See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250090083

An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of Drilled Particles

Article  in  Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal · February 1972

DOI: 10.2118/3064-PA

CITATIONS READS

19 47

1 author:

Udo Zeidler
Praktikum Solutions Inc.
2 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Udo Zeidler on 15 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of
Drilled Particles

H. UDO ZEIDLER RICE U.

STUDENT MEMBER AIME HOUSTON, TEX.

ABSTRACT THE EXPERIMENT

An experimental apparatus was developed to
determine the settling velocity of drilled particles
in a Newtonian fluid and also to study the transport
of drilled particles in an annulus using both water
and drilling mud.
Correlations were developed {or the settling
velocity o{ the drilled particles and for the recovery
fraction of the drilled particles subjected to turbulent
{low o{ water in an annulus. . The introduction of
pipe rotation and drilling muds produces changes
in the recovery fractions compared to the recovery
fractions observed in the case o{ water where no
pipe rotation is performed. No correlations were
developed, and the data is treated only qualitatively
in these cases.
LABORATORY FACILITIES
The laboratory data were taken from two different
apparatus .. For obtaining the settling velocities
of the drilled particles, a 15-ft long, 3-in. ID glass
tube was used. Along its length, four measuring
stations were marked; the times for a particle to
reach the respective stations were measured with
electric timers accurate to within 5/100 second,
(Fig. 1).
The data for the carrying capacity study was taken
from a wellbore annulus 65 ft long and consisting of
of 8-5/8 in. OD (8-1/8 in. ID) casing and 4~ in. OD

INTRODUCTION STATION SO

T
(AT EYE lEVEL)
The ability of a drilling mud to remove drilled
particles (cuttings) from a wellbore annulus has
been discussed by various authors, Williams and
Bruce,l Pigott 2 and Hall, Thompson and Nuss. 3
The extension of this work to predict the net upward
velocities of irregular shaped particles from
;.,
various settling velocity equations has yielded
on

~
inconclusive results with large differences between
expected and observed values. Some explanation STATION 52
for these differences has been given, but further
attempts to predict rise times under actual or ;.,

simulated conditions have not been made.

By simulating a wellbore annulus in the
laboratoty, I have attempted to extend the present
knowledge and present empirical relationships,
when possible, to predict the recovery fractions
for drilled particles in a wellbore simulated
annulus.

