Chapter 5

L IFTING C APACITY

INTRODUCTION
Some experts have maintained that failure to properly clean the hole is responsible, directly or
indirectly, for up to 70 percent of all the drilling problems encountered. On a worldwide basis,
poor drilling performance, extraordinarily high costs and extended levels of frustration for drilling
personnel result from the use of mud with inadequate lifting capacities.

( )

Figure 5-1 relates the drag function (C d ) to particle Reynolds number R p for various particle
shapes. No simple mathematical model can be used to predict terminal settling or slip velocity
(Vs ) ; many solutions are trial and error. Familiarization with both the math and the mechanics
of predicting settling rates, however, is needed to remove the mystery of hole cleaning
problems.

Figure 5-1. Relationship Between Drag Coefficient and Particle Reynolds No.

Hydraulic drag forces result from relative fluid movement as a result of

friction at solid boundaries. In the case of solid particles suspended in
an upward flowing fluid, as shown in Figure 5-2, gravitational forces
tend to accelerate the particle downward. The particle settling velocity
(Vs ) then is the terminal free-fall velocity at which acceleration due to
gravity is reduced to zero as a result of friction, or drag force on the
particle.
Figure 5-2. Particle Velocity
in a Vertical Well Bore
Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-1

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

HISTORY
For perfectly spherical bodies, settling velocity is given by Equation 5-1. The nomenclature for
all equations is shown at the end of the chapter.

) 1/ 2

d p p f
Vs =113.4

Cd f

Equation 5-1

Equation 5-1 is written for spheres but is adequate for most practical drilling situations. Use of
this equation is complicated by the need of the drag coefficient (C d ) . The drag term can be
taken off the graph in Figure 5-1; however, the Reynolds number in the vicinity of a particle is
needed:
Rp =

15.46 d p f Vs

Equation 5-2

As can be seen, drag coefficient (C d ) cannot be determined until Reynolds number is known.
Calculation of Reynolds number requires slip velocity (Vs ) . Trial and error solutions are clearly
indicated unless Equation 5-1 can be simplified. For a particle Reynolds number less than or
equal to one (Stoke's region), a straight line exists as approximated by C d = 24 / R p . This can
be seen in Figure 5-1. Substitution into Equation 5-1 yields:
2

Vs = 8,289

d p p f

Equation 5-3

Stoke's Law holds limited application for lifting capacity problems related to oil field drilling.
Therefore, Equation 5-3 is given for information only and should not be used to calculate slip
velocity for oil field applications.
For spherical particles at particle Reynolds number between approximately 500 and 200,000
(Newton's Law), C d is almost constant at 0.44. This substitution yields:

) 1/ 2

d p p f
Vs =171

Equation 5-4

Equation 5-4 is somewhat useful in solving oil field problems but, predictably, tends to mask the
effects of viscosity on lifting capacity. Viscosity effects often diminish rapidly at high Reynolds
numbers throughout all phases of study of fluid dynamics. Equation 5-4 is representative of
turbulent flow around the particle.
If an idealized curve is constructed for known values of spheres on a plot of C d versus R p ,
then for a Reynolds numbers between 1.0 and 500, the approximate equation for the drag
coefficient is:

5-2

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

Cd =

18.5
Rp

Equation 5-5

0.6

Substitutions into Equation 5-1 yields:

d p1.6 (P f )

Vs = 346.6
e 0.6 f 0.4

0.71

Equation 5-6

Fortunately, Equation 5-6 is useful in solving many lifting-capacity-related drilling problems.

Equation 5-4 would be used when drilling with water or very thin drilling fluids.

HOLE CLEANING
The primary objective of drilling mud is to "get the dirt out". From Figure 5-2, it can be seen
that:
Vp =Vf Vs

Equation 5-7

( )

If hole cleaning is equated to the value of the particle velocity Vp then clearly, lifting capacity
can be enhanced by increasing the annular velocity of the fluid (Vf ) . The only other way to
increase the particle velocity is to decrease the slip velocity (Vs ) by some reasonable means.

