Settling Velocity of Variously
Shaped Particles. in Drilling
and Fracturing Fluids
James M. Peden, SPE, Heriot-Watt U.
Yuejin Luo,* SPE, Heriot-Watt U.
Summary. The settling velocities of a variety of shaped particles to simulate drilled cuttings were measured in both Newtonian
and non-Newtonian fluids. The results showed that the particle drag coefficient is a function of the particle Reynolds ~umber and,
in the case of power-law-model fluids, of the flow behavior index. A new generalized model has been developed for predicting the
settling velocities of particles of various shapes in both Newtonian and power-law fluids over a range of flow regimes.
Introduction and Previous Investigations
Drilling and fracturing fluids are generally classed as power-law-
type fluids, and their viscosities vary with shear rate. The prob-
lems of drilled cuttings settling out from drilling fluids and of prop-
pants from fracturing fluids are complicated by the shear-dependent
characteristics of the fluids.
.To acc;ount for the non-Newtonian effect of drilling fluids on the
settling velocity of drilled cuttings, Zeidler 1 suggested use of the
apparent viscosity at the wall and Moore 2 adapted the effective vis-
cosity for annular flow, as defined bySkelland. 3 Note that the ap-
parent viscosity or the effective viscosity represents the viscosity
at a specific shear rate pertaining to that annular location in an an-
nular flow situation, and does not necessarily represent the viscosity
around the settling particles. When the fluid velocity approaches
zero and the fluid becomes stagnant, both apparent and effective
viscosities will approach infinity.
For particles settling in fracturing fluids, several investigators
suggested the use of an effective shear rate on a particle to calcu-
late the equivalent Newtonian viscosity around the particle.
Novotny 4 suggested vplds and Daneshy5 suggested 3(vplds) to
characterize the shear rate for stagnant fluids. When the fluid is
in motion, Novotny 4 claims that the effective shear rate on a par-
ticle is the vector sum of the shear rate caused by particle settling,
vplds, and the shear rate imposed by fluid motion. On the basis
of an apparent viscosity substitution, Shah 6 established the corre:-
lation of [Cv (2 -n) NRem ' 2 ] 112 vs. NRem I and found that this corre-
lation was a function of the flow behavior index. Acharya 7
considered the viscoelastic effect of some fracturing fluids and sug-
gested use of a sophisticated drag-coefficient correlation for pure-
ly viscous non-Newtonian fluids and another correlation to account
for the elastic effect.
Other experimental work has been reported on investigations of
the settlin~ velocity of particles in drilling fluids 8- 13 and fractur-
ing fluids. 4 •15 In the previous investigations, however, no attempt
was made to establish a drag-coefficient correlation for nonspheri-
cal particles settling in non-Newtonian fluids, such as disks or rec-
tangular plates. These particles may be used to approximate the
shape of drilled cuttings.
Theory of Drag-Coefficient Correlation
Assuming that the particles are separated sufficiently during settling
so that they do not collide or interact with each other, the force
causing a particle to settle may be expressed as
Fg = 10- 6 VP(pP -p1 )g . ............................. (1)
*Permanently employed at Research lnst. of Petroleum E&D, Beijing.
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987
The resistant force induced by the particle's motion consists of two
components. ·One is the fluid viscous drag, which may be expressed
as
_
2
PjVp
Fvv=lO 3 CvvAp--, ............................ (2)
2
where Ap is the characteristic area of the particle parallel to the
direction of motion. Another component is the pressure drag, which
may be expressed as
_ PjVp
2
Fvp=lO 3 CvpAN--, ........................... (3)
2
where AN is the characteristic area of the particle normal to the
direction of motion. The total resistant force, usually simply called
the "drag force," is the sum of these two components and may
be expressed as
P v2
Fv=l0- 3 CvA_L!!_, .............................. (4)
2
where Cv is the drag coefficient and A is the characteristic area
of the particle, which depends on the shape of the particle and its
orientation during motion. For particles of different shapes, the dis-
tribution of the drag force between viscous drag and pressure drag
may vary considerably. For a flat particle settling flatwise, pres-
sure drag will predominate; for settling in an edgewise fashion, vis-
cous drag will be dominant.
For Newtonian fluids, the drag coefficient of a spherical particle
is a unique function of the particle Reynolds number, which is de-.
fined as
dsVpPJ
NRen=--. · · · · · · ·' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · (5)
J.t
For power-law fluids based on dimensional analysis, Cv is expect-
ed to be a function of both the modified particle Reynolds number,
NRem• and the flow behavior index, n:
Cv =J(NRem• n), · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · (6)
where
(10 -3 ds)nvp (2-n) (103 Pj)
. .................. (7)
lc
337
 TABLE 1-PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND DIMENSIONS
OF THE PARTICLES USED IN THE EXPERIMENT

