SPE-196448-MS

A Real-Time Indicator for the Evaluation of Hole Cleaning Efficiency

Mohammed Alawami, Mohammed Bassam, Salem Gharbi, and Mohammed Al Rubaii, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Bali, Indonesia, 29-31 October 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Drilling operations are considered a major cost in the development phase of oil and gas wells, which places
huge emphasis on drilling efficiency as a leading factor in cost reduction and optimization. Nonproductive
time (NPT) incidents such as stuck pipes must be minimized by careful planning and close well monitoring
to enhance drilling efficiency. One frequent and global cause of stuck pipes is the inefficient removal of
formation cuttings from the wellbore while drilling, which is the focus of the developed real-time model.
Poor hole cleaning is also a major contributor to other NPTs such as loss of circulation and formation
fracturing, which can be induced due to the high equivalent circulating density (ECD) caused by the presence
of excess cuttings. Insufficient hole cleaning, if not tackled properly and in a timely manner, can lead to NPT
incidents and consequently increases the drilling cost significantly. In addition to NPT reduction, proper
hole cleaning can increase the rate of penetration (ROP) and reduce torque and drag. A tool that provides
a real-time indication of the hole cleaning efficiency is therefore very valuable to have better control of
the hole conditions, especially in critical wells. Such indicators will provide continuous monitoring of the
wellbore and will allow immediate intervention for detected abnormalities.
There are several indexes that evaluate hole cleaning efficiency while drilling. The index that will be the
core of the developed model is the Carrying Capacity Index (CCI), which is defined as the ability of a mud
system to circulate the cuttings to the surface. The index is influenced mainly by the drilling fluid properties
and flow hydraulics, which are both controllable factors that allow the rig crew to adjust on location to
ensure sufficient cleaning of the cuttings.
The developed system automatically calculates the CCI in real-time. Thousands of raw values are
generated from rig sensors continuously, which makes the calculations nearly impossible for a human to
perform. The model is developed to take in the raw data and use it as an input in conjunction with some well
details, such as hole size and casing size, to generate the CCI. This system takes us one step closer toward
the ultimate goal of having an integrated and fully automated hole cleaning evaluation and intervention tool
that does not require any human involvement.

Introduction
Drilling efficiency is becoming increasingly more important as oil and gas wells are getting deeper, more
complex, and more challenging to drill. Higher efficiency would lead to faster well delivery and more
2 SPE-196448-MS

cost-effective operations. Achieving this would require drilling with a faster rate of penetration (ROP)
while triggering minimal nonproductive time (NPT) incidents. Numerous factors have an influence on the
efficiency of drilling such as formation lithology, well trajectory, drilling fluid type and properties, drilling
surface parameters, bit selection, etc. Some of these factors, such as subsurface lithology, are outside the
control of drilling engineers. Such factors must be studied and carefully planned for to reduce their impact
on drilling operations. The focus must be directed toward the controllable factors that can be adjusted
to optimize the operations (Fig. 1). NPT incidents can occur in different forms and severities. Loss of
circulation, stuck pipes, and well control are among the most common and costly incidents. Some stuck
pipe incidents last for few hours only while some could last for days and eventually require abandoning
drilled sections entirely to sidetrack and reach the targeted reservoir.

Figure 1—the influence of various parameters on hole cleaning efficiency (Adari 2000).

The causes of stuck pipes can be categorized in two main categories. Mechanical and differential stuck
pipes. Mechanical stuck pipes can occur due to wellbore instability, well geometry, or inadequate hole
cleaning. Fig. 2 shows some of the possible causes of stuck pipes at high inclinations. This paper is focused
on mechanical stuck pipes, specifically the hole cleaning related incidents. Hole cleaning remains a major
challenge when it comes to planning and drilling both workover and development wells as inadequate hole
cleaning is responsible for a large portion of all the stuck pipe incidents. The impact of hole cleaning is
not limited to stuck pipes. Another possible consequence of insufficient hole cleaning is the increase in
equivalent circulating density (ECD). The presence of high volumes of formation cuttings alters the rheology
of the drilling fluid and increases the frictional pressures generated between the wellbore and the fluid.
This leads to an unexpected increase in bottomhole pressure that may induce losses of circulation and/or
formation fractures, especially in wells with narrow margins between the pore pressure and the formation
fracture pressure. The existence of cuttings leads to excessive torque and drag, especially in horizontal
wells. In addition, the rate of penetration is strongly related to hole cleaning efficiency as the regrinding of
cuttings could lead to premature bit wear. If optimum hole cleaning is achieved, higher rates of penetration
can be attained.
SPE-196448-MS 3

Figure 2—hole problems that may cause stuck pipe incidents in high angles (Rasi 1994).