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers

office Aug. 4, 1970. Revised manuscript received June 11, 1971.
Paper (SPE 3064) was prepared for presentation at the SPE
45th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 4-7,1970.
@ Copyright 1972 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and PetrOleum Engineers, Inc.
lReferences given at end of paper.
This paper will be presented in Transactions volume 253, FIG. 1 - APPARATUS FOR SETTLING VELOCITY
which will cover 1972. EXPERIMENTS.
FEBRlJARY, 1972 89
drill pipe (Fig. 2). There was one "bottleneck" tool
joint connection in the effective annular length. The
tool joint connection was 16 in. long and 5 in. OD.
The drill pipe was set in a bearing at the base, and
there was a drill pipe stabilizer inserted at the
midpoint tool joint connection to facilitate drill pipe
rotation with a minimal amount of drill pipe whipping.
Two 2-in. lines were run down the outside of the
annulus, one to pump the sample to be tested to the
screen at the base of the annulus and the other to
pump the circulating fluid. In this manner, the longest
possible effective annular length could be attained.
Two vibrating screens were used to separate the
drilled panicles from the circulating fluid during any
one test by switching the flow from one screen to the
other. The circulating fluid was pumped by two
parallel, triplex plunger pumps (multiple geared,
Oilwell 48P HD) to provide the required flow rates.
A bypass valve (air pressure regulated) provided the
mechanism for obtaining more exact flow rate
adjustments. Flow rates were measured with a
Foxboro magnetic flowmeter.
THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Settling Velocity Measurements
Particles of various screen sizes were marked
and dropped down the glass tube. These panicles
were obtained from the full-scale laboratory drilling
of large Carthage marble samples. The fluid
viscosity was altered with varying amounts of
glycerin solution. In this way, fluid viscosities over
the range 0.96 cp (water at 72°F) to 114 cp were
t. • __ -.1
oDtalnea.
The 15-ft fluid column consisted of four equidistant
(3 ft each) measuring stations with mirrors at each
station. A 2-ft, front-running length was allowed for
HUID SUPPLY -c:.:::;-;::=±=~~ SAMPLE INJECTOR
LINE
TO SHAKER SCREENS
SCREE
FIG. 2 - SCHEMATIC OF ANNULAR SECTION.
the acceleration of the particles to a "steady state".
A master switch started all four clocks
simultaneously when the particle passed the first
station. Then, as the particle passed each successive
station, the corresponding timer was switched off.
The times taken for the particles to pass each
station, measured from the zero mark, S-O, were
recorded. This procedure was repeated using various
fluid viscosities and the same marked sample
particles. Five particle sizes of 25 particles each
were used. Of the five panicle sizes, ASTM Nos.
~, 4, 6, 8, and 10; the Nos. 8 and 10 sizes were run
in water only. For all the particles the ratio of the
panicle to tube diameter was small, and consequently
the effect of this ratio on the settling velocity was
negligibl e.
Removal Rate Measurements
Particles were screened according to ASTM
standard screen sizes. For most instances, samples
consisted of Nos. ~-8 or ~-10 sizes. After weighing
and screening, the particles were uniformly mixed
into either 2 or 4 kg samples of various panicle
size gradations. Then a sample was pumped to the
screen at the base of the annulus via the sample
inj ector line. After the particles were pumped down,
the flow was switched to the other 2-in. line supplying
the annulus with fluid below the screen and
straightening vanes. The fluid-particle mixture was
brought to the surface into a short trough leading to
the two vibrating screens. There were three main
variables of interest - (1) the effect of flow rate,
(2) the effect of fluid type and viscosity, and (3) the
effect of rotating the inner pipe. For anyone test,
flow rates ranged from 50 to 400 gal/min, which
corresponds to a variation in mean annular velocities
of 0.447 to 3.57 ft/sec. To determine the effect of
fluid type and viscosity, water and a number of
different types of drilling fluids (polymer solutions,
bentonite slurries, and water-in-oil emulsions) were
used. Samples of each drilling mud used were taken
and passed through a capillary viscometer to obtain
the necessary shear stress-shear rate relationship
required to· characterize each fluid. The effect of
rotating the inner pipe was determined by rotating
the inner pipe at various rpm levels (50 to 200 rpm).
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
AND OBSERVATIONS
PARTICLE SETTLING VELOCITY
To determine the settling velociry in terms of the
measurable propenies of the particles and the
system, the conventional drag coefficient-Reynolds
number piot can lead to a convenient method for
determining the required relationship. Fig. 3 shows
results from the dropping tests.
In Fig. 3 the drag coefficient is defined according
to
(1)
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
Also , __J!1~ n n
"_2-"
N RE,n,I(J=(2Rtv (9)
NRE,p = v,oe9,P-1 • (2) 2n-:J(1_~2+n 1+") p
)I.
np-~nC1_"f2n+l)Jn ' • • • • (0)
3" Vol I'"
deq =V6 i
• 0)
t
The function is shown in Fig. 6. 4
Determining the settling velocity from a CD vs NRe For turbulent flow in an annulus, the wall shear
plot is a tedious trial-and-error procedure. One Can may be expressed by 5.6
generalize that over a sufficiently large Reynolds
number range, a plot of NRe.f! vs CD x NRe ,t>2 will 'l'o=Q.&rnPI v2~2,t . . . . .. " . (11)
yield a straight line on loganthmic paper as' shown NRE(n,/(,'o.
in Fig. 4. In equation form, over the given range,
we have
Knowing the nature of the flow, the appropriate
shear stress may be obtained. From this the effective
viscosity is determined according to the relations of
NRE,p = consUCo N;E,p)m. • • • • • • •• (4)
Eqs. 6 and 7.
Using the definitions Eqs. 1, 2 and 3,
CUTTING TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
v, = const.(49c):P,::..1,P$..::,D,~~, • • •• (5)
3 jL2m-l
Formulation 01 the Recovery Fraction Equation
Consider a given sample of drilled cuttings of
which is seen to reduce to the case of spheres at approximately the same density and varying particle
low Reynolds numbers.
sizes at the base of an annulus of length, L, which
is subjected to a steady shear flow at some initial
ANNULAR SHEAR RATES OF NON-NEWTONIAN
FLUIDS IN LAMINAR AND TURBULENT FLOWS
time, to' and observe the nature of the removal of
these cuttings after they have travelled over the
The viscosity corresponding to the wall shear length of the annulus.
stress and shear rate can be used to determine a As might be suspected, there would be an initial
relative effective viscosiry. This is a much less waiting time, ti' before any particles appeared at
complex method than determining annular velocity the surface. After this initial time, one might observe
distributions. The fluid model that best described over given time intervals, !1t, that the amounts of
the character of the fluids in question was the power the samples removed during each interval varied
law model. Computer analysis showed that the power until finally the cuttings ceased coming to the
law model yielded the best fit to the drilling mud surface. Plotting the cumulative recovery fraction
data. Three other models, including the Bingham of the bulk sample, Ie.' a curve similar to the one
I
plastic model and combinations of the power law shown in Fig. 7 may be developed. By varying the
and Bingham plastic models were used also. fluid properties and introducing pipe rotation, one
(6)
would expect that similar curves would be generated;
the point ti mayor may not coincide with the minimum
(7) transport time,
For laminar flow in an annulus, the wall shear
stress may be expressed as 4 (tmin'gb, = -:1-.
v-v,
. . . . . . . . . . . (2)

To = ~PI v 2/2gc (8) A comparison of this expected curve to the actual

NRE(n,lt) laboratory data curves yielded one major difference
where - in almost every instance for a gIven sample run
(including those with pipe rotation and the various

10
~ 011.
0',
0'.

