IADC/SPE 87183

The Effect of Hole Curvature on the Wellbore Pressure Loss Prediction for Highly
Tortuous Ultradeep Wells
G.Robello Samuel, Halliburton-Landmark Graphics

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 24 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Drilling operations in deep and ultra-deep water are increasing
around the world. The development of these substantial
prospects is very challenging and requires the integration of
knowledge with prudent designs at different stages of the well
development. However, the cost premium imposed by deep
and ultra deepwater wells are higher and many of the
discoveries are marginal in terms of the commercial viability.
With the increase of developing and operating costs, there is a
growing need to reduce the cost of drilling and other allied
operations. The hydraulic program for the deep wells
constitutes a significant portion of the well planning.
Challenges associated with extreme depth, pressures and
temperatures translate to additional problems to the well
design. As the wells are drilled deeper and deeper, accurate
prediction of the wellbore pressures are increasingly
important. Also, more wells are drilled in rotary steerable
mode. Alternating between the sliding and rotary modes
results in hole spiraling and wellbore oscillation becomes
more pronounced due to frequent slide drilling. The estimation
of pressures during drilling are indispensable for making
appropriate well completion decisions. The prediction of
wellbore pressures and downhole equivalent circulating
density are of critical importance in wells where the pressure
must be maintained within narrow limits of pore and
fracture pressures.
This paper presents a study on how to adapt to the new
wellbore hole spiraling effects encountered in ultra deep wells.
This paper examines some of these effects, while asserting
that it is necessary to integrate this new approach, so that more
accurate solutions can be predicted as a result. This new
hydraulic design encapsulating hole spiraling effects provides

a simple, practical way to view the severity of the

wellbore oscillation.
Introduction
Qualitative assessment and quantitative characterization of the
well pressures are critically important in many phases of the
well construction. They not only allow subsequent
adjustments to the wellplan when combined with payzone geo
steering tools, but also successful completion of extended
reach and complex wells. Increasingly more difficult wells are
being drilled with a narrow margin between pore and fracture
pressures. This requires an accurate estimation of wellbore
pressures. Operating outside the safe operating window even
for a short duration of time may lead to costly complications.
Field tests have shown that the API pipe flow equations
gravely underestimate the drillstring frictional pressure losses,
and largely overestimate the annular pressure losses for highly
deviated deep wells.
This paper describes a method to calculate the pressure
losses that better represent the actual curved wellbore. The
curvature of individual curves of the wellbore causes the flow
to swirl. Swirling flows are those where the velocity
component is dominant in the azimuthal direction and the
hydraulics with the flow is fundamentally different. Such
flows are complex and are necessary to underpin the effects of
the pressure drop calculations. Fluid flow effects in curved
pipe, curved annular configurations are of immense practical
importance in several engineering equipments such as heat
exchangers, reactors..etc. The curvature of individual curves
may increase the pressure drop incrementally in the drillstring
while in the drilling or production phase of the operations.
Problems mostly occur when the drillstring lies in strongly
curved wellpath. In the long transitional region that covers
most of the operational range in field applications, the
conventional pipe flow equations used for hydraulic
calculation fail as the secondary flow effects are pronounced
in the bends. Due to increased extended and steered wells, the
hydraulic calculations need correction to take care of the
curvature effects of the wellbore. Furthermore, this paper
addresses the adverse impact of the pressure loss calculations
in highly tortuous wells and presents an approach that
enhances the accuracy of the calculation.
Hole Spiraling and Wellbore Oscillation
The occurrence of borehole spiraling or oscillation of wellbore
path has been known for many years in the drilling industry.

