressure may exceed formation pressure, and the advantages of
underbalanced conditions are missed. If the dynamic conditions
are considered for selecting the liquid-gas rates, this time at Here, ξ takes a value of 19-20. For the flow through an
static conditions, bottomhole pressure may be too low when annulus, dmin is defined as
compared with formation pressure, and formation fluids may
intrude into the wellbore. Therefore, it is a better option to keep
the bottomhole pressure constant and equal to formation d min = d c + dt
pressure for all times, i.e., static and dynamic conditions. This
can be achieved by modifying the amount of liquid phase inside Gas phase velocity,
the wellbore at static and dynamic conditions, or by applying
variable backpressure. In this paper, phase flow rates are
selected not only based on formation pressure, but also vSG
vG =
considering proper hole cleaning. Also, required backpressures
are determined for keeping bottomhole pressure constant for all
α
times.
and liquid velocity can be determined by
Studies on underbalanced drilling using aerated fluids are
classified according to the hole inclinations. For vertical and vSL
low inclination wellbores, studies are mostly focused on foam vL =
applications as well as gas-liquid mixtures. These studies aim to 1−α
determine minimum required liquid and gas flow rates. Major
studies important to mention are Krug & Mitchell (1972), respectively. Bubble rise velocity, then, can be calculated as
Okpobiri & Ikoku (1982), and Guo et al (1993). In latter years,
some studies have been conducted on two-phase flow
hydrodynamics and flow pattern boundaries in annular vo = vG − vL
geometries as well as hole cleaning. Mousavi et al (2008)
presented a mechanistic model for two-phase flow in vertical Combining these information and solving for superficial gas
wellbores. Hasan et al (2007) presented a model based on drift- velocity yields
flux theory in order to express two-phase flow inside annulus,
and compared the results with commercial software results.
Tengesdal et al (1999) presented a model to express churn flow. ⎛ α ⎞
Lage & Time (2002) introduced a mechanistic model for two- vSG = vSL ⎜ ⎟ + (α ) vo
phase flow inside a wellbore. Duan et al (2006) conducted an ⎝ 1−α ⎠
experimental and theoretical study to investigate transport of
small-size cuttings particles inside a wellbore. Lourenco et al Harmathy (1960) described the bubble rise velocity as
(2006) investigated the hole cleaning capability of two-phase
fluids, which the liquid phase consists of a polymer mixture. 1

This study aims to express two-phase flow in vertical ⎡ g ( ρ L − ρG ) σ ⎤ 4

wellbores, and determining required flow rates for liquid and
vo = 1.53 ⎢ ⎥
gas phase by considering formation pressure and hole cleaning ⎣ ρL2 ⎦
properties. Also, required backpressures are determined.
The transition between the bubble flow to slug/churn flow
occurs if the gas void fraction, α, is having a value of 0.15-0.25.
Theory Therefore, if the condition below is “TRUE”, slug/churn flow
occurs.
A two-phase flow model is described based on flow patterns.
Below, determination of flow patterns and total pressure
1
gradients are described.
⎛ α ⎞ ⎡ g ( ρ L − ρG ) σ ⎤ 4
vSG > vSL ⎜ ⎟ + (α )1.53 ⎢ ⎥
Flow Patterns ⎝ 1−α ⎠ ⎣ ρL2 ⎦
Based on the literature review, flow patterns inside the
annulus are categorized as bubble flow, churn/slug flow, At this point, another criteria should be checked, which is the
dispersed bubble flow, and annular flow (figure-1). The comparison of bubble rise velocity and large bubble structure
transition conditions for these flow patterns are explained (Taylor bubble) rise velocity. Bubble rise velocity has already
below. been given above. For Taylor bubbles, rise velocity is defined
as