~~"O
~~~ohsz. 0 -_ ..

,,' ,,' 00'

FIG. 3 -PARTICLE DRAG COEFFICIENT-REYNOLDS FIG. 4 - DETERMINATION OF SLOPES AND CON-

NUMBER PLOT STANTS FOR SETTLING VELOCITY EQUATION.

FEBRUARY, 1972
41
drilling muds) the maximum cumulative fraction (,--mIn
.) apI'" and t V'il
Y2,
1" are determined according to

recovered for anyone particular particle size, their respective particle sizes. In so doing, the
Ic , was less than one. This observation supports subscript, i, may be del~ted. The development of
these variables in terms of particular particle-size
findings of Williams an d Bruce; l
themax,l ' 1
partlc es appear
parameters is treated in Ref. 7.
to adhere to the annular walls. Also the time required
for the particles to first appear at the surface,
Pipe Rotation and Drilling Muds
. )ap' was much long er than the time determined
( t min
from Eq. 12, especially at low flow rates. As a Data obtained when pipe rotation and/or drilling
further complication, significant differences were muds were introduced were very erratic. Some
observed in experiments which, at the time they theoretical consideration to the mechanisms involved
were run, seemed identical. A comparison of all tests in these cases is given further in the discussion.
revealed that the initial sample weights of the
individual particle sizes differed, although the bulk RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
sample may have been the same; in view of this,
one should also include some concentration effect. Settling Velocity Tests
A vari arion of ei the r flow rate, fluid type, or rotation The following relations were obtained from Figs.
of the inner pipe produced differences in the degree 3 and 4 to determine the settling velocity of the
to which Ic and (tmin)ap i were altered. drilled particles in a Newtonian fluid:
max i '
Thus, a general expression can be formulated for
the cumulative recovery fraction of the drilled Vs -
(,,-_ ,0' 78~ e~_
13.42...-,=,.0'
1.35
. • • • • (14)
particles in an annulus. For reasons which become ,o,a218,u0.564
apparent later, the formulation, although general, is 2 s NRf,ps 15
based on the findings of the water test data in the
annulus, all of w-hich were in turbulent flow. . .0.612, 0.836
A good approximation to the curves of the data Vs == 13.8~U oeg_ • • • • • • • •
11 C:\
\ J...J J
....P.388.a0.224
obtained can be made by use of' an exponential curve '-' ,....
of the form.

1-!£L. = exp[(onst.(t-(tmin)~Pil.j- (13)

( ) 0.516'd 0.548
= 17. 88J,es.=,01L......SUlQ__
fcmax; ~" Vs • • • • • • • • (16)
pO.48iu 0.o32
measured from the time t ~ {tminJap, i' For
t < (tmin)ap,i necessarily IC I = o. 80 s NRE,p S 1500
Eq. 13 may be written in terms of any species In the above relations, all values are in cgs units.
(particle size) provided that the variables, I e ' From these relations the dependence of settling
max ,I
velocity on viscosity is seen to decrease with

fffI
increasing Reynolds numbers. This indicates that
the form drag becomes more predominant and the

I I L
viscous drag becomes less significant with increasing
Reynolds numbers. One could hypothesize that for
Reynolds numbers greater than 1,500 the slope, m,
of the NRe vs CD(NRe)t piot win have a value of

:/ m = 0.5 (Fig. 4). If the particles in creeping flow

behave like their spherical counterparts, the slope,
m, would have a value of m = 1.
/ .0 To aid in characterizing the particles geometrically
~----+----+-+--++--~"",,!IO-I

/
0"'';'' and in determining the average particle mass,
particle size measurements were also made (see Fig.
.fd'... 5). The mean value, Dm , of the dimensions for the
6 major cross-sections, D1 and D2, and the thickness,
T, is given for the particles. The ratio T/D m was
not constant for all the particle sizes; therefore, the
~ sphericity was not the same for each size. Any
.
..,c- difference in the drag coefficient-Reynolds number
curve due to a variation in the particle sphericity
j could not be detected. For all the particles, the
1-----I------d--t---t--+--1
/-- average ratio, T/D m , was equal to 0.3. Only the No.
./ 10 (T/D m = 0.367) and the No. X (T/D m = 0.279)
<...t:f' sizes varied significantly from the average value.
lO·L.. -.l1.....J........_"""--'--'-_......_.L--' '0"
10 8 6
ASTM SCREEN SIZE NO.
Annular Cutting Transport in Water