IADC/SPE 87183

Characterization of this behavior and the effects are

increasingly discussed and analyzed with improved borehole
imaging techniques and logging tools. Increased evidence of
hole spiraling have been reported(1, 2). The hole spiraling or
threading will have deep impact on the well construction and
completion process. During the planning phase, the hole
spiraling or oscillation of the wellbore can effectively be
described by applying tortuosity to the wellbore with the
desired tortuosity factor. Tortuosity is one of the critical
factors to consider for complex directional well trajectories,
accurate build rates, precise steering in thin reservoirs and
extended reach wells. Presently, the industry uses different
generations of rotary steerable systems and adjustable
downhole tools to reduce wellbore tortuosity. When planning
a well, wellpath modeling commonly generates smooth
curves, whereas an actual well contains severe doglegs and
other irregularities. The difference between the planned
smooth well profile and the actual well drilled can have a
major impact on the torque and drag losses for the well.
Models apply different "rippling" or "roughness" techniques to
a planned wellpath to simulate the variations found in actual
wellpath surveys. This option renders planned (smooth) well
profiles in a form that more realistically predict loads. Note
that tortuosity is usually applied only when the surveys
represent an unrealistically smooth path.
The industry has no standard for quantifying tortuosity.
Tortuosity is usually expressed in degrees/100 ft, similar to the
expression of dogleg severity. The calculation of running
tortuosity is the station-to-station summation of the total
curvature normalized to a standard wellbore course length
between survey stations. In general, tortuosity is defined as the
ratio of the summation of the total curvature, including build
and walk, to the survey stations length. The rippling or
undulation can be applied based on the different methods that
modify the inclination and azimuth of the survey points.
Furthermore, "micro-tortuosity(3)" caused by hole spiraling
results in a spiraled hole axis instead of a straight line. This
can be planned during the planning phase by applying
tortuosity over and above the wellpath that has been already
tortured with the desired magnitude and amplitude or
superimposing a helix with desired pitch and magnitude.
Tortuosity Methods
There are different methods used to apply "roughness" to a
planned well path to simulate the variations found in actual
well path surveys. These options render planned (smooth) well
profiles in a form that gives rise to more realistic prediction
for the analysis. It is expressed as the difference between the
actual and planned curvatures divided by the respective
distance between the survey stations and can be written as
n

j=1

i =1

DL a DL p
T=

MD j MD i

and is expressed in deg/100 ft.

Rippling or undulation is applied based on the following

three methods.
Sine Wave method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the
survey point based on the concept of a sine wave shaped ripple

running along the wellbore using the magnitude (amplitude)

and period (wave length) specified. The change in angle is
given by
D

= sin 2 M
P

The magnitude M is the maximum variation of angle that will

be applied to the inclination and azimuth of the native
(untortured) wellpath. The determination of magnitudes
should be based on the evaluation of historical data from
offset or similar wells. The values of magnitude can vary
depending on many factors including hole type (cased or open
hole), hole size, drilling performance, hole curvature, and
other parameters. Further, the inclination angle is modified so
that it does not become less than zero, since negative
inclination angles are not allowed. The new angle and azimuth
are given as follows
n = +
n = + + xvc
Also while applying tortuosity, ensure that the measured depth
of the survey point is not an exact integer multiple of the
MD
2 = 0
period as = sin
P

In this situation, tortuosity will not be applied to the

undithered data set and caution should be exercised to avoid
this situation.
Helical method modifies the inclination and azimuth of the
survey points by superimposing a helix along the wellbore
path using the magnitude (radius of the cylinder in the
parametric equation) and period (pitch) specified. This method
uses the circular helix defined as:
f (u ) = a cos(u ) + a sin(u ) + bu
The generalized parametric set of equations for helix used to
superimpose the wellbore path is given by
x (u ) = M cos(u )
y(u ) = M sin(u )
P
z(u ) =
u
2
Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth method applies a
random variation to the survey inclination and azimuth within
the magnitudes specified. Random numbers used may be
between -1.0 to +1.0. In this method the azimuth variation is
inversely proportional to inclination resulting in higher
inclination with lower azimuth variation and lower inclination
with higher azimuth variation. The change in angle, new angle
and new azimuth are given by:
=
where
MD
=
M
P
n = +

n = +
+ cvc
2 sin n
Random Inclination and Azimuth method is similar to the
Random Inclination Dependent Azimuth Variation method as
described as above, except that the azimuth variation is