2

vTB = 0.35 g ( d c + dt )
In order to observe bubble flow, vTB ≥ vo should be
achieved. Thus, in order to observe slug/churn flow,
1
⎡ ρ L 2 g ( d c + dt )2 ⎤ 4
⎢ ⎥ < 4.37
⎢⎣ ( ρ L − ρG ) σ ⎥⎦
should be satisfied.
Bubble Flow – Dispersed Bubble Flow Transition
In order to have a stable bubble flow, certain conditions have
to be established. Development of stable gas bubbles are
dependent on conduit size, gas and liquid densities, surface
tension between the phases, etc. Hinze (1955) compared the
surface tension and turbulent forces acting on a bubble, and
defined the maximum stable bubble diameter as
Later, Barnea (1987) observed that twice the value of dcrit has
a better match with the experimental results. Thus, bubble flow
– dispersed bubble flow transition occurs at a condition of
d max ≤ d crit
If the condition is “TRUE”, dispersed bubble flow is
observed. For very high gas phase velocities, maximum gas
void fraction that can be achieved theoretically is considered as
the boundary condition. This void fraction, α, should have a
value of 0.52-0.76. The main idea in this condition is,
independent of turbulent and surface tension forces, how much
gas can be present flowing as dispersed in the conduit.
Therefore, for high gas velocities, condition for bubble flow –
dispersed bubble flow is defined as
⎛ α ⎞
vSG ≤ vSL ⎜ ⎟
⎝1−α ⎠
If the equality is “TRUE”, dispersed bubble flow occurs.

3
Annular Flow – Slug/Churn Flow Transition
⎛ σ ⎞5 2
= k ⎜ ⎟ (ε ) 5
−
d max
⎝ ρL ⎠ Annular flow regime is only observed at very high gas flow
rates, such that the gas forces the liquid to be pushed towards
the conduit walls, and gas flows like a core through the liquid
Here, which is having full contact with the conduit walls. Some liquid
droplets are present inside the gas core. Therefore, the main
ΔP vM criteria to observe annular flow is the equivalence of the
ε= gravitational forces acting on the liquid droplets, and the drag
ΔL ρ M force applied on these droplets by the gas phase. Drag and
gravitational forces are described as
and
π d D 2 ρG vG 2
FD = CD
ΔP 2 f ρ M vM
2
− = 4 2
ΔL dh
and

Although k is considered to be constant and equal to 0.725

by Hinze, many researches have been showed that k should be π d D3
not constant. Therefore, maximum stable bubble diameter can FG = g ( ρ L − ρG )
be defined as 6
3 respectively. If FD > FG is solved for the gas flow
⎛ vSG ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞5 2 velocity, vG, following is developed.
( )
−
d max = ⎜⎜ 0.725 + 4.15 ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ε 5

⎝ vSG + vSL ⎠ ⎝ ρL ⎠ 1
2 ⎡ g ( ρ L − ρG ) d D ⎤ 2
vG ≥ ⎢ ⎥
Forces due to turbulence effects have a dominant effect on 3⎣ ρG CD ⎦
bubbles trying to merge, and they divide the bubbles into
smaller bubbles. Therefore, although enough gas void fraction
is achieved, bubbles cannot merge and develop slug/churn flow. for fully turbulent flow, CD takes the value of 0.44.
Critical bubble size is defined by Brodkey (1967) as Maximum size of the particles is limited with the turbulence
forces acting on the particles to force them become smaller,
which is expressed in terms of Weber number, such as
0.4 σ
d crit =
( ρ L − ρG ) g d D ρG vG
2
NWe =
σ

3
 Usually, Weber number takes a value between 20-30.
Maximum diameter of the particle, dD, is determined by solving HL
n '+ 2
− HL
n ' +1
+
( vSL + vSG ) H L − vSL =0
Weber number with respect to dD. Therefore, condition for 1
annular flow can be described as ⎡ ( ρ − ρG ) g σ L ⎤ 4
1.53 ⎢ L ⎥
1 ⎣ ρL2 ⎦
1.1547 ⎡ σ g ( ρ L − ρG ) NWe ⎤ 4
vG ≥ ⎢ ⎥ Here, n’ is defined as bubble swarm index, and considered to
ρG ⎣ CD ⎦ be

If the condition is “TRUE”, flow is annular. n ' = 0.5

Mixture density and viscosity are defined as
Slug Flow – Churn Flow Transition

Taylor bubble rise velocity has been defined as

ρTP = ρ L H L + ρG (1 − H L )

and
g ( ρ L − ρG )
vTB = 0.35
ρL μTP = μ L λL + μG (1 − λL )

Drift-flux definition states that respectively, where no-slip holdup, λL, is defined as

vSG = α Co vM + α vTB vSL

λL =
vSL + vSG
Here, Tengesdal et al (1999) suggested Co equals to 1.2.
Using the drift-flux definition, the transition between the slug
flow and churn flow can be identified by the following criteria; For bubble flow, acceleration term is ignored.

