Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

A novel prediction model for cuttings bed height in horizontal and

deviated wells
Jingyu Qu a, Xiaofeng Sun a, *, Tie Yan a, Ye Chen b, Qiaobo Hu a
a
College of Petroleum Engineering, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, 163318, People’s Republic of China
b
Sinopec Shale Gas Research Institute of Petro China Southwest Oil and Gas Field, Chengdu, 610051, People’s Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A better understanding of cuttings accumulation in the wellbore and ensuring favorable hole-cleaning conditions
Cuttings transport are crucial for successful oil and gas drilling operations. Considering the limited ability of existing critical ve­
Hole cleaning locity models to predict the cuttings bed height, and these models only consider the rolling transport mode of
Cuttings bed height
drill cuttings, improvement and development of new models are needed. This paper presents a new model for
Non-Newtonian fluid
Horizontal and deviated wells
predicting the cuttings bed height over three possible transport modes of the target bed particle: sliding, rolling,
and lifting. A mechanical equilibrium relationship of the particle in the critical condition is established and to
calculate the bed-friction velocity of different transport modes. The transport mode can be judged by comparison
among the minimum calculated values. The mean annular velocity and cuttings bed height can be calculated
according to the borehole geometry information and eccentricity. The model can be applied to drilling fluids
with different flow patterns (laminar, turbulent) and different rheological models (Newtonian fluid such as
water, non-Newtonian fluid conforming to Power-Law or Herschel-Bulkley models). The effects of inclination
angle, cuttings size, circulation velocity, rheological parameters, eccentricity, and hole size on mean annular
velocity and cuttings bed height were analyzed. Cuttings transportation experiments were carried out on a large-
scale flow loop to validate the theoretical analysis results by comparison against the experimental results. This
work has certain guiding significance for predicting the hole cleaning degree in the annulus, as well as the
subsequent optimization of hydraulic parameters and the implementation of hole-cleaning measures.

effective horizontal well drilling operations.

Inadequate hole cleaning can cause high drag and torque, lost cir­
1. Introduction
culation, stuck pipes, reduced rate of penetration (ROP), poor cement
jobs, and many other problems that increase the non-productive time
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2020)
(NPT) of drilling operations (Alawami et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2014;
(Dudley, 2020), the world’s oil and natural gas consumption increased
Erge and van Oort, 2020). Previous studies have shown that cuttings
by 0.9 % and 2.0 %, respectively, compared to that in the year 2019.
transportation is affected by many factors including the rheology and
Horizontal well technology has been increasingly widely used in oil and
flow rate of drilling fluid, cuttings size, drill pipe rotation, ROP, eccen­
gas reservoir exploration and development to meet this rising demand of
tricity, and wellbore structure (Allahvirdizadeh et al., 2016; Duan et al.,
energy. The technology has also been used to develop deep offshore
2006; Ford et al., 1990; Han et al., 2010; Hyun et al., 2007; Ozbayoglu
fields with high reservoir temperature and pressure, as well as uncon­
et al., 2008; Peden et al., 1990; Song et al., 2017; Tomren, 1986; Zhang
ventional oil and gas resources such as coal-bed methane, shale gas,
et al., 2015). Studying the cuttings transportation mechanism and pre­
tight oil, and tight gas (Mahmoud et al., 2020). Compared with con­
dicting the hole-cleaning degree at different positions in horizontal and
ventional vertical wells, horizontal wells have a larger drainage area and
deviated well sections is of great significance for guiding the subsequent
higher single-well production (Epelle and Gerogiorgis, 2017). However,
adjustment of hydraulic parameters and implementation of
during drilling fluid circulation, drill cuttings tend to deposit on the
hole-cleaning measures.
low-side of horizontal and deviated well sections due to gravity, forming
In recent decades, many researchers have investigated cuttings
a stationary-solids bed. Hole-cleaning problems caused by insufficient
transport to establish various mechanistic and semi-mechanistic models
cuttings transport are an important issue yet to be resolved for fully

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: suneye@126.com (X. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104192
Received 19 January 2021; Received in revised form 23 June 2021; Accepted 7 August 2021
Available online 12 August 2021
1875-5100/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

Nomenclature R Radius of wellbore, m

Rep Particle Reynolds number
Aborehole Area of the borehole, m2 Re* Boundary Reynolds number
Ae Frontal area of the particle exposed to flow, m2 Si Wetted perimeter of drillpipe, m
Af Cross-sectional area of the flow, m2 S0 Wetted perimeter of wellbore, m
CD Drag coefficient Sb Wetted perimeter of bed, m
CL Lift coefficient u* Bed-friction velocity, m/s
dp Particle diameter, m u Mean annular velocity, m/s
Ddrillpipe Drillpipe diameter, m uc Drilling fluid circulation velocity, m/s
Dh Hydraulic diameter, m u+ Dimensionless local velocity
Dhole Wellbore diameter, m V Fluid velocity that crosses the action point, m/s
e Eccentricity y+ Dimensionless distance
E Exposure level y Distance to the virtual bed level, m
FB Buoyancy force, N y0 Integration constant, m
FD Drag force, N
FG Gravity force, N Greek Symbols
FL Lift force, N α Velocity factor
FR Friction force, N β Integration angle, degree
FW Submerged weight, N γ̇ Shear rate, 1/s
g Gravitational acceleration, m/s2 δ Eccentric distance, m
h Cuttings bed height, m θ Angle of inclination, degree
hdown Height from the wellbore lower side to the lower side of the κ Von Karman constant
drillpipe, m λ Annulus area ratio
hup Height from the wellbore lower side to the top side of the μl Newtonian fluid viscosity, Pa.s
drillpipe, m μsf Friction coefficient
ks Manning’s roughness, m ρl Fluid density, kg/m3
K Flow consistency index, Pa.sn ρp Particle density, kg/m3
lD Arm of drag, m τ Shear stress, Pa
lL Arm of lift, m τ0 Yield stress for Herschel-Bulkley fluid, Pa
lW Arm of submerged weight, m τw Wall shear stress, Pa
L Arc length, m ϕ Pivot angle, degree
n Flow behavior index φ Angle of repose, degree
P Wetted perimeter, m ψ Central angle, degree
r Radius of drillpipe, m ℓdrag Drag point of action

