ARMA 20–1111

Analytical and Experimental Analysis of the Rolling

and Lifting of Cuttings in Deviated Wellbores
Badrouchi, F., Scott N., Feilen, H., Badrouchi, N., Tomomewo, O.S., Benouadah, N. and Rasouli, V.
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

Copyright 2020 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 54 th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Golden, Colorado, USA, 28 June–1
July 2020. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pos ition of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the writt en consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustr ations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Drilling long horizontal wells is common in development of unconventional reservoirs. Effective cuttings
transportation for better hole cleaning during drilling operations can increase the rate of penetration (ROP) and mitigate various
drilling associated problems such as high drag and torque and pipe sticking. A large-scale Slurry Loop Unit (SLU) was used in this
study for simulation purposes. The objective of this study was to investigate the cuttings size, density, and fluid properties; coupled
with wellbore deviation and circulation rate on hole cleaning efficiency. The analytical models used to predict critical velocities for
lifting and rolling the cuttings particles were based on the equilibrium cuttings bed height model and forces acting on a cuttings bed.
The analytical model results could predict, with some degree of accuracy, the effective injection rate to clean the annulus. Also,
experimental results showed that at angles higher than the repose angle of the sand, only rolling and lifting mechanisms ensure the
bed movement and effective hole cleaning. Similarly, at the range of 0° to 60° inclination, the only major forces acting on the cuttings
is gravity which can be overwhelmed by increasing the fluid carrying capacity and/or flow rate.

Sifferman and Becker, 1992; Jalukar, 1993). These

1. INTRODUCTION
researchers focused on the particle settling velocity;
One of the main functions of the drilling fluid is the however, they studied multiple particle movements in
efficient removal of the cuttings from the bottom hole to inclined wellbores resulting in the extensive literature on
the surface. Poor hole cleaning results in the deposition of experimental and modeling work from which we
drill cuttings in different wellbore locations, possibly modified some analytical models to study the rolling and
leading to several drawbacks in the drilling operation and lifting of particles. Luo and Bern (1992), Ford et al.
well completion, such as stuck pipe, high torque and drag, (1993), Larsen et al. (1993), Rasi (1994), and Clark and
and faulty cementing jobs. Bickham (1994) developed some of the analytical models
Pigott (1942) pioneered the extensive study of hole in this research topic. The model developed by Larsen et
cleaning in vertical and near-vertical wellbore al. (1993) was able to predict cuttings bed height at sub-
geometries, which was followed by several other studies critical flow conditions, the rate less than what is required
discussed later in this section with a focus on the particle’s to prevent cuttings deposition in the annular space. Their
settling velocity of the cuttings as a major factor model was based on empirical correlations derived from
influencing the hole cleaning. The settling velocity is experimental data collected from a 35-ft long 5-in
dependent upon cuttings density, size, and shape, as well diameter flow loop. Luo and Bern (1992) and Ford et al.
as fluid rheology and flow rate. Chien (1993) has (1993) previously described the sub-critical flow region
introduced a correlation between the settling velocity and mathematically, validating their models using
irregularly shaped cuttings by introducing a factor to experimental data. Some models were validated against
account for the non-sphericity and apply it to a fictive experiments carried out at inclinations that allow cutting
spherical particle with an equivalent volume. His findings beds to form, i.e., inclinations higher than 50° form
can expand the work from spherical to non-spherical vertical (Luo and Bern, 1992; Larsen et al., 1993; Rasi,
particles. 1994). Ford et al. (1990) developed a model available for
any wellbore inclination. The results of their work
In the early 1980s, experimental work was performed showed that the flow regime and rheological properties of
using different custom made flow loops (Iyoho, 1980; the fluid are the key parameters in hole cleaning
Okrajni and Azar, 1986; Tomren et al., 1986; Brown,
1989; Larsen, 1990; Stevenik, 1991; Ford et al., 1990; Contradictory statements were provided regarding
drilling fluid rheology effect on hole cleaning, whether
 1
the fluid should be thick or thin to ensure better cleaning (𝜌𝑠−𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 2
(Zamora and Hanson, 1991a and 1991b). Recently Duan 𝑉𝑠𝑙 = 2.46 ( ) (1-b)
2𝜌𝑓
et al. (2007 and 2010) conducted an experimental study to
investigate smaller sized particle behavior with the flow
and showed that water is more effective in terms of hole The viscosity is not appearing in (1-a) as it is included in
cleaning than low polymer concentration slurries. the 0.44 value of the drag coefficient.