ΔP
vSG =
α
1 − 1.2 α
(1.2 vSL + 0.35 g ( d c + dt ) ) ΔL acc
=0

Here, α is assumed to be equal to 0.78. If superficial gas Friction term is determined as

velocity is greater than the value described above, flow is churn.
2 f ρTP vM
2
ΔP
=
Total Pressure Gradient ΔL f dh
Once the flow pattern is determined, total pressure gradient where friction factor, f, can be obtained using Fanning
can be calculated. Total pressure gradient has three components; friction factor definition with Reynolds number definition of
i) elevation term, ii) friction term, and iii) acceleration term.
Thus, total pressure gradient can be defined as
ρTP vM d h
N ReTP =
ΔP ΔP ΔP ΔP μTP
= + +
ΔL ΔL el ΔL f ΔL acc
Here, mixture velocity, vM, is defined as

Total pressure gradient determination procedures vary for

each flow pattern. vM = vSL + vSG

Elevation term is equal to

Bubble Flow

ΔP
Considering the slip velocity between liquid and gas phase, = ρTP g
and combining this with Harmathy’s (1960) bubble rise velocity ΔL el
yields

4
Dispersed Bubble Flow
For dispersed bubble flow, no slippage between the liquid
and gas phase is considered. Therefore, slip velocity between
the phases is zero. This leads to determine mixture density and
viscosity by using no-slip holdup as
( vTB − vGLS )(1 − H LLS ) = ( vTB + vGTB )(1 − H LTB )
Here, liquid holdup, HLLS, in the slug is considered to be
between 0.8-0.85. Since the volumetric flow rate is constant at
any section within the slug, a mass balance for the liquid slug
region can be defined as

ρ DP = ρ L λL + ρG (1 − λL )
( vSG + vSL ) A = vLLS H LLS A + vGLS (1 − H LLS ) A
and
where,

μ DP = μ L λL + μG (1 − λL ) π
A=
4
(d c
2
− dt
2
)
respectively. Acceleration terms are also ignored for this
flow pattern, such that
Therefore, in-situ liquid velocity in the liquid slug zone is
determined as
ΔP
=0
ΔL acc ⎧ 1
⎫
⎪( v + v ) − 1.53 ⎡ ( ρ L − ρG ) g σ L ⎤ ⎪
4

⎪ SL SG ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
Friction term is calculated by vLLS =⎨ ⎣ ρL2 ⎦ ⎬
⎪ ⎪
ΔP
=
2 f ρ DP vM
2
(
⎪⎩ H LLS (1 − H LLS ) ) ⎭⎪
ΔL f dh
Assuming that the liquid slug is incompressible, volumetric
balance for the liquid phase in a slug unit is
Here, friction factor is determined using Fanning friction
factor definition with Reynolds number
LLS L
vSL = vLLS H LLS − vLTB H LTB LF
ρ DP vM d h LSU LSU
N ReTP =
μ DP
where slug unit length is defined as
and, elevation term is calculated as
LSU = LLF + LLS
ΔP
= ρ DP g Therefore,
ΔL el
LLS vSL + vLTB H LTB
=
LSU vLLS H LLS + vLTB H LTB
Slug Flow
and, for gas phase,
For this study, Catenao’s (1992) work is inherited for
determining total pressure gradient for slug flow. Translational
velocity for Taylor bubble is defined as LLS vSG + (1 − H LTB ) vGTB
=
LSU (1 − H LLS ) vGLS + (1 − H LTB ) vGTB
vTB = 1.2vM + 0.345 g ( d c + dt )
At the Taylor bubble, liquid film surrounding the Taylor
bubble can be considered as a free falling film. Therefore, the
Mass balance on the liquid phase while a Taylor bubble is
relation between the film thickness and the film velocity is
moving is expressed as
expressed as