to describe flow characteristics (Kelin et al., 2013; Li and Luft, 2014;
Nazari et al., 2010). These models can be divided into layer-model and
critical velocity model categories. Layer-models include the two-layer
model, which has a homogeneous suspension above and a deposit bed
below (Clark and Bickham, 1994; Hyun et al., 2007; Kamp and Rivero,
1999; Larsen et al., 1997; Naganawa and Nomura, 2006; Ramadan et al.,
2001), and the three-layer model, which is composed of a bed of parti­
cles of uniform concentration, a dispersed layer, and a fluid-flow layer
(Hyun et al., 2000; Nguyen and Rahman, 1996; Zou et al., 2000). The
general concentration distribution and average flow velocity distribu­
tion of each phase can be determined by solving these models. But the
calculation process is more complicated due to more equations are
needed for closure.
The critical velocity model can be used to calculate the local fluid
velocity of a target bed particle by solving the velocity profile in the
annulus cross-section (2D). The local velocity is taken as the research
object and the mechanism of particle at a given entrainment threshold is
determined according to the equilibrium of forces or moments. Finally,
the minimum average annular fluid velocity to prevent the formation of
cuttings bed is calculated. Previous researchers have used critical
transport fluid velocity (CTFV), critical flow rate (CFR), minimum
transport velocity (MTV), critical resuspension velocity (CRV), mini­
mum flow rate (MFR), and critical flow velocity (CFV) to depict the
critical velocity (Chen et al., 2014; Duan et al., 2009; Huo et al., 2017;
Mohammadsalehi and Malekzadeh, 2011; Ozbayoglu et al., 2010). But it
cannot predict the cuttings bed height when the drilling fluid circulation
velocity is less than the critical velocity. When the annular fluid velocity
exceeds the critical velocity, the cuttings on the bed are forced into
instability and are transported onward to the wellhead.
It is essential to identify where the critical spots concerning hole
cleaning are for drilling planning purposes. Theoretically, base mud flow
rates affect the efficiency of transport in these parts. However, in actual
field applications, the fluid circulation velocity may be lower than the
critical velocity. Accurately predicting the cuttings bed thickness is an
essential means for evaluating hole-cleaning performance. Simulta­
neously, nearly all drilling fluids are non-Newtonian, a type of fluid that
exhibits complicated rheological characteristics (such as shear-thinning
or yield stress behavior) which further affect the transportation of drill
cuttings. Therefore, establishing a suitable model for non-Newtonian
fluids is necessary to predict the cuttings bed height. Such a model
should also accurately reflect the influence of various drilling parame­
ters on cuttings transport characteristics as well as hole-cleaning per­
formance in horizontal and deviated wells.
A critical transport model for target bed particles at a given
entrainment threshold was established in this study. The bed-friction
velocity under the critical state is calculated and the mean annular ve­
locity was obtained. The cuttings bed height was predicted according to
the geometric relationship between the relative positions of the drill
pipe and cuttings bed. The effects of inclination angle, cuttings size,
circulation velocity, eccentricity, borehole size, flow pattern, and
rheological parameters on mean annular velocity and cuttings bed
height were analyzed. Experiments were conducted on a large-scale flow
loop to verify the effectiveness of the proposed model. The results pre­
sented below may provide a workable reference for predicting hole-
cleaning conditions in horizontal and deviated wells.

2
J. Qu et al.
2. Mathematical model
In the horizontal and deviated well sections, when the circulation
velocity is less than the critical velocity, drill cuttings are deposited on
the lower-side of the annulus and form a stationary-solids bed. With the
continuous deposition of cuttings, the cuttings bed thickness increases
and begins to reduce the flow area and increase the annular fluid ve­
locity. When the fluid velocity exceeds the critical value, the cuttings can
form a moving cuttings bed above the solids bed that is transported to
the wellhead under the action of the drilling fluid.
Target bed particles in the cuttings transport experiment and velocity
distribution profile of target bed particles in the flow field are shown in
Fig. 1a and b. The near-wall velocity profiles are different in case of
laminar versus turbulent flow. The particles on the cuttings bed are
affected by the drag force FD, lift force FL, buoyancy force FB, gravity
force FG, and friction force FR.
As shown in Fig. 1c–e, three transportation mechanisms of target bed
particle were observed here: 1) sliding transport; 2) rolling transport;
and 3) lifting transport. In sliding mode, the driving force along the flow
direction exceeds the frictional resistance at the contacts. In rolling
mode, the destabilizing moment about the pivoting point surpasses the
stabilizing moment about that point. In lifting mode, the lift force ex­
ceeds the submerged weight component of the particle (Dey and Ali,
2018). The basic equations describing the particle entrainment criteria
in these modes are as follows.
Sliding mode: FD − FW cos θ ≥ FR (1-a)
Rolling mode: MD ≥ MS ⇒FD lD + FL lL ≥ FW lW (1-b)
Lifting mode: FL ≥ FW sin θ (1-c)
where FW is the submerged weight, l represents the lever arms, ϕ is the
pivot angle, and θ is the angle of inclination of the wellbore from
vertical.
Force and momentum balance equations were established for the
Fig. 1. Schematic of a target bed particle, (a) in the cuttings transport experiment (b) at entrainment threshold by the wall-shear flow. Particle entrainment in, (c)
sliding mode (d) rolling mode (e) lifting mode.
3
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192
target bed particle. For simplicity, the following assumptions were
made: 1) h is the height of the stationary-solids bed with a uniform
thickness, 2) all drill cuttings are spherical and have the same diameter,
3) collisions between the particles and the walls are not considered, 4)
drill pipe rotation is not considered, 5) virtual bed level (a virtual zero-
velocity level) is 0.2 dp below the top of the bed, and 6) the exposure
level (the fraction of a particle exposed to the flow) E is 0.5, 7) instan­
taneous velocity fluctuation due to the turbulent flow is not considered.
The submerged weight FW calculated from gravity FG and buoyancy
FB is expressed as:
( )
1
FW = πdp3 ρp − ρl g (2)
6
where dp is the particle diameter, g is the acceleration of gravity, ρp and
ρl are the particle and fluid density, respectively.
In a multiphase flow, the particle-fluid drag force FD can be expressed
as follows:
1
FD = CD ρl V 2 Ae (3)
2
where CD is the drag coefficient, which is defined as the ratio of the
viscous drag force to the kinetic energy acting on the particle; V is the
fluid velocity that crosses the action point and assumes that the particle
is stationary before it begins to start up; Ae is the frontal area of the
particle exposed to the flow.
The near-bed velocity profile is usually assumed to be logarithmic
with a very thin viscous sub-layer near the bottom. The velocity V should
be calculated according to the near-bed velocity profile distribution (as
detailed in Appendix A), so the effective velocity (V = ℓdragαu*) is used
to calculate the drag force on a particle.
( )2
FD =
1
CD ρl ℓdrag αu* πdp2 (4)
16
where ℓdrag is the drag point of action that can be calculated according to
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