Piroozian et al. (2012) investigated the effect of fluid The drag force acting on a particle is described as:
viscosity on cuttings transportation. This showed that for
1 𝜋𝑑𝑝2
a certain annular velocity that ensures turbulent flow in 𝐹𝐷 = 𝐶 𝜌 𝑈2
the annulus, the increase of viscosity improved cuttings 2 𝐷 4 𝑓 (2)
transportation. However, further increasing viscosity
paired with transient to laminar flow regime significantly where 𝐶𝐷 is the drag coefficient. This coefficient is a
reduces the transport capacity of the cuttings. function of the particle Reynolds number (𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 ):
Clark and Bickham (1994) developed a model for the lift
and roll mechanisms of a particle that was used and 𝜌𝑓 𝑉𝑠𝑙 𝑑𝑝
modified in this work to fit our experiment. 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 =
𝜇𝑓
This diversity of experimental work yields the same (3)
conclusion, namely, that at sufficiently high flow rates, 𝐶𝐷
24
cuttings can be removed no matter the fluid properties, 𝑅𝑒 < 0.1
annulus size, or wellbore inclination. However, field 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝
experiences show that these high flow rates are not 24 3 ln⁡(2𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 )
( ) [1 + 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 + 9𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 ] 0.1<𝑅𝑒 < 2
affordable for most of the cases of large holes and highly = 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 16 160
deviated wellbores due to different reasons, including 24
( ) [1 + 0.15𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝 0.687 ] 2<𝑅𝑒 < 500
high dynamic downhole or surface pressures and limited 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑝
pump capacity. This can be remedied by applying high { 0.44 500<𝑅𝑒
string rotation speeds in case of rotary or top-drive drilling (4)
(Clark and Bickham, 1994).
2.2. Critical Velocities
This paper investigates the movement of cuttings in the Cuttings transportation is primarily affected by the flow
annulus at different inclination angles and assesses rate in the annular space (Fig. 1). The cuttings are
critical velocity mechanistic models for predicting completely removed from the wellbore without
cuttings movement as a function of different cutting sizes deposition at a certain flow velocity. At lower rates, these
and densities. cuttings tend to settle on the bottom, forming cuttings
2. LIFT AND ROLL ANALYTICAL MODELS beds. Their location, shape, and height depend on
different parameters. The limit between deposition and
2.1. Particle Slip Velocity the start of the removal process of the cuttings bed led to
The earliest analytical studies of cuttings transport the notion of critical transport velocity (Clark and
considered the fall of particles in a stagnant fluid, with the Bickham, 1994). This observation directed researchers to
hope that these results could be applied to a moving fluid focus on the equilibrium state of cuttings beds. A bed will
with some degree of accuracy. Most researchers start with keep forming until the velocity in the open flow area
the relationship developed by Stokes for creeping flow reaches the critical velocity to remove cuttings. When
around a spherical particle (Stokes, 1845; Clark and reached, the bed height will remain unaffected.
Bickham, 1994).
During experimental laboratory tests on the Slurry
The equation for particle-slip velocity is stated as: Loop Unit (SLU) shown in Figure 2, rolling, lifting, and
settling patterns of cuttings movement were observed and
(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 2 analyzed to study the cuttings bed development and
𝑉𝑠𝑙 =
18𝜇𝑓 removal process.
(1-a)
where 𝑉𝑠𝑙 is the settling velocity, 𝑑𝑝 is the diameter of The cuttings were mixed with the fluid in a mixing tank
and injected through a 15-ft long annulus made up of 5-in
the particle, 𝜌𝑠 and 𝜌𝑓 are the solid and fluid densities,
inner diameter drill pipe and 8-in outer diameter clear
respectively, 𝜇𝑓 is the fluid viscosity, and 𝑔 is the gravity. PVC tube. The wellbore deviation can be changed from
For a Newtonian fluid, with an assumption of turbulent horizontal to vertical configuration to simulate wellbores
flow and drag coefficient equal to 0.44, the eq. (1-a) can at different angles. All data are collected and plotted in
be written as: real time using a built-in data acquisition system.
 optimum drilling parameters to remove cuttings more
effectively. Furthermore, a good understanding of the
repose angle as a function of drilling parameters and
lithology can help the drilling industry in mud logging and
depth matching, as well as understanding the cuttings
mixing phenomena that was observed during
experiments, which will be subjected to future studies.