Density Dimension
Materials (g/cm 3-) Shape (mm) Sphericity
Bauxite proppant 3.71 Sphere 0.3* 1.00
Intermediate Proppant 3.22 Sphere 0.4 to 0.75* 1.00
Sands 2.63 Well-rounded 1.2 to 2.2* 1.00
Glass beads 2.63 Sphere 4 to 6 1.00
Marbles 2.47 Sphere 15.5 to 25.1 1.00
Steel balls 7.75 Sphere 3.17 to 6.34 1.00
6.4 X 2.1 0.75
Aluminum 2.70 Disk 9.7x3.1 0.75
5.9x4.1 x2.1 0.73
Aluminum 2.70 Rectangle 10 X 8 X 2.1 0.62
6.4 X 2.2 0.76
. Plastic
. .
*These values are based on screen analysis.
2.28 Disk 9.6x3.2 0.76

For Newtonian fluids, the flow behavior index is, by definition, Examination of Eqs. 5 through 12 shows that a generalized form
unity and Eq. 7 reduces to Eq. 5. of the drag-coefficient correlation for both Newtonian and power-
In the laminar flow regime, where the inertia effect may be ne- law fluids, which is valid for all flow regimes, may be written as
glected, Stokes obtained the drag-coefficient correlation for spher-
ical particles within Newtonian fluids by theoretical analysis 16 as a
Cv=-- . ..................................... (13)
NRe~
24
Cv=--· (NRen<0.1) ............................ (8)
NRen For simplicity, and without significantly rectucing the accuracy, the
correlation described was used in this study. Dimensional analysis
For power-law fluids, the drag coefficient may be expressed as 3 shows that the coefficients a and e depend on only the fluid flow
regime for Newtonian fluids, and for power-law fluids depend also
on the flow behavior index, n.
24
Cv=--X (NRem <0.1), ......................... (9)
NRem Experimental Apparatus and Procedures
The experiments were conducted with two columns. One was a clear
where X is function of n and its lower and upper bounds have been perspex column (88-mm [3llz-in.] ID and 200-cm [6.56-ft] length)
evaluated by Wasserman and Slattery. 17 and the other a glass cylinder (60-mm [2.36-in.] ID and 45-cm
In the transitional and turbulent flow regimes, some empirical [1.48-ft] length). To simulate the drilled cuttings and to provide
correlations have been developed for Newtonian fluids. For spher- the drag.:coefficient values over a wide range of particle Reynolds
ical particles, Bird et al. 16 gave . numbers, solid particles were used that varied in maximum dimen-
sional size from 0.3 to 25 mm [0.01 to 1 in.], with densities rang-
18.5 ing from 2.5 to 7.8 g/cm 3 , and in a variety of shapes-e.g.,
Cv=-- (2<NRen <500) ...................... (10) sphere, disk, and rectangular plate. The properties and dimensions
6
NReR· of the particles used in the test are described in Table 1.
A number of fluids were selected as test fluids to represent three
and Allen 18 obtained principal rheological types encountered in the problem previously
discussed. The first was Oi168, which represents a Newtonian fluid.
30 Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and xanthan gum biopolymer (XC)
Cv - - - (1 <NRen < 10 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) solutions were used to provide power-law fluids, and hydroxyethyl-
NReR.625 cellulose (HEC) solution was used to represent a viscoelastic fluid 7
and to allow examination of the elastic effect. Through pilot tests,
Beyond NRen = 10 3 , application of Newton's law yields the concentrations of CMC, XC, and HEC were selected so that
proper distributions of n and K values could be obtained. The rheo-
logical properties were measured with two viscometers-a Fann
Cv=0.44 (NRen > 10 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12) 35A to provide the data under high shear rate (170 to 1,021