the exposure level and the near bed velocity profile, α is the velocity simplified joint calculation.
factor at a certain exposure level, u∗ is the bed-friction velocity, and αu∗ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )̅
√
is the fluid velocity at the top of the particle. The calculated values of α √ 4 1 ρ − ρ gd μ sin θ + cos θ
Sliding mode: u* = √ ⋅ 2 ⋅ (12-a)
p l p sf
⋅
and ℓdrag are different for laminar versus turbulent flows, as is also 3α ρl 0.5CD ℓ2drag + μsf CL
detailed in Appendix A.
Drag force is the main force driving the particles upward, so it is very √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
4 1 ρp − ρl gdp cos(ϕ − θ)
important to calculate it accurately. For a smooth sphere, the drag co­ Rolling mode: u = ⋅ ⋅ *
⋅ ( )
efficient is a function of the particle Reynolds number Rep, that is, CD = 3 α2 ρl 0.5CD ℓ2drag ℓdrag + cos ϕ + sin ϕCL
f(Rep ). A considerable number of CD-Rep correlations regarding particle- (12-b)
settling in Newtonian fluids have shown high prediction accuracy and √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
been validated on experimental data (Agwu et al., 2018). 4 1 ρp − ρl gdp sin θ
However, nearly all drilling fluids are non-Newtonian, which exhibit
*
Lifting mode: u = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (12-c)
3 α2 ρl CL
complicated rheological characteristics (e.g., shear-thinning, yield stress
behavior). The definitions of particle Reynolds numbers or apparent For the model, a pivot angle of ϕ = 59◦ is chosen for exposure level E
viscosities need to be modified to ensure that the settling results coincide = 0.5, which was proposed by Luckner (2003).
with the standard Newtonian drag curve (Machač et al., 1995). We can calculate the bed-friction velocity u* in the critical condition
Among numerous CD-Rep correlations published in the literature, the based on the above equations. The minimum of the three is chosen as the
formulas proposed by (Cheng, 2009) (Eq. (5)) are considered to have critical bed-friction velocity. As an approximate method, we introduce a
high accuracy for Newtonian fluid (Okesanya et al., 2020). proposed a variant form of Manning formula into the annulus to establish the
new correlation (Eq. (6)) by modifying the coefficients of the correlation relationship between the bed-friction velocity u* and the mean annular
model proposed by (Cheng, 2009); theirs can be used to predict the velocity u , and then to predict the height of the cuttings bed. Due to non-
CD-Rep correlations for Power-Law and Herschel-Bulkley fluids. Newtonian flow is challenging due to the difficulty of accurately ac­
[ ( )] counting for flow properties, we make this approximation assumption to
24 ( )0.43
CD = 1 + 0.27Rep− N + 0.47 1 − exp − 0.04Re0.38
p− N (5) describe the behavior of non-Newtonian fluid. The Manning’s equation
Rep− N can be expressed as:
24 ( )0.35 [ ( )] [ ]0.5
CD = 1 + 0.12Rep + 0.398 1 − exp − 0.01Re0.9282
p (6) u* = uks g(0.25Dh )− 1/3 (13)
Rep

ρl Vdp ρl V 2− n dnp ρl V 2− n dnp where u is the mean annular velocity of drilling fluid that make the
where Rep− N = μl , Rep− PL = K , and Rep− HB = ( )n represent
target bed particle under the threshold condition can start-up, ks = 3.5dp
dp
K+τ0 V is the Manning’s roughness, Dh = 4Af /P is the hydraulic diameter that
the generalized particle Reynolds number in a Newtonian fluid, Power- considers the existence of the cuttings bed, Af is the cross-sectional area
Law fluid, and Herschel-Bulkley fluid, respectively; μl is the Newtonian of the flow, and P is the wetted perimeter of the cross-section.
fluid viscosity, τ0 is the yield stress, K is the flow consistency index, and n The mean annular velocity can also be calculated according to the
is the flow behavior index. For a Newtonian fluid, τ0 = 0, K = μl, n = 1. annulus area ratio λ and the drilling fluid circulation velocity uc:
Lift force FL is expressed in the same way as to drag force FD, but it is { }
Aborebore u
assumed that the lift force is caused by the upside and underside fluid λ= = max 1, (14)
Af uc
velocity gradient of the particles.
1 where Aborehole is the borehole area, uc is the circulation velocity of
FL = C L ρ l V 2 A e (7) drilling fluid.
2
According to Eq. (13) and Eq. (14), the calculated bed-friction ve­
where CL is the lift coefficient. Similarly, according to the near-bed ve­ locity u∗ and the relationship between cuttings bed height h and hy­
locity profile, Eq. (7) should be modified as follows: draulic diameter Dh (Appendix B) can be integrated. We used an
1 iterative trial-and-error procedure to calculate the mean annular ve­
FL = CL ρl (αu* )2 πdp2 (8) locity and cuttings bed height. The implementation details of the cal­
8
culations are as follows: 1) According to Eq. (12), the bed-friction
The lift coefficient is sometimes expressed as a fraction of the drag velocity u* under three transport modes is calculated. The minimum
coefficient and sometimes expressed as a constant. In the turbulent re­ value of the three is selected to judge the bed-friction velocity and its
gion in constructing our model, we used a lift coefficient (Wiberg and transport mode; 2) Given a hypothetical cuttings bed height hinitial, and
Smith, 1987) as follows. calculate the cross-sectional area of the flow Af, the wetted perimeter of
CL = 0.85CD (9) the cross-section P and the hydraulic diameter Dh, according to the re­
lationships listed in Appendix B; 3) Based on the bed-friction velocity u*
For a laminar region with a low Reynolds number, the lift coefficient and hydraulic diameter Dh, the mean annular velocity (u) can be
(Huo et al., 2017) is expressed as: calculated by Manning formula (Eq. (13)); 4) According to the formula
{ (
dp dV
/ )0.5 } of annulus area ratio λ (Eq. (14)), a new cross-sectional area of the flow
CL = max 0.09, 5.82 Rep (10) Af is calculated by combining the annular average velocity u and cir­
2V dy
culation velocity uc; 5) Judge whether the tolerance between the new
Friction is involved whenever the mechanism for the initiation of calculated Af and the old calculated Af meets the convergence condition,
motion is sliding. Friction force FR can be defined as: and output the result or continue the iterative calculation. If Af-new-Af-old
is greater than a certain tolerance, update h and repeat the steps until Af-
FR = μsf (FW sin θ − FL ) (11)
new-Af-old converges within a certain tolerance, which is the value of
0.001 in this paper. The iterative trial-and-error procedure for calcu­
where μsf = tan φ is the friction coefficient, which is related to the angle
of repose φ. lating the cuttings bed height is shown in Fig. 2.
When the particles are about to slide, roll, or lift, the bed-friction
velocity u* under the critical condition can be obtained by a

4
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

Fig. 2. Flow chart of trial-and-error calculation procedure.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of flow loop.