( vTB − vLLS ) H LLS = ( vTB + vLTB ) H LTB

and, similarly for the gas phase;

5
 ⎛ 1− cM ⎞ LLS
⎜ ⎟
7) Calculate .
δ ⎝ cM ⎠
⎛ μL ⎞ LSU
vLTB = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 4ρL ⎠
1
8) Verify that the equality,
⎧ ⎫ cM1

⎪ ⎡ μL2 ⎤ ⎪ 3
( vTB − vLLS ) H LLS = ( vTB + vLTB ) H LTB , is satisfied. If
⎨cK ⎢ ⎥ ⎬
⎣ g ( ρ L − ρG ) ρ L ⎦ ⎪
the equality is satisfied, proceed with total pressure gradient
⎪ calculation. If the equality is not satisfied, go to step 4 (assume
⎩ ⎭
a new δ ), and continue this procedure until the equality
Here, coefficients cK and cM are expressed such that described in step 8 is satisfied.

Once the procedure described above is completed, total

⎧c = 0.9086 pressure gradient calculation is conducted. Friction term is
N ReLTB < 1000 ⇒ ⎨ K calculated as
⎩cM = 0.3333
ΔP 2 f vM ρ LS
2
⎛ LLS ⎞
and = ⎜ ⎟
ΔL f dh ⎝ LSU ⎠
⎧c = 0.0682
N ReLTB ≥ 1000 ⇒ ⎨ K Here, friction factor, f, is determined using Fanning friction
⎩cM = 0.6666 factor with the Reynolds number definition

where, ρ LS vM d h
N ReTP =
μTP
4 ρ L vLTBδ
N ReLTB =
μL where density and viscosity terms are determined using

For a fully developed Taylor bubble, when the liquid film ρ LS = ρ L H LLS + ρG (1 − H LLS )
reaches to a constant thickness, liquid holdup in the film zone,
HLTB, is determined as a function of film thickness as
and
4δ ( d c − δ )
H LTB = 2 2 μTP = μ L λL + μG (1 − λL )
d c − dt
respectively. Elevation term is determined by
Slug unit average liquid holdup, HLSU, is expressed as

ΔP ⎛L ⎞
⎛L ⎞ ⎛ LLS ⎞ = ρ LS g ⎜ LS ⎟
H LSU = ⎜ LS ⎟ H LLS + ⎜1 − ⎟ H LTB ΔL el ⎝ LSU ⎠
⎝ LSU ⎠ ⎝ LSU ⎠
and, acceleration term is calculated by
Procedure for calculation is given as follows:
1) Determine vTB . ΔP H
2) Determine H LLS . = ρ L LTB ( vLTB + vTB )( vLTB + vLLS )
ΔL acc LSU
3) Determine vLLS .
4) Assume δ .
5) Calculate H LTB based on assumed δ in step 4. Churn Flow
6) Consider cK = 0.9086 and cM = 0.3333 .
Although the proposed total pressure gradient calculation
Calculate vLTB . If N Re
LTB
< 1000 , then the calculation is methodologies for slug flow and churn flow are similar, the
calculated pressure gradient is usually less than measured
proper, and proceed with step 7. If N ReLTB ≥ 1000 , then use values. Thus, drift-flux models are preferred for estimating total
pressure gradient for churn flow.
cK = 0.0682 and cM = 0.6666 , and calculate vLTB .
Holdup is defined as

6
 vSG Velocity difference between the fluid and the particle inside
HL = 1− it is referred as slip velocity. As an approximation, slip velocity
1.15 vM + vS can be estimated as

1
where, slip velocity term between the phases is expressed as
⎡ d 3ρ ⎛ ρ ⎞ ⎤
2 3