FIG. 5 - AVERAGED PARTICLE CHARACTERISTICS. All annular flows using water as the transporting

4.2 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

medium were turbulent; the functionals and related velocity.
equations applied directly to this case. The following A comparison of the calculated and observed or
correlation equations were developed with the aid of obtained values for the various relationships is
a computer: illustrated in Figs. 8 'through 11. There is some
scatter to the data. For the experiment, the particle
1-L = exp [1.12(t-<tmin lo,J."'J (17) sizes were taken according to the ASTM standard
femox tlii'i screen sizes - anyone size is actually representative
of all size gradations up to the next screen size
r
(tmin1op.: (tminlobs l1+6.32 Lc~
r- JO.S6
(lIN)
0.35]
•
(18) used. Therefore, the particle masses, equivalent
sphere diameters, and settling velocities used here
are, in reality, the average values of all the particles
where c .: 0.92, Nos. ~, 4, 6 particles
v- ft/sec 114 6 10
c = 0.8, No.8 particles
0.670 t::. 0 0
c = 0.75, No. 10 particles (l II ~
0.893 Il ~
1.339 ~ ~ ~ il ~

F;,v~Q.96No.29]• • • • •.
1.786 (J l) & (J
femox = l-ex p [-0.0273 (9) 2.232
2.678
•
<:> 0
3.125 e
t.JiT2 .:<tminlob.[l+82.2(lIN10.31] • • • • • • (20)

The above rel ations fit the data reasonably well.

I"jJ
The term 1/ (cv-v s) is representative of a "lag time". ~~
With other constants equal, the decrease in c with 49
particle size would infer that the smaller particles
are in more cyclic motion or that they tend to remain ~~
t ()
II
in regions where the velocity is less than the average
e
:
0.4 r-----.,----.,..p'--w-..--+----+----i

r r I I I I
"~ I~:~Ij
o 0.2
. up
0.4
[_l.12£t-Vm"m;.}op!.]
0.6 0.8 1.0

FIG. 8 - RECOVERY FRACTION EQUATION.

20

0.2 0.4 X 0.6 0.8 1.0

16
r/
./
FIG. 6 - cf(l/n. K) FOR LAMINAR FLOW OF POWER
LAW FLUIDS IN AN ANNULUS. o
c:
:§
~ 12 0
v/
-<
U
-"
::l

;(
u
'0. 8
( flO
/
~
cO
J
4 ou

o
/ 4
(tmin)~" -
-~
8 12
OSSERVED (min.)
16 20

TIME
FIG. 9 - COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED AND
FIG. 7 - PLOT OF RECOVERY FRACTION VS TIME. OBSERVED APPARENT ARRIVAL TIME.

FEBRUARY, 1972 48
between ,any two screen sizes. TABLE I - DETERMINATIoN of
The results of the determination of the average AVERAGE PARTICLE MASS
particle mass for each particle size used is shown Standard
Particle Averalle Standard Deviation 90 Percent
in Table 1. It can be noted that the probability of a Size Moss Deviation of the Mean Tolerance
single observation having an error of 68 percent ~ ~ (gm) (gm) (11m)
1
(1.00) decreases from 43 percent for the large 4 0.5083 0.2167 0.0306 ±0.0500
particles to approximately 29 percent for the smaller 4 0.1970 0.0731 0.0103 ±0.0170
particles, and that the mean values for the mass of 6 0.0895 0.0305 0.0043 :to.OO7l
8 0.0329 0.0094 0.0013 ±0.0022
each particle size varies from approximately 10 10 0.0172 0.0049 0.0007 ±O.OOll
percent for the large particles to 6 percent for the
smaller particles with 90 percent confidence limits.
Any subsequent results must be expected to have at average particle mass and particl-e counts of the
least this much error. From the nature of the recovered samples.
experiment, an additional error due to the particle Particle counts were determined by dividing the
mass and size gradation is also inherent. In anyone mass of the particles recovered for anyone particular
test, as the flow rate was increased ftom 75 gal/min si~e by the average mass per panicle of the size in
to its maximum value, one should expect a certain question, Ni = Mo. /M;, and particle settling
amount of gradation to occur in the annulus. This velocities were determined on the average mass per
was confirmed in certain spot checks made on the particle, Mi'

1.0 Cutting Transport with Pipe Rotation

0.8
-I.
1/ In general, the addition of tangential flow to the
axial flow of warer in the annulus caused large
increases in the maximum recovery fractions and in
the rates at which particles came to the surface.
a ~<o 0
Recovery time intervals were the same as for the
w
<06 "irl5-v0 corresponding flow rates without rotation. In many
:J 0 '? instances, the first recovery fraction, fe' was over
u
.... ()"
« c ~o 85 percent of the maximum amount recovered. As a
U. O.4 ~ result, first arrival time s were virtually impossible

~?
o