IADC/SPE 87183

independent of inclination. The new angle and azimuth are

given as follows
n = +

n = +
+ cvc
2 sin n
In order to observe how the well trajectory has changed,
absolute and relative tortuosities are also calculated to
measure the degree of tortuosity applied to the wellpath.
Absolute tortuosity of the survey before or after applying
tortuosity is the mid-sum angle divided by the mid-measured
depth between two survey stations. Relative tortuosity
characterizes the undulation of the survey relative to the
absolute tortuosity. Relative tortuosity is zero unless tortuosity
has been applied. Also, the absolute tortuosity of the original
survey is the difference between the absolute tortuosity of the
survey with tortuosity and the relative tortuosity.
Secondary Flow Effects
Due to the spiraled nature of the wellbore, there will be a
variation of the centrifugal force due to the swirling flow
across the drillstring inside and the annulus. This results in a
pressure gradient maximum at the outer wall of the drilling
and wellbore, and minimum at the inner wall of the drillstring
and the outer wall of the drillstring. Swirling flows are those
where the velocity component is dominant in the azimuthal
direction and the hydraulics with the flow is fundamentally
different. The curvature of individual curves increases the
pressure drop incrementally as the spiraled hole increases in
length. Problems are predominant when the drillstring lies in
strongly curved wellpath. This causes an increase in the
frictional energy loss near the drillstring walls and the pressure
drop will be greater than the corresponding flow in the straight
pipe. The secondary flow due to coriolis force takes place
when viscous fluid flows through a straight pipe rotating about
an axis perpendicular to the pipe axis. The effects of
secondary flow on different newtoninan and non-newtoninan
fluids have been investigated and reported by researchers(4,5,6)
in the past. The concept of secondary flow has been studied
extensively in pipeline and piping systems. There have been
many experimental and numerical studies with curved toroidal
pipes. Furthermore, the effects of secondary flow in cured
pipes in the form of helical and spiral coiled attracted many
investigators. Mishra and Gupta(6) investigated the effects of
curvature and pitch on the pressure drop in both laminar and
turbulent flow regimes. Coiled pitch and radius of curvature of
the pipe effects were experimentally investigated and
presented by Gupta(6). The pioneering work was published by
Dean(7,8) on the theoretical aspects of the toroidal flow and
showed the effects of pressure gradient on curvature of the
pipe. He also presented a fundamental relation between the
flow resistance and curvature of the pipe by way of defining a
parameter called Dean Number.
The Dean number and Reynolds number are related(7)
as follows:
r
N De = N Re
R

All the above studies concluded that there exist strong effects
on pressure loss due to curvature. Most of the studies
neglected the effect of torsion. Germano, Yamamoto studied
the effect of curvature as well as torsion effects of the pipe.
The effects of curvature on the pressure loss in coiled tubing
have been recently reviewed and extensively studied again by
Sha and Zhou(11,12) with Newtonian and non Newtonian fluids
for coiled tubings on the reels. Anwar and So(13,14) analyzed
the effect of bend curvature on secondary motion in curved
pipe flows. They found that the secondary flow in the curved
pipe is reorganized by fluid swirl effects and also they studied
the flow recovery from fluid swirl. They conducted theoretical
and experimental studies with non-Newtonian fluids. Taking
into account of the non-newtoninan fluid behavior McCann
and Islas(15) studied and generalized the Srinivasan and
Nandapuraker(16) correlation for turbulent flow. They
compared the generalized correlation for power law fluid with
flow loop full-scale tests. The results were conducted with six
different fluids in three different diameter tubings. The friction
factor given by them is as follows
0.1

1.06a r

N 0Re.8b R
where
log 10 (n ) + 3.93
a=
50
1.75 log10 (n )
b=
7
The above friction factor is used in the present study.
f=