5
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

3. Experimental procedure where τ is the shear stress and γ̇ is the shear rate.
The samples were collected to measure their rheological parameters
3.1. Flow loop at the test temperature with an advanced rotational rheometer (Anton
Paar MCR 92) with between 1 and 100 1/s shear rates. The fluid pa­
Cuttings transport experiments were carried out on an advanced rameters were fitted according to the corresponding rheological model.
large-scale flow-loop facility. Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of the The rheological parameters of the test fluid used in the experiment are
flow loop used in this study. The cuttings transport simulation facility shown in Fig. 5.
consists of a 5.5 m long test section (Fig. 4), frequency converter, liquid
storage tank, liquid pump, flowmeter, sand injection tank, console, and
shale shaker. A transparent plexiglass tube was used to provide effective
visualizations. The outer diameter, inner diameter, and wall thickness of
the plexiglass tube are 0.16 m, 0.12 m, and 0.02 m. The drill pipe is
made of stainless steel with an outer diameter of 0.073 m. The drill pipe
and the plexiglass tube were arranged concentrically.

3.2. Test particles and drilling fluids

The test spherical particles were fabricated from glass (2500 kg/m3)
with diameter of 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm.
Tap water was selected as the Newtonian drilling fluid for the test
and two different concentrations of Carbopol aqueous solutions were
chosen as the non-Newtonian drilling fluids. A higher concentration of
Carbopol aqueous solution was used as the Herschel-Bulkley fluid and a
lower concentration as the Power-Law fluid. The rheological models of
the Power-Law fluid is:
τ = K γ̇n (15)
and for the Herschel-Bulkley fluid:
Fig. 5. Shear stress versus shear rate of drilling fluids with different rheolog­
τ = τ0 + K γ̇n (16) ical models.

Fig. 4. Flow loop unit used for cuttings transport experiments.

6
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

3.3. Experimental procedure

Sufficient test fluid was stored in the liquid storage tank in advance.
The frequency converter was adjusted to continuously provide the
drilling fluid with a certain flow rate to the cuttings transport simulation
system through the fluid pump. The sand injection device was switched
on to force the simulated cuttings into the simulated wellbore with the
drilling fluid’s circulation. The mixture of cuttings and drilling fluid
flowing out of the wellbore passed through the shale shaker and the
cuttings particles were separated so that the drilling fluid returned to the
storage tank. After enough time passed for full development, once the
cuttings bed height reached a stable state, the three scale stickers’
lengths on the outer wall of the plexiglass tube were recorded to
calculate the average arc length. The frequency converter was adjusted
to increase the flow rate gradually. After full development, the arc
length was recorded and the average value was calculated upon reach­
ing the steady-state.
The experiment was carried out under different inclination angle, Fig. 6. Model-predicted relationship between inclination angle and mean
particle size, circulation velocity, and rheological property conditions annular velocity for different transport modes at: dp = 5 mm, e = 0, uc = 0.58
repeatedly using the same step-wise process. According to the average m/s, water with μl = 0.001 Pa s.
arc length measured by the experiment, the cuttings bed height was
calculated according to the formula given in Appendix C. The dimen­ particles can counteract gravity and the particles are lifted away from
sionless bed height was calculated in combination with the borehole the bed surface.
diameter. The experimental test matrix is given in Table 1. The model-predicted relationship between the mean annular veloc­
ity and the inclination angle was calculated for cuttings of various sizes
4. Results and discussion as shown in Fig. 7a. The model-predicted relationship between the
dimensionless bed height and the inclination angle was also calculated,
The effects of inclination angle, flow pattern (laminar or turbulent),
drilling fluid circulation velocity and rheological parameters, cuttings
size, eccentricity, and borehole size on the mean annular velocity at the
entrainment threshold of the target bed particle (from here on referred
to as the “mean annular velocity”) were determined in this study. The
dimensionless bed height was predicted based on these parameters. If
the required mean annular velocity is lower than the circulation veloc­
ity, of course, then no stationary-solids bed form in the annulus. The
models were calculated differently for laminar versus turbulent flows, as
discussed in detail below.
First, the cuttings transport behavior in turbulent flow (drilling fluid
is water) is investigated as follows. Fig. 6 shows the model-predicted
relationship between mean annular velocity and inclination angle for
different transport modes under turbulent conditions. The mean annular
velocity required for particle sliding increases as the inclination angle
decreases. The velocity required for lifting decreases with the inclination
angle. The velocity required for rolling first increases and then decreases
as the inclination angle decreases. The turning points of different
transport modes were identified around the 62◦ and 86◦ inclination
angles. When the annulus is nearly horizontal (86◦ < θ < 90◦ ), particles
are driven by drag force and lift force to resist the action of friction and
begin to slide. When in the middle inclination well section (62◦ < θ <
86◦ ), the particles roll under the action of drag force and lift force. When
the inclination angle is low (30◦ < θ < 62◦ ), the lifting force on the

Table 1
Experimental test matrix.
length of the test section (m) 5.5

Outside diameter of drill pipe (m) 0.073

Diameter of wellbore (m) 0.12
Fluid density ρl (kg/m3) 1000
Particle density ρp (kg/m3) 2500
Particle diameter dp (mm) 2.0, 4.0, 6.0
Eccentricity e 0
Fluid type/Rheological parameters in Newtonian fluid/(μl = 0.0014 Pa s)
experiment Power-law fluid/(K = 0.066 Pa s, n = 0.74)
Herschel-Bulkley fluid/(τ0 = 0.12, K = 0.38
Pa s, n = 0.62) Fig. 7. Model-predicted mean annular velocity and dimensionless bed height
Angle of inclination θ (◦ ) 65◦ , 75◦ , 90◦
change with inclination angle at: e = 0, uc = 0.58 m/s, water with μl = 0.001 Pa
Circulation velocity uc (m/s) 0.35–0.78
s. a) mean annular velocity, b) dimensionless bed height.