TABLE 2-PHYSICAL AND RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF TEST FLUIDS

Concentration
(g/L) K
Pp 'Y*
CMC** CMCt XC
---
HEC _!_g_ (g/cm 3 ) n (Pa·sn) (seconds - 1 )
CMC 35 3 19.5 1.015 0.798 0.194 5 to 1,021
CMC/XC 6 1 21 1.002 0.627 0.1696 5 to 1,021
CMC/XC 10 1 18.5 1.003 0.597 0.4579 5 to 1,021
CMC/XC 8 3 21.3 1.003 0.449 0.7688 5 to 1,021
HEC 1.42 23 1.000 0.716 0.0374 5 to 1,021
HEC 4.28 22 1.00 0.59 0.5106 5 to 1,021
HEC 7.13 19.5 1.00 0.418 3.992 5 to 1,021
Shell Tellus Oil 68 20 0.88 1.000 0.1653
*These are shear-rate ranges within which n and K were determined.
• • Low-viscosity CMC.
tHigh-viscosity CMC.

338 SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987

 a 103
(..)

0
cQ)

g
Qj
0
(..) 2
10
Ol
Stokes' Law ro
n=1 0
Stokes' Law
n=1
10
10
Particle Reynolds Number N Rem w-1
Particle Reynolds Number NRem
Fig. 1-Comparison between the theoretical correlation and
the correlation obtained with the experiment for Newtonian Fig. 2-Drag-coefficic:mt correlations obtained for CMC and
fluid in the laminar flow regime. CMC/XC fluids in the laminar flow regime.

seconds - 1 ) and a HAAKE-MVIIP VT181™ to provide the low- Fig. 1 shows that the experimental correlation for oil is basical-
shear-rate data (5 to 159 seconds - 1). The properties of the fluids ly consistent with the standard Newtonian fluid correlation-i.e.,
are listed in Table 2. Stokes' law. The experimental correlations for CMC and CMC/XC
A video camera and a recorder were assembled, and a computer fluids are shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen that these correlation lines
clock with an accuracy of 1 %/sec was incorporated so that the time lie close to that which defines the behavior of a Newtonian fluid
and the corresponding position of a settling particle could be record- where n = 1. However, the lines have different slopes that depend
ed simultaneously to allow its velocity to be calculated. When the on the value of the flow behavior index, n. From Table 3 it can
settling velocity was below about 10 mm/s [0.4 in./sec], a stop watch be seen that, as n increases, a and e decrease. Thus for power-law
was used. Proppant and sands were dropped into the column in a fluids, the drag coefficient depends not only on the value of N Rem
cluster and the particles settling midway were caught to measure but also on the value of n, as expected from dimensional analysis.
the settling velocity. Other particles were dropped individually. In As n approaches unity, however, these correlations failed to ap-
addition, the orientation of disks and rectangular plates during proach that for a Newtonian fluid.
settling was visually observed and recorded. For the same particle Fig. 3 presents the experimental correlations for HEC fluids. It
in the same fluid, about four to eight data points were obtained to can be seen that if HEC fluids were also characterized as power-
ensure repeatability and accuracy. Test results showed that the var- law-type fluids, the drag coefficient would be a function of both
iation in settling-velocity measurements for sands was within ± 10% NRem and nand would have a response similar to the CMC and
and for other particles within ± 5 % . CMCIXC fluids. Thus the elastic properties of HEC fluids are not
To allow a particle to reach its terminal settling velocity, the par- influential in this low-NRem region.
ticle's settling velocity was measured after a certain distance of its
free fall. This distance was at least 60 em [2ft] for polymer fluids
in the perspex column and 15 em [0.5 ft] for oil in the glass cylin- TABLE 3-DRAG-COEFFICIENT CORRELATIONS FOR
der. The theoretical analysis and the test results showed that these SPHERICAL PARTICLES IN THE LAMINAR FLOW REGIME
free-fall distances were adequate.
a Average
Co=-- Data Error
Experimental Results and Analysis Fluid n NRe~ NRem Points (%)
Our experiments on particle settling velocity, ·vP, were performed . 32.1
in cylinders, and the experimental data must be corrected for the Oil 1.00 Co= N o.888
0.003 to 3 11 14.87
wall effect before they can be analyzed to determine the drag coeffi- Rem
cient. In this study, the following two simple empirical equations 18
for the correction factor, Fw, were selected to account for the wall 32.75
CMC 0.8 Co= N 0.006 to 4 9 12.60
effect. For laminar flow, o.824
Rem