Fig. 1. Cuttings transportation in the annulus of a deviated

wellbore.

As discussed above, to study the cuttings behavior , we

need to study the bed equilibrium and find the critical
velocity causing the rolling and lifting mechanisms.
These two mechanisms are based on the forces required
to move a single cutting in equilibrium from the surface Fig. 3. Talus cones showing the angle of repose for coarse
of a bed. The equilibrium equation of forces will allow us sediment, on the north shore of Isfjord, Svalbard, Norway
to determine the critical state (velocities) that causes the (Wilson, 2009).
rolling and lifting of the cutting from its equilibrium
place.
Sphericity

𝑟𝑖
∑
𝑁
Roundness =⁡𝑟
𝑚𝑎𝑥
Fig. 2 Slurry Loop Unit at the University of North Dakota.
Fig. 4. Roundness-sphericity chart (Krumbein and Sloss, 1963).
2.3. Single Cuttings on a Bed Equilibrium State
Model 50
2.3.1. Repose Angle 𝜑 = -17.623 R + 43.066
Angle of repose (𝜑) [ o]

The repose angle, or critical angle of repose, is the 40

steepest angle that a granular material can form relative to
the horizontal plane (Mahta and Baker, 1994). 30
Additionally, this angle is defined as the dip from
horizontal, in which the material can be piled without 20
slumping. Figure 3 shows Talus cones on the north shore
of Isfjord in Svalbard, Norway, with a natural angle of 10
repose for coarse sediment.
0
The repose angle depends on the sphericity and roundness 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
of the particles, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Roundness (R)
A good understanding of the repose angle can help the Fig. 5. Effect of roundness on the angle of repose (sand, gravel,
drill bit selection and design as well as choosing the and ceramic hydraulic fracturing proppants).
2.3.2. Model Description 2.3.3. Rolling Mechanism
At high inclination wellbore angles and a sub-critical flow Clark and Bickham (1994) studied the rolling mechanism,
regime, the cuttings tend to settle at the lower section of which is represented by the momentum conservation
the wellbore annulus to form a stationary bed, while the equation around the support point o’ (-x, z):
cuttings at the surface are either rolled or lifted. This |𝑥|(𝐹𝐷 + 𝐹∆𝑃 ) + |𝑧|(𝐹𝐿 − 𝐹𝑝 ) + ℓ(𝐹𝐵 − 𝐹𝑔 ) = 0
phenomenon was observed during our experimental work (5)
at inclination angles higher than the complementary angle Here, ℓ is the momentum arm for the gravity and
of the repose angle. If the inclination angle from the buoyancy forces, expressed as:
vertical axis is α and the repose angle is φ, the stationary 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼
bed will clearly form at 90°-φ. The forces acting on a ℓ = |𝑧| (𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 + )
𝑡𝑎𝑛φ (6)
single cutting particle are shown in Figure 6. These forces The repose angle can be expressed as a function of the