7
J. Qu et al.
as shown in Fig. 7b. The mean annular velocity appears to first increase
and then decrease with the inclination angle and reaches a maximum
value of around 60◦ . When the inclination angle is less than 60◦ , the
mean annular velocity is more sensitive to inclination angle changes.
The dimensionless bed height and mean annular velocity show similar
trends. The inclination angle of about 60◦ represents the most chal­
lenging well section (Peden et al., 1990). The mean annular velocity
increases as cuttings size decreases, which indicates that smaller parti­
cles are less likely to be transported out of the wellbore, resulting in
higher cuttings bed and greater annular velocity in this case. This is also
consistent with observations made by (Duan et al., 2006). For example,
under the current conditions, when the inclination angle is 65◦ , the
mean annular velocity above the bed formed by 2 mm particles is 1.16
m/s. In contrast, the velocity for 6 mm particles is only 0.84 m/s, the
required velocity is reduced by 38.1 %.
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between the model-predicted dimen­
sionless bed height and drilling fluid circulation velocity alongside our
experimental measurement results. As shown in Fig. 8a, the cuttings bed
height decreases as the circulation velocity increases. The cuttings bed
height of the 65-degree section is higher than that of the 90-degree
horizontal section. Similarly, a higher velocity is required to remove
the stationary-solids bed as a whole. For example, at 65◦ , the mean
annular velocity must reach 0.90 m/s to keep the borehole completely
clean; at 90◦ , it needs to be 0.78 m/s. Fig. 8b shows that at an inclination
angle of 75◦ in the experimental, a smaller cuttings size necessitated a
higher the mean annular velocity to remove the stationary-solids bed.
The experimental results are in close agreement with the theoretical
Fig. 8. Variation curve of dimensionless bed height under different circulation
velocities at: e = 0, water with μl = 0.0014 Pa s. a) under different inclinations
(dp = 6 mm), b) under different particle sizes (θ = 75◦ ).
8
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192
calculations. The average relative error between the calculated and
experimental values is about 13.6 %.
Cuttings transport behavior is greatly affected by the rheology of
drilling fluids. The model-predicted relationship between dimensionless
bed height and the inclination angle with different viscosities (μl) was
shown in Fig. 9. The dimensionless bed height appears to decrease as
viscosity increases. In other words, increasing the viscosity of drilling
fluid under turbulent conditions may improve the hole-cleaning effi­
ciency. This is consistent with observations made by (Piroozian et al.,
2012), who found that the gain effect of this kind of hole cleaning
continues until the viscosity increases to the point where an annular
flow pattern becomes laminar. The viscosity should be increased to
reach the lower endpoint of the turbulent regime (Mahmoud et al.,
2020). Fig. 9 also shows that the decreasing trend of dimensionless bed
height created by the increase in drilling fluid viscosity gradually
weakens. For example, when the inclination angle is 65◦ , the dimen­
sionless bed heights in drilling fluids with 0.001 Pa s, 0.003 Pa s, and
0.005 Pa s are 0.39, 0.25, and 0.16, respectively; the difference is 56 %
and 56.3 %.
The near-wall velocity profile is different in a laminar flow from that
in a turbulent flow, so the critical value of the laminar flow is also
different. We examined cuttings transport behavior under laminar flow
conditions (with non-Newtonian drilling fluid) by first determining
model-predicted relationship between the mean annular velocity and
the inclination angle under different transport modes, as shown in
Fig. 10. The drilling fluids shown in Fig. 10a and b are Power-Law fluid
and Herschel-Bulkley fluid, respectively. The inclination angle ranges
for sliding, rolling, and lifting modes are 86–90◦ , 72–86◦ , and 30–72◦ ,
respectively. Compared to the turbulent flow cases, the upper limit of
the applicable inclination angle interval for lifting in a laminar flow case
increases by about 10◦ . This is mainly because the lift coefficient’s
calculated value is larger, which leads to a smaller velocity that can
generate enough lift to offset the vertical component of the floating
weight.
Fig. 11 shows the model-predicted relationship between the calcu­
lated mean annular velocity and inclination angle under the Power-Law
fluid (K = 0.03, n = 0.7) and Herschel-Bulkley fluid (τ0 = 0.3, K = 0.03,
n = 0.7) conditions. The mean annular velocity of non-Newtonian fluid
drilling fluid appears to increase first and then decreases as the incli­
nation angle increases. This change trend is relatively gentle; a relatively
low velocity is sufficient to move the particles. Similarly, a smaller
particle size makes for a higher mean annular velocity required for
cuttings transport, i.e., has poor hole-cleaning efficiency. In the case of
Herschel-Bulkley drilling fluid, the mean annular velocity required for
cuttings transport is slightly larger than that of the Power-Law fluid.
Fig. 9. Model-predicted dimensionless bed height changing with fluid viscosity
at: dp = 4 mm, e = 0, uc = 0.58 m/s.
J. Qu et al.
Fig. 10. Model-predicted relationship between inclination angle and mean
annular velocity for different transport modes at: dp = 5 mm, e = 0, uc = 0.58
m/s. (a) Power-Law fluid with K = 0.03, n = 0.7; (b) Herschel-Bulkley fluid
with τ0 = 0.3, K = 0.03, n = 0.7.
Fig. 11. Model-predicted Mean annular velocity changing with inclination
angle at: e = 0, uc = 0.58 m/s, τ0 = 0.3, K = 0.03, n = 0.7. (Power-law fluid is
plotted with solid lines; Herschel-Bulkley fluid is plotted with dashed lines).
Yield stress behavior has slightly negative effect on the mean annular
velocity required for cuttings to start moving, because it require more
forces to remove the deposited particles from the bed (Saasen and
Løklingholm, 2002). However, once the particles do move into the
wellbore, the yield stress effect of Herschel-Bulkley fluid can more
9
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192
effectively suspend them and delay their re-settlement, more effectively
transporting them out of the wellbore than the Power-Law fluid.
Fig. 12 shows the experimental and model-prediction results of the
dimensionless bed height varying with the circulation velocity under
Power-Law and Herschel-Bulkley drilling fluid conditions, respectively.
The mean annular velocity predicted by the model at θ = 90◦ is less than
that of θ = 65◦ under two kinds of drilling fluid systems. The experi­
mental results also reflect this trend. It shows that the mean annular
velocity required for the target bed particle to move up in the middle-
inclined well sections is still the highest in laminar flow. The hole
cleaning performance in these inclined-well sections is also poor. The
experimental results are in close agreement with the theoretical calcu­
lation at an average relative error of 15.1 %.
The model-predicted relationship between different rheological pa­
rameters and the mean annular velocity with Power-Law and Herschel-
Bulkley drilling fluids was shown in Fig. 13. As shown in Fig. 13a, when
other conditions are unchanged, an increase in the flow consistency
coefficient K causes the required mean annular velocity to increase, i.e.,
increase the risk of poor hole-cleaning. This is in agreement with (Adari
et al., 2000) that cuttings bed removal is better with low viscosity fluid
when the flow is laminar. When the flow consistency coefficient K is low,
the hole-cleaning ability of Herschel-Bulkley fluid is slightly worse than
that of Power-Law fluid because a higher mean annular velocity is
necessary; When the consistency coefficient K is high, there is no
obvious difference between them.
As shown in Fig. 13b, the mean annular velocity increases as the flow
index increases, ultimately deteriorating the hole-cleaning efficiency.
The difference in hole-cleaning ability between Power-Law fluid and
Herschel-Bulkley fluid is obvious when the flow index is low. The hole-
cleaning efficiency of Herschel-Bulkley fluid is worse than that of Power-
Law fluid at a lower flow index value. We also investigated the rela­
tionship between the mean annular velocity and the yield value of
Herschel-Bulkley fluid. A change in yield value does not appear to affect
the mean annular velocity; that is, changing the yield value does not
cause a significant change in the fluid velocity required for target bed
particle transport.
In an actual drilling process, the impact of gravity and mechanical
vibrations cause the hole configurations to vary significantly from
concentric to fully eccentric. Fig. 14 shows the prediction results of the
effect of eccentricity on the dimensionless bed height under three dril­
ling fluid conditions, where the height of the cuttings bed increases as
eccentricity increases. An increase in eccentricity cause the drill pipe to
sink so that, the drill pipe and cuttings bed occupy the lower part of the
Fig. 12. Variation curve of dimensionless cuttings bed height under different
annular circulation velocities at: e = 0, dp = 2 mm (Power-Law fluid with K =
0.066, n = 0.74; Herschel-Bulkley fluid with τ0 = 0.12, K = 0.38, n = 0.62.
Model-prediction data are plotted with solid lines; Experimental data are
plotted with scatter point).
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