Fw=1-(d 5 /d) 2 ·25 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14) 33.24

CMC/XC 0.63 Co= N o.878 0.01 to 3 8 15.7
Rem
and for turbulent flow,
,I 33.63
Fw= 1-(d5 /d) 1.5 . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15) CMC/XC 0.60 Co= N o.936 0.001 to 3 8 12.96
Rem

The wall-free settling velocity can then be obtained as 35.9

CMC/XC 0.45 Co= N o.989
0.002 to 1 5 4.10
Rem
Vpcor=VpmiFw . ................................... (16)
30.78
HEC 0.60 Co= N o.888 0.005 to 2 6 8.08
Drag-Coefficient Cor.relations for Spherical Particles. From
Rem
regressional analysis of the experimental data, the values of a and
e in Eq. 13 were obtained for spherical particles ·in the range of
31.01
10- 3 <NRem <5 and are shown in Table 3. The average devia- HEC 0.42 Co= N o.91o 0.006 to 2 3 4.4
tions of the experimental data from the corresponding correlations Rem
are all within ± 16% .

SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987 339

 20
3
10
0
(.) u 10
.....
c: Allen's Correlation
Q)
"(j n :1
:E
Q)
0
(.) 2 Correlation
10
Ol Ol
n=1
0"' 0"'
Stokes' Law
n=1

10
10

Particle Reynolds Number NRam Particle Reynolds Number ~om

Fig. 3-Drag-coefficient correlations obtained for HEC fluids Fig. 4-Drag•coefficient correlations obtained for CMC and
in the laminar flow regime. CMC/XC fluids in the transitional flow regime.

The experimental correlations in Table 3 were also compared with
Eq. 9 and with the lower and upper bounds on X obtained by Was-
serman and Slattery. 17 The averages of the lower and upper
bourtds range from 1 to 1.27 when n=0.7 to 1, which is basically
consistent with our experimental correlations. No effort was made
to fit the experimental data to Eq. 9, however, because inertia ef-
fect 'liad been neglected in its derivation, thus setting the exponent
of NRem to Unity and restricting its validity to cases where
NRem < 0.1. Our experimental correlations were obtained in the
range of 10- 3 <NRem<5, so the exponents of NRem are lower
than unity as the result of some inertia effect.
The experimental correlations for spherical particles in the range
of 1 <NRem < 150 for CMCand CMC/XC fluids and in the range
of 1 <NRem <270 for HEC fluids are shown in Table 4. The aver-
age deviations of the data from the corresponding correlations are
all less than ±9.2%.
Fig. 4 shows the experimental correlations for CMC and
CMC/XC fluids, and Allen's 18 and Bird's 16 correlations for New-
tonian fluids. It can be seen that the drag coefficient is also a func-
tion of both NRem and n in this region, and as n increases, both
a and e decrease. However, some variation is shown in the drag
coefficient for power-law fluids compared with that fm Newtoni-
an fluids. When NR~m is less than about 10, the experimental cor-
relation lines fall in the region between two Newtonian correlation
lines, showing that the drag coefficient for power-law fluids is still
close in value to that for Newtonian fluids. When NRem > 10, how-
ever, all the exp~rimental correlation lines fall below the Newtoni-
an correlation lines, showing some "drag-reduction" effect. As
the value of n decreases, this drag-reduction effect becomes more
pronounced. A similar phenomenon has long been recognized for
the friction factor in pipe flow of polymer fluids. 3 The experimen-
tal correlationsJor HEC fluids are shown in Fig. 5 and some elas-
tic effect can be noticed by comparing Figs. 4 and 5.