1 vs = 0.12736 ⎢ g 2 c L
⎜
L
⎟ ⎥
⎛ ρ − ρG ⎞ 2 ⎢⎣ μ L ⎝ ρc − ρ L ⎠ ⎥
⎦
vS = 0.35 ⎜ g Dh L ⎟
⎝ ρL ⎠
Usually, inside a wellbore, maximum cuttings concentration
that is allowed is 4%, preferably less. If the cuttings
For churn flow, while using drift-flux model, acceleration concentration is greater than 4%, it becomes very difficult to
term is ignored. control the physical properties stable, bottomhole pressure
constant, etc. If hole cleaning is assumed to be generated by
liquid phase only, i.e., gas phase does not have any contribution
ΔP
=0 to cuttings transport, minimum required liquid phase velocity
ΔL acc for a proper hole cleaning as a function of rate of penetration
and cuttings concentration can be calculated by

( )
Friction term is expressed as
2
ROP Do
vSL = + vs
2 f ρ L vM H L
( )
2
ΔP CC Do − Di
2 2
=
ΔL f dh

where friction factor, f, is determined using Fanning friction

factor with Reynolds number definition
Model Solution Procedure
ρv d
N ReM = L M h
μL Algorithm for the proposed model solution methodology is
given in figure-2. After inputs are defined, based on the desired
cuttings transport conditions, liquid flow rate is determined.
Elevation term is determined by Then, considering that the formation pressure is equal to
bottomhole pressure, required gas flow rate is determined.
Then, flow pattern detection and related total pressure gradient
ΔP
= ρS g is calculated. It should be noted that, initially, frictional pressure
ΔL el losses are ignored, and an iterative procedure is applied until the
frictional pressure loss calculated in the previous step is almost
equal to the final calculated value. Once the convergence is
where established, total pressure gradient, required static backpressure,
and required liquid and gas flow rates are reported.
ρ S = ρ L H L + ρG (1 − H L )

Results & Discussions

Annular Flow
Since the hole cleaning is considered to be generated by the
liquid phase only, annular flow is no good for a proper hole
cleaning, because liquid phase is not occupying a significant
cross-section inside the annulus. Thus, in the scope of this
paper, there is no point to discuss the calculation methodology
of total pressure gradient for annular flow. If the flow is
estimated to be annular, it is suggested to use another
underbalanced drilling method, such as foam drilling.
Hole Cleaning
A sensitivity analysis is conducted to observe the effects of
major drilling parameters on liquid and gas flow rates and
applied static backpressure. The general physical conditions
considered for this purpose is defined as; hole size = 6 in, pipe
outer diameter = 4 in, hole depth = 5000 ft, formation pressure
= 1500 psi, surface temperature = 70 °F, temperature gradient =
1.5 °F/100 ft, applied dynamic backpressure = 50 psi, rate of
penetration = 60 ft/hr, maximum allowable cuttings
concentration = 0.5 %, liquid phase viscosity = 1.0 cp, liquid
phase density = 8.33 ppg, gas phase molecular weight = 29,
surface tension between phases = 4.5 dyne/cm, average cuttings
density = 2.6 sp.gr, average cuttings size = 0.15 in. During the
sensitivity analysis, all the parameters are kept constant except
the parameter under consideration in order to see the influence.
Results of this analysis are presented in figures 3 to 9.

7
 For the given conditions mentioned above, flow pattern F = force
inside the annulus is observed as “slug flow” almost in all cases. Cd = drag coefficient
Since one of the assumptions of the proposed model states that Cc = cuttings concentration
only contributor to the cuttings transport is the liquid phase HL = liquid holdup
only, liquid flow rate required is not changing for the given ROP = rate of penetration
conditions (calculated as 321 gpm) unless parameters having NRe = Reynolds number
direct influence on cuttings transport are analyzed, such as μ = viscosity
cuttings concentration, rate of penetration, liquid viscosity and ΔP/ΔL = pressure gradent
liquid density (figures 4 to 7). If the liquid flow rate required v = velocity
increases, in order to establish the same bottomhole pressure
(except figure-3, in which bottomhole pressure is varying),
Subscripts
required gas flow rate also increases.
L = liquid
The difference between the static backpressure and dynamic G = gas
backpressure is equal to the annular frictional pressure losses S = superficial
inside the wellbore. Applying different backpressures for c = casing
dynamic and static conditions yield a stable and constant t = tubing
bottomhole pressure for all times. This gives an advantage of s,o = slip
higher security and better control on formation fluid intrusion M = mixture
towards the wellbore. Increase in the dynamic backpressure D,C = particle
causes an increase in the compression of the gas phase inside TB = Taylor bubble
the wellbore, which leads to an increase in the gas flow rate TP = bubble
required (i.e., figure-8). DP = dispersed bubble
h = hydraulic
For the cases where liquid flow rate is constant, major LS = liquid slug
parameter influencing the gas flow rate is formation pressure, as LF = liquid film
seen from figure-3. As the formation pressure increases, SU = slug unit
required gas flow rate decreases. Bottomhole temperature has a SL = slug length
slight effect on required gas flow rate, as seen from figure-9.