point of the drill pipe has not yet touched the cuttings bed surface, so it
does not change until the eccentricity increases to the point where it
touches.
In addition to eccentricity, the borehole size also changes throughout
an actual drilling process. We conducted an extended investigation on
the influence of different borehole sizes (Case I: 0.08–0.12 m; Case II:
0.12–0.15 m; Case III: 0.15–0.175 m; and Case IV: 0.175–0.197 m) on
the dimensionless bed height. The four borehole sizes ranges have an
approximately equal annular cross-sectional area. Fig. 15 shows the
prediction results of the effect of borehole size on the dimensionless bed
height under three drilling fluid conditions with the same circulation
velocity and annular cross-sectional area, the dimensionless bed height
is lower when the borehole size is slightly lower. A large borehole ap­
pears to have better hole-cleaning efficiency than a smaller borehole,
though the improvement is slight.
Fig. 16a shows the predicted dimensionless bed height h/Dhole
against the experimental data from this study. The model predictions are
in good agreement with experimental results in this study. The errors of
prediction are mostly within 20 % of experimental data. The average
difference is 13.6 %, and the maximum difference is 34.9 %. Due to the
limitations of our experimental facilities, we can only realize the
experiment of cuttings transport in the concentric annulus (e = 0). We
chose a group of experimental results under eccentric conditions (e =
0.8) in the literature (Duan et al., (2006)) and compared them with the
model proposed in this paper (Fig. 16b). The model predictions are in
good agreement with eccentric experimental results with an average
difference of 16.6 %

5. Conclusions

In this paper, through theoretical calculation and experimental

verification, the transport mode of the target bed cuttings particles is
judged, and the mean annular velocity and dimensionless bed height
Fig. 13. Model-predicted mean annular velocity changing with rheological under this state are calculated. The conclusions can be summarized as
parameters at: dp = 4 mm, e = 0, uc = 0.58 m/s, α = 75◦ . follows.

1) In the low- and medium-inclination well section (e.g. 30◦ < θ < 62◦ in
turbulence flow and 30◦ < θ < 72◦ in laminar flow), the target bed
particle’s transport mode is lifting. It is rolling in the highly-inclined
well section (e.g. 62◦ < θ < 86◦ in turbulence flow and 72◦ < θ < 86◦
in laminar flow), and sliding in the nearly horizontal well section (e.
g. 86◦ < θ < 90◦ in both turbulence flow and laminar flow).
Compared with a turbulent flow, the upper limit of the interval of the
lift mode’s inclination angle is expanded by about 10◦ in a laminar
flow.

Fig. 14. Model-predicted dimensionless bed height changing with eccentricity.

annulus and indirectly increase the cuttings bed height. The specific
growth trend should be determined in combination with the cuttings bed
and drill pipe position. As shown in the figure, the dimensionless bed
height does not change significantly with increase in eccentricity from
0.7 to 1 in the case of a Newtonian fluid. This is because the drill pipe has
already been completely submerged in the cuttings bed, so increasing
the eccentricity does not affect the bed height. Similarly, for Power-Law
fluid, when the eccentricity increases from 0 to 0.4, the dimensionless
bed height does not increase significantly. This is because the lowest Fig. 15. Model-predicted dimensionless bed height changing with bore­
hole size.

10
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

about 60◦ . An increase in circulation velocity improves the hole-

cleaning efficiency. Smaller-sized cuttings are more difficult to
move out of the wellbore, so the hole-cleaning efficiency can also be
improved with larger cuttings.
3) In case of turbulent flow, increasing the viscosity of the drilling fluid
can promote hole cleaning. In cases of laminar flow, increasing the
flow consistency index K and flow behavior index n can make the
hole-cleaning efficiency worse. The mean annular velocity required
for the target bed particle to move is not sensitive to changes in the
yield value, but an increase of yield value has a strong inhibitory
effect on the re-settlement of suspended particles.
4) The dimensionless bed height increases as eccentricity increases.
However, this phenomenon must be considered in combination with
the cuttings bed and drill pipe’s actual positions. The hole-cleaning
efficiency of a large-size borehole is better under the same annular
cross-section area and circulation velocity compared to a smaller
borehole.

Credit author statement

This paper is the result of collaborative teamwork. Jingyu Qu, Re­

sources, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Xiaofeng Sun, Conceptu­
alization, Methodology. Tie Yan, Investigation. Ye Chen, Visualization.
Qiaobo Hu, Formal analysis.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation

of China (grant number 51674087) and the National Science and
Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of
China (grant number 2017ZX05009-003).

Fig. 16. Comparison of measured and predicted dimensionless cuttings bed

height. a) experimental data from this study with e = 0; b) experimental data
from Duan et al., (2006) with e = 0.8.

2) The hole-cleaning efficiency increases first and then decreases as the

inclination angle increases. The hole-cleaning efficiency is worst at

Appendix A. Near bed profiles

The dimensionless distance y+ is the wall coordinate. The distance y to the wall is made dimensionless under the given friction velocity and
rheological parameters. In a Newtonian fluid, power-law fluid, and Herschel-Bulkley fluid, it is expressed as follows:
yu* ρl
y+ = (A-1)
μl

2− n (ρ )1n
y+ = yu* n l
(A-2)
K

(τw − τ0 )1/n
y+ = yρl u* (A-3)
τw K 1/n

2
where τw = ρl u* is the wall shear stress.
Dimensionless velocity u+ is the dimensionless velocity. The velocity u(y) parallel to the wall is a function of y (distance from the wall), divided by
the bed-friction velocity u∗ :
u(y)
u+ = (A-4)
u*

11
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

The velocity profile in a viscous sublayer is as follows:

u+ = y+ (A-5)
The logarithmic velocity profile (law of the wall) can be written as:
u* y
u(y) = ln (A-6)
κ y0

ks
y0 = (A-7)
30

where y0 is the distance from the boundary at which the idealized velocity given by the law of the wall is zero, κ is the Von Karman constant. It is
usually assumed that the velocity profile is logarithmic and that there is a very thin viscous sublayer near the bottom. A full laminar flow is considered
up to a boundary Reynolds number Re* of 11.6 and a full turbulent flow above 11.6. The boundary Reynolds number Re* is expressed as:
( )
Re* = y+ y = dp (A-8)