To ensure effective hole cleaning is maintained, drilling plans and programs must be well engineered.
There are numerous correlations, designs, models, tools, charts, field results, experimental studies, and
chemicals that can enhance hole cleaning. Not all studies are feasible in drilling operations as some are
based solely on theory and lack extensive experimental data. Some are limited by the need to have a detailed
cuttings size, downhole flow patterns, and downhole fluid properties that are difficult to measure with high
accuracy (Al Rubaii 2018).
Effective hole cleaning is influenced by numerous factors such as ROP, pipe rotation (RPM), subsurface
lithology and geomechanics, well trajectory and angle, drilling fluid density and rheology, and bit
hydraulics. Optimizing the controllable factors would lead to optimized hole cleaning. Higher ROP
generates higher volumes of cuttings that may exceed the ability of the drilling fluid to efficiently lift solids
all the way to the surface. In some instances, especially when the influential parameters are not optimized,
ROP must be controlled at lower rates to ensure proper hole cleaning. RPM can have a positive impact
on hole cleaning efficiency as it favorably alters the flow regimes, especially at high angle hole sections
(Sanchez et al. 1999; Tobenna 2010). The inclination of the hole plays a major role in the efficiency of
cuttings transport to the surface. Drilling fluid rheology has a higher impact on hole cleaning in sections
with hole angles less than 45°, and becomes less significant in more deviated sections (Okrajni and Azar
1986). The capacity of the drilling fluid to carry the cuttings to the surface increases as the ratio between
the yield point (YP) to the plastic viscosity (PV) increases (Hussaini and Azar 1983; Okranji and Azar
1986; Azar 1990). Hole inclinations between 35° and 50° are generally considered the most critical sections
as the generated cuttings tend to move downward (Tomern et al. 1986; Peden et al. 1990; Sifferman and
Becker 1992).
The significant impact of hole cleaning on several aspects of drilling operations require continuous
and accurate monitoring to achieve the best results. Monitoring can be done through measurement of the
properties of the drilling fluid flowing out the wellbore or analyzing the cuttings volume, size and shape.
Monitoring certain surface parameters, such as torque, standpipe pressure (SPP), and hook load, can also
give an indication of the hole-cleaning situation. Pumping viscous sweeps periodically is a common method
for assessing the accumulation of cuttings in the wellbore. Many studies have been conducted to identify
4 SPE-196448-MS

the most influential parameters in hole-cleaning efficiency in an effort to deliver an index that provides an
accurate assessment of downhole conditions.
Multiple indexes were developed for the purpose of evaluating hole cleaning. Some of these include
transport ratio, hole cleaning ratio, transport index, cuttings concentration in annulus (CCA), and carrying
capacity index. Transport ratio is the ratio of cuttings velocity to the annular velocity. A higher transport
ratio correlates to a more efficient hole cleaning. Hole cleaning ratio is the ratio of the annular height above
the cuttings to the cutting beds' critical height. It serves as an indicator of stuck pipe risks. Values lower
than 0.5 almost always result in stuck pipe incidents (Rasi 1994). The transport index combines the effects
of drilling fluid density, rheology, and hole inclination (Luo et al. 1992). Higher transport index values
indicate better hole cleaning. CCA is developed to quantify the volume of cuttings loaded in the annulus.
Optimal hole cleaning is linked to cuttings concentration values less than 8% (Newitt et al. 1955). Finally,
CCI is a simple empirical index that predicts hole cleaning efficiency through the most influential variables
as developed by Robinson and Morgan (2004). Ratios higher than 1.0 indicate good hole cleaning, where
values less than 0.5 are associated with inadequate hole cleaning. The developed model discussed in this
paper is based on the CCI.

Hole Cleaning Strategy

Hole cleaning can be divided into three different sections based on wellbore deviation. Different inclinations
have different cuttings transportation phenomena and, as a result, have a different hole cleaning strategy.
As illustrated in Fig. 3, inclinations between 35° and 60° are more difficult to clean, while the near vertical
sections are the easiest.

Figure 3—Hole cleaning difficulty level at different inclinations (Al Rubaii 2017).