In most good drilling operations, the annular velocity has been selected by bit cleaning or
hydraulics parameters. Therefore, manipulation of slip velocity is the preferred method of
controlling hole cleaning. Unfortunately, many operators reduce the slip velocity by increasing
mud weight when hole cleaning problems arise. Example 5-1 shows how hole cleaning can be
affected by a change in mud weight.

Example 5-1
Given:

Average cutting size 0.5 inch diameter spheres

Mud Viscosity ( e ) = 50 cp
Specific gravity of cuttings = 2.52 (or 21 ppg)
Case I: Mud Weight = 10.0 ppg
Case II: Mud Weight = 12.0 ppg

Determine:

The slip velocity of the particle in Case I and Case II.

Solution:

Use Equation 5-6 to calculate the slip velocity for both cases.
Case I:

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-3

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

(0.5 )1.6 (21 10 )

Vs = 346.6

0.6
0.4
50 10

0.71

= 85.01 fpm

Case II:
(0.5 )1.6 (21 12 )
Vs = 346.6

0.6
0.4
50 12

0.71

= 70.00 fpm

Check the particle Reynolds number to make sure the use of Equation 5-6 is
appropriate, i.e. 1.0 R P 500 .
Rp =

15.46 d p f Vs

Rp =

(15.46)(0.5)(10)(85.01) =131

Rp =

(15.46)(0.5)(12)(70.00) =130

50

50

Therefore, the use of Equation 5-6 is correct.

One possible view is that the carrying capacity of the Case I mud is approximately 21 percent
less than that of the Case II mud. The dramatic effect, upon carrying capacity, of increasing
mud density is largely responsible for the frequently erroneous reports of "pressured shales". In
reality, the lifting capacity of the mud has been increased by weighting up. With the higher mud
weight, the problem of poor hole cleaning has been solved.
Often, out of desperation, operators have raised mud weights to deal with the symptoms of
sloughing shales. Most commonly, hole sloughing results in the following indications:
1. Drag or tight hole on trips or connection
2. High torque levels
3. Fill after trips or while making connections
4. Difficulty getting logs to bottom and/or difficulty in running casing.
This list of hole troubles is frequently reported in drilling operations all over the world. The
reader is now asked to prepare a list of symptoms that would result from drilling in a "dirty hole".
Striking similarities exist between the two lists.
It is axiomatic that many zones, especially many shale formations, slough. It is also clear that
raising the mud weight and lowering the water loss is not the only way to deal with any and all
unstable holes. Example 5-2 shows how the lifting capacity of the mud can be enhanced by
changing the viscosity of the mud. While developing deep gas reserves in the Wind River

5-4

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

Basin, Wyoming, it is necessary to penetrate approximately 3,000 feet of Waltman shale. The
Waltman is reported to be both water sensitive and abnormally pressured.

Example 5-2
Given:

The typical drilling parameters while drilling the Waltman shale are:
MW = 14.0 ppg
12 inch hole with 5 inch drill pipe
Flow rate = 500 GPM (annular velocity = 98 fpm)
Viscometer reading 600 = 100
Viscometer reading 300 = 60

Determine:

What viscosity is required to give a 9.0 ppg mud a cleaning capacity

equivalent to the mud currently in use? (The Waltman shale is not really
pressured; it is stressed and sloughs like crazy).

Solution:

If the stagnation particle size is defined as a spherical particle large

enough such that V p = 0 = (Vf Vs ) then the lifting capacity can be related
to the stagnation particle diameter. Since this is not a thin drilling mud
Equation 5-6 should be used to find the stagnation particle diameter.

d p 1 .6 p f
Vf = Vs = 346.6
e 0 . 6 f 0 .4

0.71

Rearranging to solve for d p .

V 1.4

s e 0.6 f 0.4
346.6

d p =

p f

0.63

First, one must calculate the equivalent thickness (viscosity) of the drilling
mud at an annular velocity of 98 fpm. In the chapter on drilling fluids,
Equation 5-14 is used to determine the viscosity of drilling fluids at a
given shear rate (annular velocity).
2.4
e =
Dh D p

2n + 1 200 k Dh D p

3n
v

Calculate n and k .