E to estimate. Fig. 12 illustrates the difference one
.."
might expect in the recovery fraction curves when
pipe totation is introduced. The curves for no rotation
0.2
ey 0 are calculated curves based on Eqs. 17 through 20.
/00 Other typical recovery fraction curves are depicted
in Fig. 13.
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Attempts were made to predict the maximum
lema, OBSERVED fraction of particles recovered by relating the angular
FIG. 10 COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED velocity to some average velocity dependent on the
AND OBSERVED MAXIMUM RECOVERY FRACTION. rate of rotation. Realizing that the centrifugal force
on the particles is proportional to the velocity
100 r----r---,.----r----r---., squared at any point in the annulus, a root mean
velocity, v'f;ff, could be defined as being represen-
tative of the velocity component responsible in part
80 t---+---+---+----<HiL------l for the increase in the maximum recovery fractions
observed; i.e.,
c:
:§
~ 6O .......--~---+----;;P---_+---_f
....« Mo
(11m,)
CO) I;
(rpm) th/.-cl
"",.0

.... o 189 100 1.3• •

=> 10 91 200 0.89.
u 130 JOO 0.'9.
.0 100 0.19.
3401----...,.---+---+-----+----4 0.8
10 100 0.89.

o.
20~-__;~...::....-_+---+_--_+__--__i
o.

0.2

o 20 40 60 80 100
W2 OBTAINED (min) 10 ~ 30 ~ '0
FIG. 11 COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED FIG. 12 - EFFECT OF DRILL PIPE ROT ATION ON
AND OBTAINED RELAXATION TIME PARAMETER. CUTTING RECOVERY FRACTION IN WATER.

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENCINEERS JOURNAL


~ .. l.SR(V9(r»2211rdr
A H.R
Ve(r) .. 21YCItR)2c.u/r
r--~""""'~"""
~ = 211WR/2UK 4 Io<lU() • • • • • • • • • (21)
J l-K2
Eq. 21 then would be representative of some
average velocity component that could be related to
the maximum recovery fraction. In similar fashion to
the case of no rotation, it was determined that,
A comparison of calculated and observed values
is shown in Fig. 14.
With respect to particles in transport under the
influence of combined axial and tangential flow, a
single particle would experience a radially decreasing
centrifugal force that would tend to migrate a particle
into regions of higher axial velocities and perhaps
further to the outer wall of the annulus. The cyclic
pattern of the particle may be much reduced and
restricted to the outer portion of the annulus; if so,
the particles would come out faster as a whole. This
could explain the increase in the rate at which the
the power law exponent, n, the viscosity index, K,
the type of fluid, the nature of the flow, and the
particle size and amount were formulated. From the
data, it was apparent that all these factors do affect
the recovery fraction to some degree.
In Fig. 16 all the recovery fraction curves in the
different fluids used are at an average annular
velocity of 0.893 ftl sec, with no pipe rotation.
Table 2 shows that in the order of increasing
viscosity the muds would be arranged in the order
C6, C2, C9. The muds have the same order in the
order of decreasing power law exponents. Mud C9
has the highest viscosity and lowest power law
index; it should have the best carrying capacity.
Regarding the No.6 particles in particular, one finds
that Mud C2, which has the best carrying capadty,
has the intermediate power law exponent and
viscosity. Mud C2 also has the lowest number of
No.6 particles in the flow.
When a particle is subjected to a shear flow, a
turning moment is exerted on the particle, which
appears to rotate and translate the particle in the
direction of the increasing velocity gradient. For
1.0
o~ CD <0

particles came out and the increase in the maximum -

recovery fractions as observed in this experiment.
It should be noted that Eq. 22 is not applicable to o
0 o~r/
~o
the case /vfP = o. <0.6
w
:;r 0

{/~ ,
--'
::::> 0
u
Cutting Transport in Various Drilling Muds --'
-c(

U. O.4
Using the criterion, NRe ;;:; 2,000, Eq. 9, it was o

found that the flow was laminar at all flow rates for
the drilling muds used. The constants, K and n, of
the power law model used to describe each fluid
.J
0.2
/
were obtained from the shear stress-shear rate plots
for the respecrive fluids (Fig. 15). Knowing the
Reynolds number of the flow, one can then determine
the wall shear stress. The effective wall viscosity o
/ 0.2 Q4 Q6