1. Angles 0-35 degrees:

Drilling nearly vertical wells is considered the least challenging hole-cleaning regime since cuttings
usually have a long distance to settle. In addition, drillpipe is usually concentric in vertical wells,
which results in a uniform axial velocity in the annulus cross section. The main objective in vertical
wells is to combat and exceed cuttings slip velocity by controlling the mud flow rate and viscosity.
Cuttings slip velocity can be calculated using API Recommended Practice 13D.
2. Angles 35-60 degrees:
Intermediate angles have the highest cuttings concentration due to hole geometry
(Mohammadsalehi and Malekzadeh 2011). This section is considered the most challenging to clean
due to several reasons. First of all, gravity causes drillpipe to lay on the low side of the wellbore,
SPE-196448-MS 5

resulting in different velocity flow regimes due to pipe eccentricity. In addition, cuttings only have a
few inches to fall to form a bed. Finally, an avalanche of cuttings usually forms when the mud pumps
are shut off, resulting in cuttings sliding to the bottom of the well.
3. Angles 60-90 degrees:
Near-horizontal wells are less challenging to clean than the intermediate hole sections since
avalanches are not observed when shutting off the pumps. Pipe rotation aids the cleaning of horizontal
section holes by mechanically agitating cuttings to move cuttings from low to high velocity flow
regimes within the annulus.

Carrying Capacity Index (CCI)

In simple terms, CCI can be defined as the ability of the drilling fluid system to carry the cuttings all the way
to the surface. Good hole cleaning is indicated when the cuttings have sharp edges (Robinson and Morgan
2004). Round edges indicate a tumbling action in the annulus as cuttings are not transported to surface
quickly. The CCI values are expected to be 1.0 or greater for good hole cleaning conditions. When the CCI
values are 0.5 or less, the cuttings tend to be rounded and small due to longer residence time in the annulus.
To calculate the CCI index, some drilling fluid properties, as well as some well details, are needed.
The index utilizes the mud weight, consistency index, and the annular velocity as inputs. Determining the
consistency index requires measurements of the drilling fluid rheology; specifically plastic viscosity and
yield point. The annular velocity calculations require the flow rate and the clearance area between the outer
diameter of the drillpipe and the wellbore wall or the inner diameter of the casing string. The CCI index
can be calculated as follows:

Where:
MW = Mud weight (lb/gal)
K = Consistency index (equivalent cp)
Av = Annular velocity of the drilling fluid (ft/min)
The consistency index is calculated through the following equation:

Where:
n = Power law index
PV = Plastic viscosity (cp) = θ600 − θ300
YP = Yield point (lb/100ft2) = 2θ300 − θ600
The power law index is defined in the following equation:

Annular velocity (ft/min) can be calculated as follows:

Where:
GPM = Drilling fluid flow rate in gal/min
Clearance Area = The area between the drillpipe and the wellbore wall or the casing string (ft2)
The clearance area can be calculated as follows:
6 SPE-196448-MS

Where:
IDCasing = The inner diameter of the casing string (in)
ODDrillpipe = The outer diameter of the drillpipe (in)
In general, increasing the consistency index (K) and the annular velocity (Av) leads to higher CCI values
and thus better hole cleaning. It should also be noted that increasing annular velocity increases annular
frictional loss and so increases ECD, which might induce loss of mud circulation. The CCI equation is
applicable in hole sections with inclinations less than 25°. Determination of the CCI allows for better and
more accurate hole cleaning modeling that reduces the risks of NPT incidents and enhances the drilling ROP.

Real-time Modeling
Hole cleaning evaluation tools and methods would not be as effective if the results are not obtained
immediately. Hole cleaning issues must be addressed without delay to avoid higher risks of cuttings
accumulations and possibly stuck pipe incidents. Real-time models allow the drilling crew to evaluate hole
cleaning and promptly take corrective actions such as adjustments to surface parameters, modifications
to drilling fluid properties, or dedicated circulations to clear the cuttings to the surface. Conventional rig
sensors may not be sufficient to run certain models in real time, and thus the addition of advanced sensors
may be necessary in these cases. Automating hole-cleaning evaluation by calculating and displaying the CCI
in real time required mud weight and rheology sensors that are not typically present in conventional rigs.
Development and testing of the CCI model in real time involved multiple steps that are executed through
the established process:
1. Real-time data gathering and processing
2. Real-time calculations
3. CCI curve generation
4. Integration of the model

Real-time Data Gathering and Processing

The first step in building the real-time model is data gathering. The developed algorithm automatically
retrieves drilling data from rig sensors as well as other sources such as reports that may contain relevant
well information. The data generated by the rig sensors every minute are huge and impossible for human
brains to capture consistently. Data can generally be transferred from the rig to databases through various
languages and protocols, and may require some processing for the data to be useful. The data necessary to
perform the calculations may be dynamic, such as flow rates, or static such as hole size and casing size.