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-5

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

n = 3 . 32 log 600
300

k=

300
n

511

100
= 3 . 32 log
= 0 . 7365
60

60
5110.7365

= 0.6072

The equivalent thickness is:

2.498 20.7365 +1

12
.
25
5
3
0
.
7365

0.7365

e =

2000.6072(12.25 5 )
=127cp
98

Now calculate the stagnation particle diameter:

98 1.4

0. 6
0. 4

x127 x14
346.6

d p =

(
2114 )

0.63

=1.16 inch

Check the Reynolds number to make sure it is between 1 and 500.

Rp =

15.46 d p f Vs

(15.46 )(1.16 )(14 )(98 ) =194

127

Therefore, the use of Equation 5-6 is correct

Now solve for the equivalent thickness of the 9 ppg mud where the slip
velocity of a 1.16 inch diameter particle will be 98 fpm. Rearranging
Equation 5-6 to solve for e gives:

1. 6
p f
dp
e =

1. 4
Vs 0.4
f
346.6

1.67

1.161.6 (219 )

1. 4
98 9 0.4
346.6

1.67

= 417 cp

Check the Reynolds number to make sure Equation 5-6 is applicable.

Rp =

(15.45)(1.16)(9)(98) = 38
417

Since the Reynolds number is greater than 1 and less than 500,
Equation 5-6 is valid.
Therefore, for the given situation, if mud weight is reduced from 14.0 ppg to 9.0 ppg, then
viscosity must be increased from 127 to 417 cp in order to maintain the same hole cleaning or

5-6

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

lifting capacity. The 14 ppg mud had a plastic viscosity of 40 and a yield point of 20. To get the
increased lifting capacity required for the 9 ppg mud, the plastic viscosity would have to be
approximately 10, with a yield point of 40.
The changes introduced in Example 5-2 resulted in dramatic cost savings. The lighter mud
weight allowed the well to be drilled much quicker and the cost of the mud was substantially
reduced. Hole instability, which is largely a function of time, was essentially eliminated.
Virtually scores of similar drilling problems have been reduced or eradicated by focusing
attention upon the hole cleaning characteristics of various mud systems.
The effects of viscosity and particle diameter on hole cleaning can be seen by observing the
equations used for calculating the lifting capacity of a drilling fluid. The viscosity of the drilling
fluid is not reported in equivalent thickness; rather it is reported as plastic viscosity and yield
point. Figure 5-3 shows how the equivalent thickness of a drilling fluid is affected by changes in
the plastic viscosity and yield point. To construct the graph, plastic viscosity was varied while
keeping the yield point constant at 10 lbf/100ft2. Notice that the equivalent thickness of the
drilling fluid changes very little while the plastic viscosity changes from 5 to 40 cp. When the
plastic viscosity is kept constant at 10 cp and the yield point is allowed to vary from 5 to 40
lbf/100ft2, there is a considerable change in the equivalent thickness of the drilling fluid. It
should be obvious from Figure 5-3 that plastic viscosity has little effect on hole cleaning. On the
other hand, the yield point is the parameter to change if hole cleaning capacity is to be
increased.

Figure 5-3. Graph Shows the Effect of Plastic Viscosity and Yield Point on Equivalent Thickness

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-7

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

Figure 5-4 is a plot of slip velocity versus particle diameter. For very small diameter particles
(less than 0.1 inches) the slip velocity is small. As the particle diameter increases, the slip
velocity of the particle increases correspondingly. Note that at a particle diameter of 0.8 inches,
the Reynolds number exceeds 500 and the slope of the line changes.