TABLE 4-DRAG-COEFFICIENT CORRELATION FOR

SPHERICAL PARTICLES IN TRANSITIONAL REGIME

Average
Data Correlation Error
Fluid n Co VS. NRem NRem Points Coefficient (%)
23.83
CMC 0.8 Co= N o.731 3 to 100 7 0.999 2.87
Rem

27.07
CMC/XC 0.6 to 0.63 Co= o.803 2 to 130 13 0.997 6.84
NRem

32.18
CMC/XC 0.45 Co= o.847 1 to 150 7 0.999 5.46
NRem

16.78
HEC 0.72 Co= o.624 2 to 270 7 0.997 6.47
NRem
:ja

25.41
HEC 0.6 Co= o.no 2 to 230 4 0.997 9.18
NRem

Standard Correlations for Newtonian Fluids

18.5
Bird's correlation: Co=--o.-6 for 1 <NRen <500
NRen
30
Allen's correlation: Co= N o.625 for 1 <NRen < 1,000
Ren

340 SPE Drillmg Engineering, December 1987

 20

& 10
Allen's Correlation
c:
Q)
n=1
'(j
;;::

~ Bird's Correlation
() n=1
Ol
<ll
0

10 ~em <1

Particle Reynolds Number NR""'

Edgewise Flatwise
Fig. S-Crag-coefficient correlations obtained for HEC fluids
(viscoelastic) in the transitional flow reaime. Fig. 6-0rientat~on of a nonspherical particle during settling.

When NRem > 350, the limited experimental data showed that the and
drag coefficient became basically a constant and the value of this
constant depended on the flow behavior index, n. F 8 =2.6-1.61/; (NRem>l) .......................... (20)