Conclusion
This study aims to determine the required liquid and gas
flow rates for underbalanced drilling operations where aerated
muds are used. It is assumed that liquid phase is the major
contributor for cuttings transport. Therefore, required liquid
phase flow rate is determined using this criteria. Gas phase flow
rate is calculated by considering that bottomhole pressure
should be equal to formation pressure. Also, a constant dynamic
backpressure is applied, and when there is no circulation,
backpressure required to keep bottomhole pressure constant is
also determined. The model presented in this paper differs from
most of the other works published because flow rates are
determined not only based on formation pressures, but also
proper hole cleaning. Model can estimate the required flow
rates for liquid and gas phases as well as static backpressure
amount. It has been observed that, since the liquid flow rate is
only dependent on the proper hole cleaning, gas flow rate is
adjusted in order to achieve a bottomhole pressure equal to
formation pressure. Also, backpressure should not be kept
constant at the same value for static and dynamic conditions.
Otherwise, bottomhole pressure cannot be kept constant.
NOMENCLATURE
d = diameter
ρ = density
σ = surface tension
α = gas void fraction
λL = no-slip holdup
δ = film thickness
g = gravity
f = friction factor
REFERENCES
Barnea D., “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow Pattern
Transition for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations”,
Int’l Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol: 13 pp: 1 (1987)
Brodkey R.S., “The Phenomena of Fluid Motions”,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (1967)
Catenao E.F., “Upward Vertical Two-Phase Flow
Through an Annulus”, Ph.D. dissertation, The Univ.
of Tulsa, Tulsa-OK, (1985)
Duan M., Ahmed R.M., Miska S.Z, Takach N.E., Yu M.,
“Transport of Small Cuttings in Extended Reach
Drilling”, SPE 104192, SPE International Oil & Gas
Conference & Exhibition, Beijing, Çin, 5-7 Aralık
(2006)
Guo B., Hareland G., Rajtar J., “Computer Simulation
Predicts Unfavorable Mud Rate and Optimum Air
Injection Rate for Aerated Mud Drilling”, SPE 26892,
Presented at the 1993 Eastern Regional Conference
and Exhibition, Pittsburgh- Pennsylvania (November
2-4, 1993)
Harmathy T.Z., “Velocity of Large Dros and Bubbles in
Media of Infinite or Restricted Extend”, AIChe J. vol:
6, pp: 286 (1960)

8
Hasan A.R., Kabir C.S., ve Sayarpour M., “A Basic Appendices
Approach to Wellbore Two-Phase Flow Modeling”,
SPE 109868, SPE Annual Technical Meeting and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, ABD, 11-14 Kasım
(2007)

Hinze J.O., “Fundamentals of Hydrodynamic Mechanism

of Splitting in Dispersion Process”, AIChe J. vol: 1
pp: 289-295 (1955)

Krug, J.A., and Mitchell, B.J., “Charts Help Find Volume

Pressure Needed for Foam Drilling,” OGJ, pp.61-64,
(February 7, 1972)

Lage A.C.V.M., Time R.W., “An Experimental and

Theoretical Investigation of Upward Two-Phase Flow
in Annuli”, SPE Journal, pp: 325-335, Eylül (2002)

Lourenco A.M.F., Martins A.L., Andrade Jr. P.H.,

Nakagawa E.Y., “Investigating Solids-Carrying
Capacity for an Optimized Hydraulics Program in
Aerated Polymer-Based-Fluid Drilling”, IADC/SPE Figure-1 Flow patterns for upward vertical pipes
99113, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and (Brill & Mukherjee, 1999)
Exhibition, Miami, Florida, ABD, 21-23 Şubat (2006)