Figure 5-4. Slip Velocity vs Particle Diameter for a 10 ppg Mud with a Plastic Viscosity of 10 and Yield Point of 7

Removing drill cuttings from the hole is seldom a problem because the particle diameter is
relatively small. However, pieces of a formation that have sloughed into the well bore can be
much more difficult to carry out of the well. If the sloughed pieces of formation are too large to
be carried out of the well, they will stay in the well bore until they are small enough to be carried
by the drilling fluid. The pieces of formation will get smaller by mechanical grinding between the
particle and the drill string or by colliding with the drill string, hole wall and other particles.
Particles with large quantities of reactive clays can essentially dissolve in the mud system. In
any case, the breakup of particles in the annulus is detrimental to the mud system. It will
increase the quantity of very small diameter particles within the mud system making it more
difficult to remove the solids at the surface.
Figure 5-5 shows how the stagnation particle size changes with yield point. As the yield point
increases, larger diameter particles can be lifted out of the well bore. Adjusting the yield point
and annular velocity of the drilling fluid is the preferred method of increasing the lifting capacity.
Increasing mud weight slows penetration rate and increases mud costs.

5-8

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

Figure 5-5. Plot of Stagnation Particle Diameter vs Yield Point. The Plastic Viscosity was Constant at 10 cP and the
mud weight was 10 ppg.

EMPIRICAL CORRELATION
There is one problem with calculating slip velocities. There are too many unknowns in the
annulus. How does one determine the maximum particle size to be removed from the hole? If
the cutting size is observed at the shaker, the largest diameter particles are only the particles
that are being removed from the hole. Larger particles remain in the hole until mechanical
grinding makes them smaller. Additionally, how large is the hole? Caliper logs show that very
few wells are in gage. Most holes are washed out, at least in some intervals. A larger hole
reduces the annular velocity. With higher viscosity muds, channeling may occur in washouts.
As explained in the chapter on drilling fluids, the viscosity of a drilling fluid does not remain
constant while being circulated around the well. Drilling fluid can thin or thicken with increased
temperature. In laminar flow, the velocity profile in the annulus is not constant. The fluid near
the edges moves at a slower velocity than the fluid in the center of the flow stream. Cuttings of
different densities and shapes also move at different velocities in the annulus.
For the above reasons, an empirical correlation was developed to predict hole cleaning.1 There
are only three hole cleaning variables that can be controlled at the rig. They are mud weight,
annular velocity and drilling fluid viscosity. As stated earlier, mud weight is kept to a minimum in
order to improve penetration rate or minimize lost circulation. Annular velocity is most often

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-9

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

predetermined by a hydraulics program. The viscosity of the mud can be changed to enhance
hole cleaning.
Field experience has shown that if the mud weight, viscosity and annular velocity of a drilling
fluid are multiplied together, the result would be approximately 400,000 when hole cleaning was
observed to be adequate. The empirical correlation is termed the CCI or carrying capacity
index, which can be calculated from Equation 5-8. Good hole cleaning is expected when the
CCI is equal to or greater than one. On some wells, hole cleaning can be adequate if the CCI is
less than one while hole cleaning may not be adequate in some wells if the CCI is greater than
one. It depends upon the conditions in the well. The CCI is just a good starting point.
CCI =

( f )(K )(v )

Equation 5-8

400,000

The K value is determined from the power-law model for drilling fluids.
effective centipoise viscosity and can be determined from Equation 5-9.

K has a value of

K = 511(1n ) (PV + YP )

Equation 5-9

Figure 5-6 can be used to determine the value of K based on the plastic viscosity and yield
point of the drilling fluid. As the yield point increases, the viscosity or K value increases.
Example 5-3 illustrates the use of the carrying capacity index.

2000

PV
5 cp
10 cp
15 cp
20 cp
25 cp
30 cp
35 cp
40 cp

1800

1600

K Viscosity, equivalent cp

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yield Point, lb/100 sq ft

Figure 5-6. Estimation of

5-10

K value Based on Plastic Viscosity and Yield Point

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

Example 5-3
Given:

The data in Example 5-2:

MW = 14.0 ppg
12 inch hole with 5 inch drill pipe
Flow rate = 500 gpm (annular velocity = 98 fpm)
PV = 40 cp
YP = 20 lbf/100ft2
n = 0 . 7365

Determine:

The CCI for the well.