lema. OBSERVED
Q8 1.0
can be determined from the rheological equations.
Once this was known, an effective settling velocity FIG. 14 - COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED
for each particle size was determined according to AND OBSERVED MAXIMUM RECOVERY FRACTION
WITH PIPE ROTATION.
Eqs. 14 through 16, and the results are tabulated in
Table 2.
No relations that take into account the effects of

Mo ; ...
19",.1 l!t/led lrpml
() 1i4 190 0.89 200
'0
294 0.89 '00
e ..
• Ij4
156 089 100
• 6 23 0.89 200
0' • 6
a
23 1,3" 100
so
oiii 10
11
30
l.lA
Ob7 sa
o 0

, ,0' 0
0";'1 0

O"'C6

10 20 30

FIG. 13 - TYPICAL RECOVERY FRACTION CURVES

'1 I
'0 . -~{
-,
I
10'
I
10'

OBTAINED WHEN DRILL PIPE WAS ROTATED (FLUID FIG. 15 DRILLING MUD SHEAR STRESS SHEAR
- WATER). RATE DATA.

FEBRUARY, 1972 45
two fluids with the same average annular velocity C1 (6 (9 (15
C1 'C. 312,Od~
but different velocity profiles, the fluids with the II. C)1019gmi() 321 qml
~ 0 ~t!1 'lJ"!! C> 618ql'n'() 509"'\ (0 ~. 100,0 1 02
flatter velocity profile would have a slower horizontal b 63719",,69389"". BJ69""~ 19v"" (9 t'. ii6j!14l~

translation rate in regions near the point of maximum 08 8 0 2039"". 780Qms. 8499""1[1 99""\ C 15 HIGHLY IJt$COUS WITH
NON·CQNSTANT
fllPONENT
velocity in the vertical· annulus. In order to have "'- Orptl'l ~.089J 'IJ,~(

the same average velocity, the fluid with the flatter 06

profile (which has- a lower maximum velocity) must '<

at some points in the annulus, acquire steeper

velocity gradients as the walls are approached. When
0.'
~. .~-~-::-~~::r~?j~
~O--- __Dr---------A
this occurs, the particle will be translated
~-~~~~-~~.---n---- -_--_-----0-===:'1
02
horizontally at a faster rate than in a fluid with a
steeper velocity profile at the point of maximum
velocity. If the annulus is of sufficient length, a 10

particle in either fluid will reach the wall at some
time. According to the observations of Williams and
Bruce,1 a particle near the wall assumes a position
with its major axis parallel to the axis of flow. In
this position, the particle has much less resistance
and it will therefore have a higher settling velocity.
If the average velocity of the fluid across the particle
is less than the particle settling velocity, the
particle will fall vertically downward without rotating
about its own axis.
Oliver8 found that, as asymmetric particles
stopped rolling, they began moving toward the center
of the pipe. Vejlens 9 found that large spheres tend
to move away from the wall faster than do small
spheres. For particles of the same size but in
different fluids, one may conclude that the tendency
for a particle to move away from the boundary is
dependent upon the particle Reynolds number.
For the No.6 particles in the two different fluids,
C2 and C9, this may be the reason that particles
appeared to be transported better by the less viscous
fluid with a steeper velocity profile, C2. The
Reynolds number for particles in a power law fluid,
after Skelland, 4 is
FIG. 16 - EFFECT OF DRILLING MUDS ON RE-
COVERY FRACTIONS.
NRf,p = vs2 -"deq"p,/ K • • • • • • • • • • (23)
A comparison of the values of PI, n, K for the two
fluids yields the conclusion that, for approximately
the same relative velocity, the Reynolds number of
the particles is about four times greater for the less
viscous mud; i.e., the inertial to viscous force ratio
of the particles near the regions of the wall is four
times greater in Mud C2 than in Mud C9. This
difference may be enough to move the particle away
from the wall. Also, the velocity profile in the region
nearest the walls is flatter for the less viscous mud.
The turning moment that would tend to move the
particle back toward the wall will be less. In this
way, the particles in Mud C2 would then be translated
back into regions of higher velocities where the
particles v.ould again be travelling upward to repeat
the cycle at another point in the annulus.
The concept of particle Reynolds number in the
regions near the annular walls would also explain
the reverse order removal observed in some instances.

TABLE 2 - DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE SETTLING VELOCITY

Rheological Eqs.: Mud C2: r = 3.22 l-495 Mud C6: r = 1.00 ' 1" 702 Mud C9: r = 11.6 l-412
P = 8.36 Ib/gal p'= 8.49 lb/gal P= 6.9Ib/gal