Drag-Coefficient Correlations for Nonspherical farticles. To
simulate drilleq cuttings and cavings, disks and rectangular plates
were also used in the experiments. The results showed that the par-
ticle's orientation during settling was independent of its ori~nta­
tion at release in all flow regimes. As shown in Fig. 6, when NRem
was greater than about 10, these particles always settled flatwise
but then would turn on edge when NRem was less than about 1.
In the range of 1 <NRem < 10, unstable settling occurred and the
particle tended to sett1e in a zigzag path. These results are in good
agreement with those obtained by Walker and Mayes. 11
The drag-force analysis showed that a particle tended to settle
in the orientation that offered the greatest possible resistance in all
flow regimes. This can be better understood by analyzing Eqs. 2
through 4. When NRem > 10, pressure drag dominates the total drag
force and the particle settles flatwise, thus offering a larger area
AN and corresponding pressure drag force, and accordingly a larg-
er total drag force. However, when NRem < 1, viscous drag
dominates the total drag force ap.d the particle settles edgewise,
offering a larger area AP, which results in both a larger viscous
drag and corresponding total drag force. In the range ·of
1 <NRem < 10, neither pressure drag nor viscous drag dominates;
thus, unstable settling results.
According to previous investigations, 18 the drag coefficient for
nonspherical particles in Newtonian fluids is a functio11 of both the
particle Reynolds number and the particle's sphericity, 1/;, which
is defined as 1/;=A; IA 8 •
Because the drilled cuttings can be characterized either as disks
or rectangular plates in addition to spheres, the above expression
can be simplified as follows. For disks,
2
2.621 xFhb h p~rticles, n=1, Ic=Jl, and F 8 =1. When the coefficients a and e
1/;= ' ............................... (17)
1+2XFhb
where Fhb =hs /dd. For rectangular plates,
2 In the laminar flow regime,
2.418 xFhb h
' .......................... : .... (18)
Combining with Eq. 13, the qrag coefficient of a nonspherical par-
ticle becomes
F8 a
Cv'=F8 Cv=--, ............................. (21)
NReme
where CD is the drag coefficient of a sphere whose volume is. equal
to that of the particle concerned.
By use of Eqs. 19 through 21 to correlate the shape effect of the
experimental data from disks and rectangular plates, the average
deviation qf these data from the corresponding drag-coefficient
correlation~ for spherical particles is ± 10.2%. Fig. 7 shows the
results in the CMC/XC fluids when n=0.6 to 0.63 in the transi-
tional flow regime! and Fig. 8 shows the results in the HEC fluid
when n=0.42 in the laminar flow regime.
Parti~le Settling-Velocity Calculation
From our analysis, a generalized model has been developed that
allows the calculation of the settling velocity of particles of vari-
ous shapes in both Newtonic!.fl and power:..law fluids. The model
takes the form of
where d 8 is the diameter of a sphere or the volume-equivalent di-
ameter of a nonspherical particle and Fs is the shape factor deter-
mined from Eqs. 17 through 20. For Newtonian fluids and spherical
have valt!es of 24 and 1, respectively, pq. 22 reduces to the Stokes'-
law model, and when they have values of 0.44 and 0, the equation
is that defined by Newton's law.
For power-law fluids, on the basis of our experimental data, the
following empirical equations m(j.y be used to approximate a and e.
·
a=39.8-9n .................................... (23a)

anq
where Fhb=h 8 1beq and beq=Jib.
On the basis of our experimental data, the following empirical
e=l.2-0.47n (NRem<5 and n>0.45), ........ : .... (23b)
equations were developeq to correlate the effect of the particle's
shape on the drag coefficient, Fs:
and in the transitional flow regime,

Fs = 1.5 -0.51/; (NRem < 1) .......................... (19) a=42.9-23.9n ................................. (24a)

SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987 341

 20
o Disk
Correlation for Spheres 0
CMC-XC Solution n:0.6-0.63 o Rectangle
u 10
u
c 10
3

E
Q)
"(j

~0
u
Ol 0 Disk Ol Correlation tor Spheres
l1l l1l
0 o Rectangle 0 HEC Solution n =0.42

10 ~------------------~------------------~
2

10

Particle Reynolds Number NRam Particle Reynolds Number NRom

Fig. 7---Drag-coefficient correlation for spherical and non- Fig. a-Drag-coefficient correlation for spherical and non-
spherical particles after correction for shape effect in the tran- spherical particles after correction for shape effect in the lami-
sitional flow regime. nar flow regime.