are static and dynamic. Dynamic forces can be expressed coordinate of the support point:
as functions of the annular slurry velocity U. This means
|𝑧|
that we can solve the forces stated as a function of U to 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ =
find at what limit this particle can move (either rolled or |𝑥| (7)
lifted). This leads to the determination of the critical Dividing both eq. (5) members by |𝑧| and then
velocity. Two situations are to be studied: rolling and multiplying by 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ leads to:
lifting mechanisms. |𝑥| |𝑧| ℓ
𝑡𝑎𝑛φ ( (𝐹𝐷 + 𝐹∆𝑃 ) + (𝐹𝐿 − 𝐹𝑝 ) + (𝐹 − 𝐹𝑔 )) = 0
This equilibrium study is an extension of work developed |𝑧| |𝒛| |𝒛| 𝐵
(8)
in different areas; sedimentation (Einstein and Samni,
After a simplification, eq. (8) becomes:
1949; Samni, 1949; Coleman, 1967), soil erosion (Chepil,
1958), and cuttings transport (Wicks, 1967; Clark and (𝐹𝐷 + 𝐹∆𝑃 ) + 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ(𝐹𝐿 − 𝐹𝑝 ) + (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼
Bickham, 1994). + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼. 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ)(𝐹𝐵 − 𝐹𝑔 ) = 0
(9)
The single cutting particle is assumed to be a sphere with After defining the forces acting on the particle, eq. (9) will
a diameter 𝑑𝑝⁡ and a density𝜌𝑐 . It is also assumed that at help to define the rolling velocity of the particle.
equilibrium state, the particle is retained in place due to a 2.3.4. Lifting Mechanism
reactive force 𝐹𝑅 applied at the contact point. The cuttings For the case of lifting, 𝐹𝑅 is assumed to equal the sum of
bed has a repose angle⁡𝜑. The slurry is considered flowing the drag force and pressure gradient force. The lift is
at a constant rate and has a density ⁡𝜌𝑓 . The static forces governed by the sum of the remaining forces in
are the gravity force⁡𝐹𝑔 , the buoyance effect force⁡𝐹𝐵 , and 𝑥⁡direction, which can be mathematically written as
𝐹∆𝑝 , which is the plastic force due to the mud yield stress follows (Clark and Bickham, 1994):
(in the case of a non-Newtonian fluid). The dynamic (𝐹𝐿 − 𝐹𝑝 ) + (𝐹𝐵 − 𝐹𝑔 )𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 = 0
forces due to the flow are the lift force⁡𝐹𝐿 , the drag (10)
force⁡𝐹𝐷 ,⁡and the pressure due to the pressure gradient⁡𝐹𝑃 . 2.3.5. Critical Lift and Roll Velocities Solutions
In order to solve eq. (9) and (10) to estimate the critical
rolling and lifting velocities, respectively, we need to
define some ancillary equations describing the geometry,
dynamics, and kinematics of the system based on the
forces described in Figure 6. Flow mechanics textbooks
have widely described these equations (Blevins, 1984),
summarized below:
 Drag Force:
1 𝜋𝑑𝑝2
𝐹𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷 𝜌 𝑈2
2 4 𝑓 (11)