Average Effective Wall Viscosity (cp)
Annular Annular Reynolds Number
Velacity Mud Mud Mud Mud Mud Mud
(ft/sec) -.f.L ~ .sL £.. .9... C9
0.447 9.09 19.5 2.44 S1.0 39.2 84.3
0.670 16.7 33.0 4.65 41.6 34.7 66.4
0.893 25.8 47.9 7.33 36.0 31.8 56.0
1.339 47.4 81.0 14.0 29.3 28.2 44.2
1.786 73.1 118.0 21.9 25.4 25.9 34.0
,,,.., n
2.232 'V.L.", 157.0 31.4 22.7 24.3 32.7
2.678 135.0 199.0 42.0 20.8 22.9 29. i
3.126 170.0 244.0 53.6 19.1 21.9 26.8

Effective Particle Settling Velocity (ft/sec)

Average
Annular Mud C2 Mud C6 Mud C9
Velocity (Numbers) (Numbers) (Numbers)
(ft/sec) % % % 4 8
-4- 6 8 4
-- 6 8 6
0.447 0.541 0.394 0.275 0.175 0.570 0.439 0.317 0.202 0.491 0.321 0.225 0.143
0.670 0.567 0.436 0.309 0.197 0.586 0.451 0.340 0.216 0.553 0.368 0.257 0.164
0.893 0.S86 0.450 0.335 0.214 0.598 0.460 0.3S7 0.227 0.564 0.405 0.283 0.180
1.339 0.612 0.471 0.376 0.240 0.614 0.472 0.378 0.247 0.594 0.462 0.323 0.206
1.786 0.632 0.486 0.390 0.260 0.627 0.482 0.386 0.25S 0.619 0.476 0.357 0.227
2.232 0.649 0.499 0.400 0.277 0.635 0.488 0.391 0.264 0.636 0.489 0.382 0.244
2.678 0.662 0.509 0.408 n
U.~7A.
.,0., 0.643 0.495 0.396 0.276 0.654 0.502 0.409 0.261
3.126 0.675 0.519 0.416 0.305 0.651 0.500 0.401 0.280 0.665 0.511 0.437 0.273

46 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM EXGINEERS JOURNAl,

There were instances when the larger particles came NOMENCLATURE
out before t..he smaller particles. From Fig. 16, the
A annular cross-sectional area
No. B particles in Mud (:2 came to the surface before
the No. 6 particles, while in Muds C6 and C9 the Aeq area of an equivalent sphere having the
reverse was true. same volume and density as the par-
The effects of drill pipe rotation and particle ticle considered
concentration were observed to be similar to those CD = drag coefficient
found in water. d = sphere diameter
d eq equivalent 'sphere diameter
CONCL USIONS
Dm = mean, major particle diameter
A good prediction of drilled particle settling exp = abbreviation for exponential
velocity over the range of Reynolds numbers ICB = bulk cumulative fraction of particles
2 .$ NRe p .$ 1,500 in a quiescent Newtonian fluid removed for anyone test
medium can be made on the basis of the generalized IC maximum cumulative fraction of particles
Eq. 5. A similar analysis for non-Newtonian fluids max
removed for anyone particle size
would reveal the possible applicability of such an
equation in a fluid of this type by using the Reynolds 8c gravitational constant
number, Eq. 23, in place of Eq. 2. K viscosity index for non-Newtonian,
The increased particle transport in turbulent flow power law fluids
in an annulus is dUe more to the turbulent stresses L effective annular length, or capillary
in the fluid than to the flat velocity profiles particular tube length
to turbulent flow. m slope of NRe,p vs CD(N Re )2 curve
Rotation of the inner pipe can increase particle Mi average particle mass for anyone
transport by moving particles away from the inner particle size
annular wall into regions of higher velocities and
Mo initial mass of anyone particle size
also by inducing turbulence that is caused by the
existing at the start of a particular
rapid formation of disturbances in a combined axial
test
and tangential flow field even in viscous fluids.
It appears that there are certain regions in the n shear rate exponent for non-Newtonian,
annulus where particles accumulate, and where power law fluids
particles prefer to travel. Until these regions of N = particle number or number concentration
particle accumulation are "saturated", the effect of NRe,p = particle Reynolds number
increasing particle concentration numbers is to NRe(n, K) = generalized annular Reynolds number
increase the maximum fraction of particles removed
!1p = pressure drop over a section L of an
from the annulus. an annulus or capillary tube
The mechanism of particle transport in the laminar
flow of either a Newtonian or non-Newtonian fluid r = a radius
in an annulus is not completely understood. It appears R outer wetted radius of an annulus
that particle Reynolds numbers in the vicinity of t time
the annular walls are in part responsible for moving tl = final time to point where no more par-
a particle away from the walls into regions of higher ticles appear
velocities. Highly vi scous, non-Newtonian fluids ti initial time at which particles first