Curved Flow Models

The crucial factor in the secondary flow model is the curvature
factor besides the Deans number which is defined based on the
flow resistance and curvature effects. There are other
downhole factors that affect the pressure loss inside the
annulus. The eccentricity of the pipe relative to the wellbore is
a significant factor to the pressure loss calculation. The pipe
position inside the wellbore and pipe rotation further
contributes the secondary flow effects. The simplified
estimation of the annular pressure losses becomes more
critical when the operation is carried out within close window
of pore and fracture pressures. During this time controlling
wellbore pressures within the narrow pressure margins makes
it more critical.
The annular pressure losses with secondary flow effects
have been studied extensively in the medical sciences.
Catheters consisting of long flexible cylindrical tube with
various tools are inserted into the artery for intravascular
diagnosis. Studies of the pressure gradient and flow velocity
are very much essential for the safe operation. The insertion of
the catheter forms an annular flow domain between the
catheter wall and the arterial wall. As the arterial walls are
curved in nature secondary flow is introduced between the
walls due to the curvature. Extensive theoretical and
experimental studies have been reported with newtonian and
non-newtoninan fluids. A detailed mathematical model was
presented by MacDonald(17) for pressure gradient estimates for
catheters which are positioned eccentrically as wells as
concentrically inside the artery. Back(18) using analytical

approach substantiated with experimental results showed that

the mean flow resistance increases concentric and eccentric
annuli. Numerical simulations and experimental analysis were
conducted by several other researchers(19,20,21,22) for the curved
arteries and concluded the increase the increase of pressure
losses. Dash and Jeyaraman(23) concluded that the pressure
drop may increase approximately by factor ranging from 1.5
to 5 depending on the eccentricity and curvature. There have
been numerous other studies also on fully developed flows in
curved tubes which were reviewed extensively by other
researchers (24, 25). Even though there are no published explicit
friction factor equations for non-newtoninan fluids Jeyaraman
and Dash(26) study concluded that the friction factor in a
curved tube is higher than the corresponding value in a curved
annulus. So for the present study the same friction factor for
the pipe is used as a first approximation.
Calibration of Tortuosity Factors
A simple methodology(27) can be used to calibrate tortuosity
factors for the hydraulics calculations. The methodology uses
actual survey data and known surface hook loads for different
operating conditions such as tripping in, tripping out, and
rotating off bottom to arrive at appropriate friction factor
values that can further be used in torque and drag calculations.
Once the friction factors are determined for both cased hole
and open hole, appropriate tortuosity values such as period
(wave length) and magnitude (amplitude) can be determined
by comparing the predicted results with the drillers data.
However, the values obtained may be specific to the wells as
the friction factor obtained is based on hole diameter, hole
conditions, lithology, and drilling fluid type. The following
simple procedure is a guideline to estimating the tortuosity
factors for a particular hole size:
1. Calibrate the friction factor for casing with the actual
survey data and record hook loads.
2. Calibrate the friction factors for open hole and cased
hole based on actual survey data and record drilling
loads.
3. Determine the appropriate tortuosity factor using the
calibrated friction factors, actual survey data, and the
original planned wellpath.
Illustration
The tortuosity effects are illustrated with the following
synthetically generated data which demonstrates the method
and establishes the objectives of analysis. A deviated well is
drilled in an offshore reservoir of water depth 2,500 ft as
shown in Fig 1. Additional details of the well profile and well
data involved in the calculations are given below.
13 5/8 Casing Depth
= 10,300 ft
Open hole Depth
= 25,315 ft
Bit diameter
= 10 5/8 in
BHA Length
= 580 ft
Mud weight 14.3 ppg with Pv - 30 cp and YP - 23
lb/100 ft2
Base Type Fluid: Oil
Other details of the wellbore are shown in the schematic as
shown in Fig.1