Real-time Calculations
The developed code utilizes the retrieved data to perform the initial calculations to determine the needed
variables such as annular velocity and the k constant. The CCI calculations are then preformed in real time
to allow for instant evaluation of hole cleaning.

CCI Curve Generation

Once the CCI values are calculated, the developed code displays the result as a curve versus time as shown
in Fig. 4. Displaying the results as a curve makes it easier for drilling crew and engineers to monitor hole
cleaning while drilling. It also makes it faster and easier to remotely detect trend anomalies that may require
further investigations.
SPE-196448-MS 7

Figure 4—Visualization of the CCI index values plotted against time.

Integration of the Model

The final stage of the process is as important as any other step. The availability of a hole cleaning evaluation
index, without connection to the ongoing operations or the surface parameters associated with it, is not
useful by itself. Therefore, the integration of the CCI model into existing platforms that are used to monitor
drilling operations is essential to have a complete picture of the hole cleaning conditions, the potential causes
of suboptimal efficiency, and how to address it properly.
Fig. 4 shows a typical behavior of a real time CCI curve. These values, as discussed previously, are
dependent on various parameters such as mud weight, rheological properties, flow rate, casing size and hole
size. A change in one of these parameters would cause a shift in the CCI values. The first few points in the
curve (Fig. 4) have CCI values higher than 2.0, which indicate a very adequate hole cleaning during that
period. These results assure the drilling team that no changes are necessary to optimize hole cleaning while
drilling the specified section with the current parameters and fluid properties. The CCI values decrease
afterward to around 1.50, which is still higher than the generally acceptable value of 1.0. This decrease
in CCI can be attributed to higher ROP that leads to higher cuttings concentration, and thus higher PV
that decreases the CCI values. A change in the mud weight or a reduction in flow rate would also trigger
similar changes to the CCI curve. The value of 1.50 remains an indication of adequate hole cleaning with
an opportunity to optimize even further. The lowest points in Fig. 4 near the bottom show CCI values
around 0.75, which would alarm the drilling team of a possibly problematic hole cleaning situation. This
shall lead to an immediate intervention and adjustment to the influential parameters such as flow rate, or
dedicated circulation to clean the hole from excess cuttings. Taking such corrective actions would improve
hole cleaning and ultimately increase the CCI values.
8 SPE-196448-MS

Future Enhancements
As mentioned above, CCI is the ability of the mud to carry cuttings from the bottom of the well to the
surface. CCI modeling alone cannot provide a complete assessment of the effectiveness of drilling muds
and efficiency of hole cleaning. Several of the models briefly discussed in this paper can be coupled with
the CCI to better understand the movement of cuttings in the wellbore and provide improved hole cleaning.
There are several cuttings transport models in the literature, and these models are divided into two
categories: experimental and mechanistic. As the name indicates, experimental models are based on
tests performed in closed flow loops and then empirical models are developed to predict the cuttings
concentration along the well. Some examples include: Larens, Rubiandini, Bassal, and Jalukar models. The
mechanistic approach uses physics-based equations to develop models. Some of the existing mechanistic
models in the literature include Clark and Beckham, Gavinet and Sobey, Kamp and Rivero, and Duan and
Miska.
Our current efforts are concentrated on combining multiple indexes into one system to build a
more reliable hole cleaning advisory system that can cover a wider range of drilling environments and
circumstances. The goal is to utilize the hole cleaning advisory system as a major component of a stuck pipe
detection and advisory system. These small steps and simple models are essential in order to move closer
toward the future of fully automated drilling operations.