and 5. A generalized numerical model has been developed for pre-

dicting the settling velocity of particles of various shapes in both
e= 1-0.33n (1 <NRem < 200) ...................... (24b) Newtonian and power-law fluids for all flow regimes. This model
can be used in the design of cuttings transport in drilling fluids and
When NRem <200, values of a=0.35 and e=O may be used as an also proppant transport in fracturing fluids.
approximation in the absence of more detailed or reliable data. 6. Some differences have been observed in this study between
the particle drag coefficients obtained in CMC and CMC/XC fluids
Particle Settling Velocity in Dynamic Fluids and in HEC fluids that exhibit some viscoelastic behavior. How-
Our experiments on particle settling velocity were performed in ever, no quantitative correlation could be obtained from the limit-
stagnant fluids. In dynamic fluids, if the fluid motion is laminar ed experimental data available.
for time-independent non-Newtonian fluids, the viscosity around
a settling particle should depend mainly on the particle's velocity
Nomenclature
relative to the fluid, and thus Eq. 22 may be used to approximate a = coefficient defined in Eq. 13
the particle settling velocity. A = particle's characteristic area, mm 2 [in. 2 ]
If the fluid motion is turbulent, however, the effect of the fluid AN = particle's characteristic area normal to direction of
motion should be considered. In such cases, it is suggested that if particle's motion, mm 2 [in. 2 ]
values of a=0.35 and e=O are assumed, regardless of NRem• Eq. AP = particle's characteristic area parallel to direction of
22 can be used to obtain approximations for the particle settling particle's motion, mm 2 [in. 2 ]
velocity.
As = surface area of particle, mm 2 [in. 2 ]
Some previous experimental results 6 •12 showed that the parti-
cle settling velocity is basically independent of the fluid velocity.
A~ = surface area of sphere of volume equal to that of
But some investigators 4 •19 thought that a particle should settle particle, mm 2 [in. 2 ]
faster in dynamic fluids than in stagnant fluids. It is therefore rec- b = width of rectangular plates, mm [in.]
ommended that caution be exercised in the application of Eq. 22 beq = equivalent width of rectangular plates, mm [in.]
for the prediction of the particle settling velocity in the dynamic CD = particle drag coefficient
situation. Ch = drag coefficient of nonspherical particles defined by
Eq. 21
Conclusions CDp = pressure drag coefficient
1. The generalized drag-coefficient correlations for power-law CDv = viscous drag coefficient
fluids in the laminar and transitional flow regimes have been es- d = ID of cylinders, mm [in.]
tablished from experimental data .. The results showed that the drag dd = diameter of disks, mm [in.]
coefficient is a function of not only the modified particle Reynolds ds = diameter of spherical particles or volume~equivalent
number hut also the flow behavior index.
diameter of nonspherical particles, mm [in.]
2. When NRem is less than about 10, the drag coefficient for
e = coefficient defined in Eq. 13
power-law fluids is close in value to that for Newtonian fluids. When
NRem isgreater than about 10, however, the experimental results f = function
showed some drag-reduction effect. As n decreases, this drag- FD = drag force, N [lbf]
reduction effect becomes more pronounced. F Dp = pressure drag force, N [lbf]
3. The orientation of a nonspherical particle during settling is F Dv = viscous drag force, N [lbf]
independent of its orientation at release. On the basis of experimental Fg = immersed gravitational force, N [lbf]
results and the drag-force analysis, a particle seems to settle in an F hb = ratio between thickness and width of particles
orientation that offers the greatest possible resistance to its settling. Fs = shape factor ·of particles (for spheres, Fs = 1)
When NRem > 10, a plate-like particle settles flatwise and will turn Fw = correction factor for wall effect
on edge if NRem falls below about 1. In the range of 1 <NRem < 10,
g = acceleration caused by gravity=9.81 m/s 2
unstable settling results and ho preferred orientation can be noted.
4. Two simplified equations for calculating the corresponding [32.19 ft/sec 2 ]
sphericities of disks and rectangular plates have been introduced hs = thickness of disks or rectangular plates, mm [in.]
and a set of simple empirical equations has been developed for cor- Ic = consistency index of power-law fluids, Pa · sn
relating the effect of particle shape on the drag coefficient. [lbf-secn /100 ft 2 ]