Solution:

Calculate the K value for the carrying capacity index or get it from Figure
5-6.
K = 511(1n ) (PV + YP )
K = 511(10.7365 ) ( 40 + 20 ) = 310 cp

Calculate the CCI

CCI =

( f )(K )(v )

CCI =

(14)(310)(98) = 1.1

400,000

400,000

The CCI is 1.1 so the 14 ppg mud should be able to clean the hole, which it did. If the equation
is used in reverse for the 9.0 ppg mud, the K value would have to be around 482 cp. From
Figure 5-6, the yield point of a 9.0 ppg mud with a plastic viscosity of 10 cp would have to be
approximate 13 lbf/100ft2. The CCI would calculate that the drilling fluid does not have to be as
viscous as the fluid calculated in Example 5-2. It must be remembered that a CCI value of 1 or
greater does not guarantee adequate hole cleaning. It also does not work well in directional
wells above 30 degrees.

NOMENCLATURE
Cd

Particle drag coefficient (dimensionless)

CCI
Dh
Dp

=
=
=

Carrying capacity index

Diameter of hole (inches)
Outside diameter of pipe (inches)

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-11

Drilling Practices
Chapter 5

dp

Diameter of particle (inches)

Drilling fluid equivalent viscosity for CCI (cp)

Consistency index of a power-law fluid

Flow behavior index of a power-law fluid

PV
Rp

=
=

Plastic viscosity (cp)

Particle Reynolds Number (dimensionless)

v
Vf
Vp

=
=
=

Annular velocity (fpm)

Velocity of the fluid (fpm)
Velocity of a particle (fpm)

Vs

Slip velocity of a particle (fpm)

YP
e

=
=
=

Yield point (lbf/100ft2)

Equivalent thickness of drilling fluid (viscosity) (cp)
Density of the particle, generally 21 ppg (ppg)

Density of the fluid (ppg)

300

300 rpm viscometer reading

600

600 rpm viscometer reading

SI UNITS
The equations given in the chapter are given below in SI units

Equation 5-1:

Equation 5-2:

) 1/ 2

d p p f
Vs =6.86

Cd f

Rp =

d p f Vs

Equation 5-11

60 e

d p 2 ( P f )

Equation 5-3:

Vs =

Equation 5-4:

d p p f
Vs =10.3

Equation 5-6:

d p 1 .6 ( P f
Vs = 0.349
e 0 .6 f 0 . 4

5-12

Equation 5-10

Equation 5-12

30.6

) 1/ 2

Equation 5-13

0.71

Equation 5-14

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved

Drilling Practices
Lifting Capacity

( f )(K )(v )

Equation 5-8

CCI =

Equation 5-9:

K = 511(1n ) (PV +

Equation 5-15

14,000,000
YP
)
0.479

Equation 5-16

NOMENCLATURE FOR THE EQUATIONS IN SI UNITS

Cd

Particle drag coefficient (dimensionless)

CCI
Dh
Dp

=
=
=

Carrying capacity index

Diameter of hole (mm)
Outside diameter of pipe (mm)

dp

Diameter of particle (mm)

Drilling fluid equivalent viscosity for CCI (mPa sec)

Consistency index of a power-law fluid (Pa secn)

Flow behavior index of a power-law fluid

PV
Rp

=
=

Plastic viscosity (mPa sec)

Particle Reynolds Number (dimensionless)

v
Vf
Vp

=
=
=

Annular velocity (meters per minute)

Velocity of the fluid (meters per minute)
Velocity of a particle (meters per minute)

Vs

Slip velocity of a particle (meters per minute)

YP
e

=
=
=

Yield point (Pa)

Equivalent thickness of drilling fluid (viscosity) (mPa sec)
Density of the particle, generally 21 ppg (kg per cubic meter)

Density of the fluid (kg per cubic meter)

300

300 rpm viscometer reading

600

600 rpm viscometer reading

REFERENCE
1

Robinson, L.; Empirical Correlation for Borehole Cleaning Developed, World Oil, September,
1993, pp 37-42.

Copyright 2003 OGCI/PetroSkills. All rights reserved.

5-13