IADC/SPE 87183

Well Schematic
0 ft

RKB
Mean Sea Level

2500 ft

Mud Line
3000 ft
4000 ft TOC
5000 ft

36" Structural Drive Pipe

20" Conductor Casing

4900 ft TOC
7000 ft
KOP 7100 ft
6000 ft TOC

17800 ft

16" Surface Casing

11 3/4" Intermediate Casing

9922 ft TVD
10 5/8" Open Hole

25000 ft 11200 ft TVD

Figure 1 Well Schematic

The following additional parameters are used for the
calculations.
Motor details:
Overall length
= 30 ft
Maximum Horse power
= 40 hp
Pressure loss @ 800 gpm
= 145 psi
Pressure loss @ 900 gpm
= 181 psi
Pressure loss @ 1100 gpm
= 275 psi
Position of the motor from bit
= 20 ft
Tortuosity:
Model
= Helical
Period
= between 20 ft and 150 ft
Magnitude
= between 0.1 and 1
Interpolation interval
= between 20 ft and 150 ft
Stiff string model is used to find out the position of the pipe in
the wellbore for various conditions of the wellpaths.
Figure 2 shows the difference in pressure for various length of
the well on which the tortuosity was applied. The period and
flowrate used for the lengths between 0 ft to 6000 ft are 20 ft
and 1000 gpm respectively. Further, in a similar fashion,
calculations can be repeated for different periods. It can be
seen that as the distance increases, the difference between the
pressures with the tortuosity and untortured wells also
increases. At lower flowrates the increase in pressure loss is
insignificant even for loner tortured wellbore lengths. It is
found that the increases in curvature caused the increase in the
frictional pressure which depends on the flowrate.

IADC/SPE 87183

appreciable at lower period at higher flowrates. For larger

periods, the cross sectional plane becomes parallel to the walls
of the annulus indicating that the effect of curvature become
insignificant as the value of period increases.

300

250

Amplitude = 0.75

Amplitude = 1.0

18200

200

150
Amplitude =0.25

Pressu re (p si)

Period= 150 ft

Amplitude = 0.5

16200
Period = 100 ft
14200

Period = 80 ft

Period = 50 ft

100
Amplitude = 0.1

50

24000

23000

22000

21000

20000

System Pressure Loss(psi)

Period = 35 ft
12200
Period= 20 ft
10200

8200

6200

0
18000

19000

4200

Measured Depth (ft)

2200

Figure 2 Pressure Difference for various wellbore

lengths: Applied Period 20 ft

200
300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Flowrate(gpm)

Length = 6000 ft
16000

Length = 5000 ft

Length = 4000 ft

14000

Length = 3000 ft

Figure 4 Total System Pressure loss vs. Flowrates

for various tortuosity period: Applied wellbore
length 4000 ft
17100

Length = 1000 ft

17080

10000

8000

17060
S y s te m P re s s u re L o s s (p s i)

T o ta l S y s te m P re s s u re lo s s (p s i)

Length = 2000 ft
12000

6000

4000

2000

0
100

17040

17020
Magnitude = 1
17000

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Magnitude = 0.50

Flowrate(gpm)

16980

Figure 3 Total System Pressure loss vs. Flowrates

for various wellbore length: Applied Period 20 ft

Magnitude = 0.25

16960
20

Figure 3 shows the total system pressure loss for various

flowrates. Again the wellbore length on which tortuosity
applied was varied from 0 ft to 6000 ft. It can be seen that the
effect of tortuosity is less pronounced at lower flowrates even
if the tortured wellpath is longer. The period used for the
lengths between 0 ft to 6000ft is 20 ft. It can also be seen that
the pressure difference is appreciable at higher
wellbore lengths.
Figure 4 shows the total system pressure loss for various
flowrates with the wellbore length on which tortuosity applied
was kept constant at 4000 ft. The tortuosity value, period
(wave length) used were 20ft, 25ft, 35ft, 50 ft, 80ft, 100ft and
150ft. The magnitude was kept constant at 1 throughout the
analysis. It can be seen that the effect of period is less
pronounced at lower flowrates even when the period is
smaller. It can also be seen that the pressure difference is

40

60

80

100

120

140

Period(ft)

Figure 5 Total System Pressure loss vs. Period

Length for various tortuosity magnitudes: Applied
wellbore length 4000 ft
Figure 5 shows the total system pressure loss for various
period lengths with the wellbore length on which tortuosity
applied kept constant at 4000 ft. This includes the tortuosity
magnitude values 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0. The flowrate was kept
constant at 1000 gpm throughout the analysis. It can be seen
that at lower period the effect is more pronounced. It can also
be seen that the pressure difference is appreciable at lower
magnitude for the same flowrate. In these cases, the inertial
effects are not significant as the curves tend to
become straight.