According to the velocity profile near the wall in laminar (Eq. (A-4) and Eq. (A-5)) and turbulent flow (Eq. (A-6)), we can calculate the fluid
velocity at the top of the target bed particle, that is, u (y = 0.5dp). By calculation, we get u (y = 0.5dp) = 0.5 Re*u* for laminar flow and u (y = 0.5dp) =
3.53 u* for turbulent flow. That is to say, the value of velocity factor α under laminar flow condition and turbulent flow condition is α=0.5 Re*, and
α=3.53, respectively.
Accordingly, for a given sinking degree, the drag point of action ldrag can be calculated detailed in (Miedema, 2011). For a laminar flow:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ π/2
√∫ ( )2
√ 2E − 1 + sin β
√ cos 2 (β)dβ
√ 2
√
√β 0
ℓdrag = √ (A-9)
√ ∫π/2
√
√ E 2 2
cos (β)dβ
√
θ0

And for a turbulence flow:

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ π/2
√∫ ( ( ))2
√ 30 × (2E − 1 + sin β)
√ ln +1 cos 2 (β)dβ
√ 2×3
√
√β 0
ℓdrag = √ (A-10)
√ ( ( ))2 ∫π/2
√
√ ln 30E
+ 1 cos 2 (β)dβ
√ 3
β0

β0 = arcsin(1 − 2E) (A-11)

For the laminar and turbulent flows considered in this study, ℓdrag = 0.5, and ℓdrag = 0.63 at E = 0.5.

Appendix B. General configurations of wellbore geometry

12
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

Fig. B1. Three possible configurations of bed surfaces relative to drill pipe.

The relative position of the drill pipe and cuttings bed can be divided into three cases: 1) the drill pipe is not submerged in the cuttings bed; 2) it is
partially submerged; 3) it is completely submerged. We calculated the annulus fluid area Af, and annulus wetted perimeter P =Si + S0+Sb accordingly.
δ = e(R − r) (B-1)

hdown = R − r − δ (B-2)

hup = R + r − δ (B-3)

For case 1, h ≤ hdown :

( )
h− R
S0 = 2R arccos (B-4)
R

Si = 2πr (B-5)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Sb = 2 R2 − (R − h)2 (B-6)
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
h− R
Af = R2 arccos + (R − h) R2 − (R − h)2 − π r2 (B-7)
R
For case 2, hdown ≤ h ≤ hup :
( )
h− R
S0 = 2R arccos (B-8)
R
( )
h− R+δ
Si = 2r arccos (B-9)
r
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Sb = 2 R2 − (R − h)2 − 2 r2 − (R − h − δ)2 (B-10)
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
h− R
Af = R2 arccos + (R − h) R2 − (R − h)2
R
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (B-11)
h− R+δ
​ − r2 arccos − (R − h − δ) r2 − (R − h − δ)2
r
For case 3, h ≥ hup :
( )
h− R
S0 = 2R arccos (B-12)
R

Si = 0 (B-13)

13
J. Qu et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Sb = 2 R2 − (R − h)2 (B-14)
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
h− R
Af = R2 arccos + (R − h) R2 − (R − h)2 (B-15)
R

Appendix C. Relationship between arc length and height of cuttings Bed

Fig. C1. Geometrical wellbore configuration.

2L
ψ= (C-1)
Dhole + 2δ

1 (ψ )
h1 = Dhole cos (C-2)
2 2
1
h = Dhole − h1 (C-3)
2

References Clark, R.K., Bickham, K.L., 1994. Mechanistic model for cuttings transport. Proc. - SPE
Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. Delta 139–153. https://doi.org/10.2523/28306-ms.
Dey, S., Ali, S.Z., 2018. Review Article: advances in modeling of bed particle entrainment
Adari, R.B., Miska, S., Kuru, E., Bern, P., Saasen, A., 2000. Selecting drilling fluid
sheared by turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids 30. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030458.
properties and flow rates for effective hole cleaning in high-angle and horizontal
Duan, M., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M., Takach, N.E., Ahmed, R.M., Zettner, C.M., 2006. Transport
wells. SPE Reserv. Eng. (Society Pet. Eng. 273–282. https://doi.org/10.2118/63050-
of small cuttings in extended reach drilling. Int. Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. China. https://
ms.
doi.org/10.2118/104192-MS.
Agwu, O.E., Akpabio, J.U., Alabi, S.B., Dosunmu, A., 2018. Settling velocity of drill
Duan, M., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M., Takach, N.E., Zettner, R.M.A.C.M., 2009. Critical
cuttings in drilling fluids: a review of experimental, numerical simulations and
conditions for effective sand-sized solids transport in horizontal and high-angle
artificial intelligence studies. Powder Technol. 339, 728–746. https://doi.org/
wells. SPE Drill. Complet. 24, 10. https://doi.org/10.2118/106707-PA.
10.1016/j.powtec.2018.08.064.
Dudley, B., 2020. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. BP Statistical Review, London,
Alawami, M., Bassam, M., Gharbi, S., Al Rubaii, M., 2019. A real-time indicator for the
UK.
evaluation of hole cleaning efficiency. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE/
Epelle, E.I., Gerogiorgis, D.I., 2017. A multiparametric CFD analysis of multiphase
IATMI Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition 2019. APOG, pp. 29–31.
annular flows for oil and gas drilling applications. Comput. Chem. Eng. 106,
https://doi.org/10.2118/196448-ms, 2019.
645–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.08.011.
Allahvirdizadeh, P., Kuru, E., Parlaktuna, M., 2016. Experimental investigation of solids
Erge, O., van Oort, E., 2020. Time-dependent cuttings transport modeling considering
transport in horizontal concentric annuli using water and drag reducing polymer-
the effects of eccentricity, rotation and partial blockage in wellbore annuli. J. Nat.
based fluids. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 35, 1070–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Gas Sci. Eng. 82, 103488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103488.
jngse.2016.09.052.
Ford, J.T., Peden, J.M., Oyeneyin, M.B., Gao, E., Zarrough, R., 1990. Experimental
Chen, X., Gao, D., Guo, B., Luo, L., Liu, X., Zhang, X., 2014. A new method for
investigation of drilled cuttings transport in inclined boreholes. SPE Annu. Tech.
determining the minimum gas injection rate required for hole cleaning in horizontal
Conf. Exhib. 197–206. https://doi.org/10.2118/20421-MS.
gas drilling. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 21, 1084–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Han, S.M., Hwang, Y.K., Woo, N.S., Kim, Y.J., 2010. Solid-liquid hydrodynamics in a slim
jngse.2014.11.009.
hole drilling annulus. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 70, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cheng, N.S., 2009. Comparison of formulas for drag coefficient and settling velocity of
petrol.2009.12.002.
spherical particles. Powder Technol. 189, 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
powtec.2008.07.006.