with low power law exponents do not necessarily begin to appear
increase particle transport. The concept of relative
arbitrary reference time
velocity (v-v s) does not adequately predict the
removal and transport of particles in laminar flow. absolute minimum time for particles to
A better insighr to laminar, non-Newtonian reach the surface based on relative
velocity fields, especially in regions nearest to the fluid to particle velocity
walls of prototype annuli, with and without rotation apparent minimum time for particles to
of the inner pipe, could lead to a better understanding reach the surface, an approximate first
of the transport of particles under these conditions. arrival time
The application of hel ical flow equations 10 - 14 to an apparent lag time to account for
the flow of drilling muds in annuli with pipe rotation nonuniform velocity of particles and
could also be useful in analyzing the effects of pipe annular flow
rotation on the ability of drilling muds to transport t'yv; = time measured from the origin for par-
particles under these conditions. Visual observations ticle recovery fraction curve to attain
and studies of the transport of particles subjected yv; of its maximum value
to such flows v.ould also be helpful. Until such
studies are made, accurate predictions of the
ty'iX = t \M" - (tmin}ap
transport of macroscopic, arbitrarily shaPed particles T maximum particle thickness
subjected to the laminar flow of a non-Newtonian vrfr) = tangential velocity component due to
fluid v.ill be difficult to make. pipe rotation at position r

FEBRUARY, 1972 47
 R = root mean squared average tangential
velocity based on approximate linear
tangential velocity distribution
V average velocity (axially) in an annulus
or a tube
V particle settling velocity
s Drilling Mud to Lift Bit Cuttings," Trans., AIME
K = ratio of inner to outer radius of an
annulus
A fraction of outer radius, R, of an annulus
corresponding to the point of maxi-
mum velocity
y = shear rate
~ = function for determining dimensionless
flow rate
Jl fluid viscosity
PI fluid density
Ps particle density
a standard deviation
T shear stress
1'0 wall shear stress
co angular velocity of inner pipe
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his sincere
appreciation to Esso Production Research Co. for
the release of the data for this experiment, to John R.
Eckel for his many contributions, and to Xanco, a
division of Kelco Co., for making it possible to
present this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, C. E., Jr. and Bruce, G. H.: "Carrying Ca·
pacity of Drilling Muds," Trans., AIME (1951) Vol.
191, 111-120.
2. Pigott, R. J. s.: "Mud Flow in Drilling," Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1941) 91-103.
3. Hall, H. N., Thomson, H. and Nuss, F.: "Ability of
(1950) Vol. 189, 35-46.
4. Skelland, A. H. P.: Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat
Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1967)
210-215.
5. Fredrickson, A. G. and Bird, R. B.: Ind. and Eng.
Chern. (1958) Vol. 50, 347.
6. Fredrickson, A. G. and Bird, R. B.: Ind. and Eng,
Chern. (1958) Vol. 50, 1599.
7. Zeidler, H. U.: "An Experimental Analysis of the
Transport of Drilled Particles in an Annulus," MS
Thesis, Rice U. (May, 1970).
8. Vejlens, G.: Acia. Path. Microbiol. Scand. (Suppl.)
No. 33 (1938).
9. Oliver, D. R.: "Influence of Particle Rotation on
Radial Migration in the Poiseuille Flow of Suspen-
sions," Nature (June, 1962) 1269-1271.
10. Ri vlin, R. S.: "Solution of Some PrOblems in the
Exact Theory of Viscoelasticity/' J. Rational Mech.
& Anal. (1956) Vol. 5, 179.
11. Coleman, B. D. and Noll, W.: "Helical Flow of Gen-
eral fluids," J. Appl. Physics (1959) Vol. 30, 1508.
12. Fredrickson, A. G.: "Helical Flow of an Annular
Mass of Visco-Elastic Fluid," Chem. Eng. Sci.,
(1960) Vol. 11, 252.
13. Savins, J. G. and Wallick, G. c.: "Viscosity Profiles,
Discharge Rates, Pressures, and Torques for a
Rheologically Complex Fluid in a Helical Flow,"
AIChE (1966) Vol. 12, 357.
14. Dierckes, A. C. and Schowalter, W. R.: "Helical
Flow of Non-Newtonian Polyisobutylene Solution,"
Inti. & Eng. Chem. Fund. (1966) Vol. 5, No.2, 263.

***

48 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM E~GI~EERS JOURl\'Al

View publication stats