IADC/SPE 87183

Figure 6 shows the total system pressure loss for various

period lengths with the wellbore length on which tortuosity
applied kept constant at 4000 ft. The tortuosity values,
magnitudes used were 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0. The flowrate was
kept constant at 900 gpm throughout the analysis. A similar
effect is seen here also as compared to 1000gpm but with
lower pressure losses.

14400

S y s te m P re s s u re L o s s (p s i)

14380

14360

provides a relative comparison of various designs by way

of comparing with the untortured wells.
Implementation of this methodology can be achieved
efficiently in the wells where hole spiraling is a problem.
The results provide insight into the complex wellpaths
caused by downhole steering tools.
The effects are less pronounced and may not be
significant at lower flowrates, lower magnitudes of the
shape, higher periods.
The effects will have significant effect at higher flowrates
with larger wellbore torture lengths.
Experimental work and flow models are needed for
curved annulus flow.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to
Landmark Graphics Corporation for the opportunity to present
this paper.

14340

Magnitude =1.0

14320

Magnitude = 0.50
14300
Magnitude =0.25

14280
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Period (ft)

Figure 6 Total System Pressure loss vs. Period

Length for various tortuosity magnitudes: Applied
wellbore length 4000 ft
With the forgone calculations it can be clearly seen that the
intervening variables such as tortuosity period, amplitude,
tortured wellbore length, and flowrates play an important role.
So an operating window of these variables needs to be
established and selected to estimate the total effect of the
tortuosity on the wellbore hydraulics. In addition, it is evident
that the effects are negligible at lower flowrates, smaller
tortured wellbore length, larger period and lower magnitudes.
Non-inclusion of tortuosity effects on the hydraulics analysis
may result in the underpredcition of standpipe pressures.
Concluding Remarks
The present work has produced results of important value
despite the fact that it has not been validated with the actual
data. However, the study lays some groundwork to validate
with the available data. The proposed framework generally
describes wells that are very deep with spiraled wellpath.
These estimates can be used to correct the error involved in
measured pressure gradients. Based on the study and analysis,
the following inferences are made. Rotational effects of the
pipe in addition to the eccentricity, curvature and torsional
effects will cause centrifugal and coriolis forces in addition to
the usual inertia and viscous forces. Overlaying with the
straight flow may also cause significant heat transfer.
The severity of the hydraulic design depends on the
tortuosity and spiraling of the wellpath. The calculation

Nomenclature
f
= friction factor,
r
= radius of the pipe, ft
D
= Measured depth, ft
P
= period,
M = magnitude,
n
= power-law exponent
NDe = Dean number,
NRe = Reynolds number,
R
= radius of curvature of pipe, ft
u
= angular parameter
xvc = cross vertical correction
= random number
SI Metric Conversion Factors
E +00 = m
ft 0.3048
inch 25.4
E -03= m
in3/min 1.6387
E -05 = m3/min
E +00 = liter
Gal (US) 3.785
psi 6.8948
E -03 = MPa
References
1. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, Darren Stuart:
Quantifying Tortuosities by Friction Factors in Torque
and Drag Model SPE 77617 presented at The SPE
Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September-2 October 2002.
2. Paul Pastusek and Van Brackin,.: A Model for Borehole
Oscillations SPE 77617 presented at The SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., pp. 5-8
October 2003.
3. Tom Gaynor, Doug Hamer, David Chen, Darren Stuart,
Blaine Comeaux.: Tortuosity versus Micro-Tortuosity Why Little Things Mean a Lot SPE 67818 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
27 February-1 March 2001.
4. Yamamoto K. A. Aribowo, Y. Hayamizu, T. Hirose,
Kawahara, K., Visualization of the flow in a helical
pipe Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol. 30 (4) (2002) pp.
251-267 The Japan Society of Fluid Mechanics and