Mousavi H., Mostafavi V., Nazari T., Hareland G., ve

Shirkavand F., “Modeling of Three-Phase Flow in the
Annuli During UBD Operations”, SPE 112679, 2008
SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, ABD, 13-15 Şubat,
Start
(2008)
Phyd = Pbh-ΔPf-Pback
vSG QL,, QG
Okpobiri G.A., and Ikoku C.U., “Experimental
Geometry
Determination of Friction Factors for Mist and Foam Liquid & gas phase properties
Depth Flow Pattern
Drilling and Well Cleanout Operations”, Journal of Formation pressure
Temperature info
Determination
QL,, QG

Energy Resources Technology, Dec., Volume105, ΔP

ΔL T

pp.542-553 (1983) ΔPfi = 0 ΔP Pback

ΔL T

Tengesdal J.O., Kaya A.S., Sarica C., “Flow-Pattern

vSL using
Transition and Hydrodynamic Modeling of Churn hole cleaning info End

Flow”, SPE Journal, 4 (4), pp: 342- 348, Aralık ΔPf − ΔPf
i i +1
< err
NO

(1999) vSL, ρG, μG,

Pavr, Tavr

Figure-2 Flow chart for proposed model

9
 2500 0.4 2000 0.4

Total Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Gas Flow Rate (scfm), Static

Liquid Flow Rate (gpm), Gas

0.35

Total Pressure Gradient

Flow Rate (scfm), Static

2000
0.3 1500 0.375
Backressure (psi)

Backressure (psi)
0.25 Q L (gpm)
1500 Q g (scfm)

(psi/ft)
Q g (scfm)
0.2 P b (psi) 1000 0.35
P b (psi)
1000 0.15 total P (psi/ft)
total P (psi/ft)
0.1 500 0.325
500
0.05

0 0 0 0.3
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 6 7 8 9 10 11
Formation Pressure (psi) Liquid Density (ppg)

Figure-3 Effect of formation pressure Figure-7 Effect of liquid density

6000 1 1600 0.35

Liquid Flow Rate (gpm), Gas

Gas Flow Rate (scfm), Static

5000 1400 0.345
Total Pressure Gradient
Flow Rate (scfm), Static

Total Pressure Gradient

0.75
Backressure (psi)

1200 0.34

Backressure (psi)
4000 Q L (gpm)
1000 0.335
(psi/ft)

Q g (scfm) Q g (scfm)

(psi/ft)
3000 0.5 800 0.33 P b (psi)
P b (psi)
total P (psi/ft) 600 0.325 total P (psi/ft)
2000
0.25
400 0.32
1000
200 0.315
0 0 0 0.31
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 50 100 150 200
Allowable Cuttings Concentration (%) Dynamic Backpressure (psi)

Figure-4 Effect of cuttings concentration inside Figure-8 Effect of dynamic backpressure

wellbore

2500 1 1200 0.4

Total Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Liquid Flow Rate (gpm), Gas

Total Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Gas Flow Rate (scfm), Static
Flow Rate (scfm), Static

2000
0.75 1000
Backressure (psi)

0.375
Backressure (psi)

Q L (gpm)
1500
Q g (scfm) 800 Q g (scfm)
0.5
P b (psi) 0.35 P b (psi)
1000
total P (psi/ft) 600 total P (psi/ft)
0.25
500 0.325
400

0 0
200 0.3
0 30 60 90 120 150
100 125 150 175
Rate of Penetration (ft/hr)
Bottomhole Temperature (F)

Figure-5 Effect of rate of penetration Figure-9 Effect of bottomhole temperature

1200 0.4
Total Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Liquid Flow Rate (gpm), Gas
Flow Rate (scfm), Static

900 0.375
Backressure (psi)

Q L (gpm)
Q g (scfm)
600 0.35
P b (psi)
total P (psi/ft)
300 0.325

0 0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10
Liquid Viscosity (cp)

Figure-6 Effect of liquid viscosity

10