Conclusions
The hole cleaning evaluation model is based on the CCI, which is defined as the ability of the mud system to
carry the cuttings out of the wellbore. It provides the drilling team with a continuous real-time assessment
of the hole cleaning efficiency of the ongoing drilling operations. It also allows the immediate intervention
in cases where the wellbore is not cleaned properly and the risks of stuck pipes may be high.
To obtain the full benefits of the CCI, the model must be integrated and displayed alongside other real-
time curves to allow for better analysis of the hole cleaning situation. The developed hole cleaning model
will continue to improve and will not remain as it stands today for long. The addition of other indexes in
combination with CCI will provide a more complete evaluation of the health of the mud system and the
hole cleaning efficiency. Implementing the best practices and building a recommendation system within the
model will ensure that hole cleaning is maintained and improved constantly. The ultimate goal is to build
a comprehensive and reliable hole cleaning advisory system capable of detecting hole-cleaning issues and
providing the drilling team with recommendations on how to address and resolve them before they cause
any severe consequences.

Acknowledgments
We extend our deepest appreciations to everyone who has contributed to the development, testing,
validation, or integration of the real-time model.

Nomenclature
CCI Carrying Capacity Index
CCA Cutting Concentrations in Annulus, %
TR Transport Ratio, %
HCR Hole Cleaning Ratio
TI Transport Index
ROP Rate of Penetration, ft/hr
RPM Revolutions per Minute
SPP Standpipe Pressure, psi
SPE-196448-MS 9

GPM Flow Rate in gal/min

Av Annular Velocity
K Consistency Index Constant, cp
n Flow Behavior Index
PV Plastic Viscosity, cp
YP Yield Point, lb/100ft2
MW Mud Weight, lb/gal
ID Inner Diameter, in2
OD Outer Diameter, in2

References
Adari, R. B., Miska, S., Kuru, E., and Bern, P. 2000. Selecting Drilling Fluid Properties and Flow Rates for Effective Hole
Cleaning in High-Angle and Horizontal Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October. https://doi.org/10.2118/63050-MS.
Al Rubaii, M. M. 2017. The Impact of Hole Cleaning on Rate of Penetration. MS thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (December 2017).
Al Rubaii, M. M. 2018. A New Robust Approach for Hole Cleaning to Improve Rate of Penetration. Presented at the
SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, 23-26 April. SPE-192223-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/192223-MS.
Azar, J.J. 1990. Does Mud Rheology Play a Major Role in Hole Cleaning of Highly deviated Wells? Latin American
Drilling Conference, Venezuela.
Clark, R. K. and Bickham, K. L. 1994. A Mechanistic Model for Cuttings Transport. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi:10.2118/28306-MS.
Hussaini, S. M. and Azar, J. J. 1983. Experimental Study of Drilled Cuttings Transport Using Common Drilling Muds.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 23 (01). SPE-10674-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/10674-PA.
Luo, Y., Bern, P. A., and Chambers, B. D. 1994. Simple Charts to Determine Hole Cleaning Requirements in Deviated
Wells. Doi:10.2118/27486-MS.
Mohammadsalehi, M. and Malekzadeh, N. 2011. Application of New Hole Cleaning Optimization Method within
All Ranges of Hole Inclinations. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/
IPTC-14154-MS.
Newitt, D. M, 1955, "Advanced Oil drilling engineering," a textbook published by the Society of Petroleum Engineering.
Okrajni, S. and Azar, J. J. 1986. The Effects of Mud Rheology on Annular Hole Cleaning in Directional Wells. SPE
Drilling Engineering 1 (4). SPE-14178-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14178-PA.
Peden, J., Ford, J., and Oyeneyin, M. 1990. Comprehensive Experimental Investigation of Drilled Cuttings
Transport in Inclined Wells Including the Effects of Rotation and Eccentricity. European Petroleum Conference.
doi:10.2118/20925-MS.
Rasi, M. 1994. Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle Wellbores. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. DOI:
10.2118/27464-MS.
Robinson, L. and Morgan, M. 2004. Effect of Hole Cleaning on Drilling Rate Performance. AADE-05-DF-HO-41.
Sanchez, R. A., Azar, J. J., Bassal, A. A., & Martins, A. L. (1999, June 1). Effect of Drillpipe Rotation on Hole Cleaning
During Directional-Well Drilling. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/56406-PA.
Sifferman, T. and Becker, T. 1992. Hole Cleaning in Full-Scale Inclined Wellbores. SPE Drilling Engineering 7 (02),
115–120. Doi:10.2118/20422-PA.
Tomren, P., Iyoho, A., & Azar, J. (1986). Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in Directional Wells. SPE Drilling
Engineering, 1(01), 43–56. doi:10.2118/12123-PA.
Unegbu Celestine Tobenna, Hole Cleaning and Hydraulics, Thesis, 2010.