342 SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987

 L = length of rectangular plates, nun [ip.]
n = flow behavior index of power-law fluids
NRem = modified particle Reynolds number defined by Eq. 7
NRem' = particle Reynolds number defined in ~ef. 6
NRen = particle Reynolds number for Newtonian fluids
define<\ by Eq. 5
Tc = critical temperature
vp = particle settling velocity, m/s [ft/sec]
vp = volume of~ particle, mm 3 [in. 3 ]
X = coefficient 4efined in Eq. 9
i' = shear rate of flui~s, seconds -l
JL = viscosity of Newtonian fluids, Pa · s [cp]
PJ = density of fluids, g/cm 3 · ·
Pp = de:qsity of particles, glcJJ:?. 3
1/; = sphericity of paf!icles
Sub~cripts
cor ::::::: corrected
m = measured (Eq. 16)
Acknowledgments
We express our appreciation to both the Marine Technology Direc-
torate of the Science and Engineering Research Council of ihe U.K.
and also Esso E&J;> U.K. Ltd. for it~ financial support for the re-
search program on drilled-cuttin~s transport.
Referenc~s
1. Zeidler, H. U.: ''An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of Drilled
particles," SPf;J (feb. 1972) 39-48; Trans., AIME, Z53.
2. Moore, P.L.: Drilling fractices Manual, Petro\eum Publishing Co.,
Tulsa (1974) 228-39. ·
3. Skelland, A.H.P.·: Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat Transfer, John Wiley
& Sons Inc., New York (1967) 72-74, 143-44, and 181-95.
4. Novotny, E.J. ': "Proppani Tran~port,'' paper SPE 6813 presented at
the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, D~nver,
Oct. 9~12. ·
5. Daneshy, A.A.: ''Numerical Solution of 5;and Transport in Hydraulic
Fracturing," JPT (Jan. 1978) 132-40.
6. Shim, S.N.: "Proppant Settling CorreJa~ons for Non-Newtonian Fluids
Under Static and Dynamic Conditions," SPEJ (April 1982) 164-70.
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1987
7. Acharya, A.: "Particle Transport in Viscous and Viscoelastic Frac-
turing Fluids," SPEPE (March 1986) 104-10.
'8. Williams, C.E. and Bruce, G.H.: "Carrying Capacity of Drilling
Muds," Trans., AIME (1951) 192, 111-20.
9. Hopkin, E.A.: "Fa~tors Affecting Cuttings Removal During Rotary
Drilling," JPT (June 1967) 807-14; Trans., AIME, 240.
10. Sifferman, T.R. e~ al.: "Drill-Cutting Transport in Full-Scale Verti-
c.al Annuli," JPT (Nov. l974) 1295-1302.
11. Walker, R.E. and Mayes, T.M.: "pesign of Muds for Carrying C~­
padty," JPT (July 1975) 893-900; Trans., AIME, 259.
12. Sampl~, ~.J. and Bourgoyne, A.T.: "An Experimental Evaluation of
Correlations Used for Predicting Cutting Slip Velocity," paper SPE
664~ presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Conference a,nd Ex-
hibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
13. Hussaini, S~M. and Azar, J.J.: "Experimental Study of Drilled Cut-
tings Transport Using Common Drilling Mu~s." SPET (Feb. l983)
11-20. . ' '
14. Harrington, L.J., Hannah, R.R., and Williams, D.: "Dynamic Experi-
ments on Pr9ppant Settling in Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids," paper
SPE 8342 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exl:\ibitioi1 1 Las Vegas, Sept. 43-26. ·
15. Hannah, R.R. and Harrington, L.J.: "Measurement of Dynamic Prop-
pant Fall Rates in fracturing Gels Using a Concentric Cylinder Tester,"
JPT (May 1981) 909-13.
16. Bi~d, R.B., Stewart, W.E., and Lightfoot, E.N.: Transport Phenome-
na, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1960) 56-60 and 190-94.
17. Wasserman, M.L. and Slattery, J.C.: "Upper and Lower Bounds on
the Drag Coeffici~nt qf a Sphere in a Power-Model Fluid," AIChE J.
(May l964) f9, No. 3, 383-88.
18. Govier, G. W. ~nd Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes,
Litton e<Iucational Publishing Jnc., New York City (1972) 4-13.
19. Clark, P.E. and Qu~dir, J.A.: "Proppant Transport in Hydraulic Frac-
tures: A Critical Review of Particle Settling Velocity Equations~ ' ' paper
SPE/DOE 2866 presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Sym-
posium, Denver, ~ay 27-29.
Sl Met~ic Conversjon F~ctors
cp X l.Q* E+OO mPa·s
in. x 2.54* E+OO em
•conversion factor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript (SPE 16243) received for review Oct. 2, 1986. Paper accepted
for publication July 27, 1987. Revised manuscript rec.eived July 16, 1987.
343