IADC/SPE 87183

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Elsevier Science. Discusses the secondary flow effects

with high torsion
P.Mishra and S.N Gupta: Momentum Transfer in Curved
Pipes- Newtonian Fluids Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev. pp 130-37 Vol 18 1979.
P.Mishra and S.N Gupta: Momentum Transfer in Curved
Pipes- Newtonian Fluids Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev. pp 138-42 Vol 18 1979.
Dean W.R: Note on the Motion of Fluid in a Cured Pipe
Philos. Magazine, PP 208-23, Volume 20, July 1927.
Dean W.R: The Streamline Motion of Fluid in a Curved
Pipe Philos. Magazine, PP 673-93, Volume 30,
April 1928.
Germano, M: On the Effect of Torsion on a Helical
Pipe Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Pp. 1-8, Volume
125, 1982.
Germano, M: The Dean Equations Extended to a Helical
Pipe Flow Journal of Fluid Mechanics. Pp. 289-305
Volume 203, 1989.
Shah, S.N., Zhou, Y., An Experimental Study of Drag
Reduction of Polymer Solutions in Coiled Tubing SPE
68419, SPE/ICOTA, Houston, TX 7-8 March 2001.
Zhou, Y., Shah, S.N., Non-Newtoninan Fluid Flow in
Coiled Tubing: Theoretical Analysis and Experimental
Verification SPE 77708, SPE, Annual Technical
Conference, San Antonio, TX 29 Sep.-2 Oct. 2002.
Anwar, M., So, R.M.C., Swirling Turbulent Flow
Through a Curved Pipe. Part I: Effect of Swirl and Bend
Curvature Experiment in Fluids, Volume 14, pp. 85-96
So, R.M.C., Anwar, M., Swirling Turbulent Flow
Through a Cured Pipe. Part II: Recovery from Swirl and
Bend Curvature Effect of Swirl and Bend Curvature
Experiment in Fluids, Volume 14, pp. 169-177.
McCann, P.C., Islas, C.G., Frictional Pressure Loss
during Turbulent Flow in Coiled Tubing SPE 36345,
presented at SPE/ICOTA North American Coiled Tubing
Roundtable held in Montgomery, Texas 26-28 Feb. 1996.
Srinivasan, P.S., Nandapurkar, S.S., Holland, F.A.,
Friction Factors for Coils, Trans. Instn. Chem. Engr.,
pp. T156-T161, Vol. 48, 1970.
MacDonald, D.A., Pulsatile Flow in a Catheterized
artery Journal of Biomechanics, 19, 1986, pp. 239-249.
Back, L.H., Estimated mean Flow Resistance increase
during Coronary Artery Catheterization Journal of
Biomechanics, 27 1994, pp. 169-175
Jeyaraman, G., Tiwari, K., Flow in a Catheterized
Curved Artery Med. & Biol. Engng. & Compt 33, 1995
pp 1-6.
Snyder, W.T., Goldstein, G.A., An Analysis of Fully
Developed Laminar flow in An Eccentric Annulus,
A.I.Ch.E.J., Vol. 11, 1965, pp. 462-467.
Sarkar, A., Jayaraman, G., Correction to flow ratePressure drop Relation in Coronary Catheterized Artery
A Theoretical Model. Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 29,
1996, 917-930.
Chang, L.J Tarbel, J.M., A Numerical Study of Flow in
Curved Tubes Simulating Coronary Arteries Journal of
Biomechanics, Vol. 21, 1988, pp.927-937.
Dash, R.K., Jayaraman, G., Mehta, K.N., Flow in a
Catheterized Curved Artery with Stenosis, Journal of

Biomechanics, Vol. 32, 1999 pp. 49-61.

24. Pedley, T.J., The Fluid Mechanics of Large Blood
Vessels London: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
25. Berger, S.A., Talbot, L., Yao, L.S., Motion of Fluid in
Curved Pipes, Ann.Rev.Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 15, 1983,
pp. 461-512.
26. Jeyaraman G., Dash, R.K., Numerical Study of Flow in
a Constricted Curved Annulus Journal of Engineering
Mathematics, Vol. 40, pp. 355-376, 2001.
27. Yuejin Luo, Kaiwan Bharucha, Robello Samuel, Faris
Bajwa: Simple practical approach provides a technique
for calibrating tortuosity factors Oil & Gas Journal
15, 2003.