14
J. Qu et al.
Huo, H.J., Wang, R.H., Ni, H.J., Li, Y.X., Tan, C.Y., Xue, S., 2017. Study of critical
annulus up-returning velocity of cuttings carried by supercritical CO2 in deviated
well. J. CO2 Util. 20, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2017.04.013.
Hyun, C., Shah, S., Osisanya, S., 2007. Effects of fluid flow in a porous cuttings-bed on
cuttings transport efficiency and hydraulics. https://doi.org/10.2523/71374-ms.
Hyun, C., Shah, S., Osisanya, S., 2000. A three-layer modeling for cuttings transport with
coiled tubing horizontal drilling. Proc. SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. https://doi.org/
10.2523/63269-MS.
Kamp, A.M., Rivero, M., 1999. Layer modeling for cuttings transport in highly inclined
wellbores. In: SPE Lat. Am. Caribb. Pet. Eng. Conf. Proc. 1999-Janua. https://doi.
org/10.2118/53942-ms.
Kelin, W., Tie, Y., Xiaofeng, S., Shuai, S., Shizhu, L., 2013. Review and analysis of
cuttings transport in complex structural wells. Open Fuel Energy Sci. J. 6, 9–17.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1876973X20130610001.
Larsen, T.I., Pilehvari, a. a., Azar, J.J., 1997. Development of a new cuttings-transport
model for high-angle wellbores including horizontal wells. SPE Drill. Complet. 12,
129–135. https://doi.org/10.2118/25872-PA.
Luckner, T., Dallwig, H.J., Zanke, U., 2003. Zum Bewegungsbeginn von Sedimenten.
Wasser Boden 55 (1–2), 62–66.
Li, J., Luft, B., 2014. Overview solids transport study and application in oil-gas industry-
theoretical work. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers - International Petroleum
Technology Conference 2014, IPTC 2014 - Innovation and Collaboration: Keys to
Affordable Energy. https://doi.org/10.2523/iptc-17832-ms.
Machač, I., Ulbrichová, I., Elson, T.P., Cheesman, D.J., 1995. Fall of spherical particles
through non-Newtonian suspensions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 50, 3323–3327. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0009-2509(95)00168-5.
Mahmoud, H., Hamza, A., Nasser, M.S., Hussein, I.A., Ahmed, R., Karami, H., 2020. Hole
cleaning and drilling fluid sweeps in horizontal and deviated wells: comprehensive
review. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 186, 106748 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
petrol.2019.106748.
Miedema, S.A., 2011. Constructing the shields curve. Proc. Int. Conf. Offshore Mech.
Arct. Eng. - OMAE 7, 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2011-49232.
Mohammadsalehi, M., Malekzadeh, N., 2011. Optimization of hole cleaning and cutting
removal in vertical, deviated and horizontal wells. Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Asia Pacific
Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. 1, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.2118/143675-ms, 2011.
Naganawa, S., Nomura, T., 2006. Simulating transient behavior of cuttings transport
over whole trajectory of extended-reach well. In: Proc. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drill.
Technol. Conf. 2006 - Meet. Value Chall. Performance, Deliv. Cost 2006,
pp. 480–488. https://doi.org/10.2118/103923-ms.
Nazari, T., Hareland, G., Azar, J.J., 2010. Review of cuttings transport in directional well
drilling: systematic approach. Soc. Pet. Eng. West. North Am. Reg. Meet. 2010 -
Collab. with Jt. Meet. Pacific Sect. AAPG Cordilleran Sect. GSA 1, 108–122. https://
doi.org/10.2118/132372-ms.
15
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 95 (2021) 104192
Nguyen, D., Rahman, S.S., 1996. Three-layer hydraulic program for effective cuttings
transport and hole cleaning in highly deviated and horizontal wells. Proc. IADC/SPE
Asia Pacific Drill. Technol. Conf. APDT 163–173. https://doi.org/10.2523/36383-
ms.
Okesanya, T., Kuru, E., Sun, Y., 2020. A new generalized model for predicting the drag
coefficient and the settling velocity of Rigid spheres in viscoplastic fluids. SPE J.
https://doi.org/10.2118/196104-PA.
Ozbayoglu, M., Saasen, A., Sorgun, M., Svanes, K., 2008. Effect of pipe rotation on hole
cleaning for water-based drilling fluids in horizontal and deviated wells. Proc. IADC/
SPE asia pacific drill. Technol. Conf. Exhib. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2118/114965-
MS.
Ozbayoglu, M.E., Sorgun, M., Saasen, A., Svanes, K., 2010. Hole cleaning performance of
light-weight drilling fluids during horizontal underbalanced drilling. J. Can. Pet.
Technol. 49, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.2118/136689-PA.
Peden, J.M., Ford, J.T., Oyeneyin, M.B., 1990. Comprehensive experimental
investigation of drilled cuttings transport in inclined wells including the effects of
rotation and eccentricity. Eur. Pet. Conf. https://doi.org/10.2118/20925-MS.
Piroozian, A., Ismail, I., Yaacob, Z., Babakhani, P., Ismail, A.S.I., 2012. Impact of drilling
fluid viscosity, velocity and hole inclination on cuttings transport in horizontal and
highly deviated wells. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2, 149–156. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13202-012-0031-0.
Ramadan, A., Skalle, P., Johansen, S.T., Svein, J., Saasen, A., 2001. Mechanistic model
for cuttings removal from solid bed in inclined channels. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 30,
129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(01)00108-5.
Saasen, A., Løklingholm, G., 2002. The effect of drilling fluid rheological properties on
hole cleaning. In: Proceedings of the Drilling Conference, pp. 683–687. https://doi.
org/10.2523/74558-ms.
Song, X., Xu, Z., Wang, M., Li, G., Shah, S.N., Pang, Z., 2017. Experimental study on the
wellbore-cleaning efficiency of microhole-horizontal-well drilling. SPE J. 22,
1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.2118/185965-PA.
Tomren, P.H., 1986. Experiment study of cuttings transport in Directional Wells. SPE
Drill. Eng. 43–56.
Wiberg, P.L., Smith, J.D., 1987. Initial Motion of Coarse Sediment in Streams of High
Gradient, vol. 165. IAHS-AISH publication, pp. 299–308.
Zhang, F., Miska, S., Yu, M., Ozbayoglu, E., Takach, N., Osgouei, R.E., 2015. Is well clean
enough? A fast approach to estimate hole cleaning for directional drilling. In: Society
of Petroleum Engineers - Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and
Exhibition 2015, pp. 603–618. https://doi.org/10.2118/173681-ms.
Zou, L., Patel, M.H., Han, G., 2000. A new computer package for simulating cuttings
transport and predicting hole cleaning in deviated and horizontal wells. In: Proc. Int.
Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. China. IOGCEC, pp. 261–272. https://doi.org/10.2118/64646-
ms.