 Lift Force:
1 𝜋𝑑𝑝2
𝐹𝐿 = 𝐶𝐿 𝜌 𝑈2
2 4 𝑓 (12)
where 𝐶𝐿 is the lift coefficient.
Fig. 6. Forces acting on a single cutting on a cuttings bed.
  Buoyance Force: 2.4.1. Limits for the Rolling Velocity
Rolling was observed at high wellbore angles. When the
𝜋𝑑𝑝3
𝐹𝐵 = 𝜌 𝑔𝑈 2 inclination angle approaches and remains under the
6 𝑓 (13) complimentary angle, the rolling appears to disappear
since the movement of the particles will become more
 Gravity Force: arbitrary and lifting mechanisms accompanied by a
𝜋𝑑𝑝3 boycott movement becoming dominant. Also, from
𝐹𝑔 = 𝜌 𝑔𝑈 2 experiments observations, when the inclination angle
6 𝑠 (14)
reaches a value equal to the repose angle or less, there is
 Pressure Differential Force: no bed forming.
Assuming 𝜏𝑦 = 0 for simplification reasons, the
𝜋𝑑𝑝3 4𝜏𝑤 𝜕𝑈𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙
𝐹∆𝑃 = ( ) derivative of the rolling velocity,⁡ , will be:
6 𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑 𝜕𝛼
(15) 1/2
4𝜏𝑤
4[(𝜌𝑠−𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼.𝑡𝑎𝑛φ)−𝑑𝑝 ( )]
where 𝜏𝑤 is the wall shear stress and the hydraulic 𝜕𝑈𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝜕 𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑

𝜕𝛼
= 𝜕𝛼 [ 3𝜌𝑓 (𝐶𝐷 +𝐶𝐿 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ)
] (21)
diameter, 𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑 , is defined as follows:
A behavior change can be observed by equalizing the
𝜕𝑈
4𝐴 derivative to zero,⁡ 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 = 0, and solving it to obtain φ.
𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑 = 𝜕𝛼
𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 By doing so, we find:
(16)
𝜋 4[(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 (−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼. 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ)] = 0 (22)
4 4 (𝑑02 − 𝑑𝑖2 )
𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑 = = 𝑑𝑜 − 𝑑𝑖 This leads to 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛼, which means φ = 𝛼, which
𝜋(𝑑𝑜 + 𝑑𝑖 ) means that an inclination from the horizontal plane is
(17)
equal to the repose angle. Many researchers observed
 Plastic Force: this during experimental work where at the range of 50°,
𝜋𝑑𝑝2 𝜋 the particles are lifted, and no rolling is observed.
𝐹𝑝 = 𝜏𝑦 [φ + ( − φ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 φ − 𝑐𝑜𝑠φ𝑠𝑖𝑛φ] However, this angle was not identified as the repose
2 2 (18)
angle, which is close to 50°⁡in the case of sand particles.
2.4.2. Limits for the Lifting Velocity
where 𝜏𝑦 is the yield stress of the fluid.
Following the same process for rolling velocity, we can
By replacing eq. (11) to (18), in eq. (9) and (10), we obtain determine the lifting velocity:
the following critical velocities.
𝜕𝑈𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡 4[(𝜌𝑠 −𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼]
= (23)
 Critical Roll Velocity (Clark and Bickham, 𝜕𝛼 3𝜌𝑓 𝐶𝐿
1994): This leads to 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 = 0, which means 𝛼 = 90°. However,
during experimental work, the particles are lifted at a very
1/2
4𝜏 high rate.
(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 (𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼. 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ) − 𝑑𝑝 ( 𝑤 ) +
𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑
4[ ]
𝜋
3𝜏𝑦 (φ + ( − φ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛 2 φ − 𝑐𝑜𝑠φ𝑠𝑖𝑛φ) 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ
2.4.3. Discussion
2
𝑈=
3𝜌𝑓 (𝐶𝐷 + 𝐶𝐿 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ)
The above results show that the analytical model for
cuttings transportation matches the experimental
[ ] observations at some wellbore deviations. For rolling, the
(19) critical inclination was estimated to be equal to the repose
 Critical Lift Velocity (Clark and Bickham, angle, which is the limit of the bed formation in a
1994): wellbore. Moreover, cuttings are being lifted after that
1/2
angle. The inclination angle close to the complementary
(𝜌𝑠 − 𝜌𝑓 )𝑔𝑑𝑝 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 + angle of repose was not detected as a critical point. For
4[ 𝜋 ]
3𝜏𝑦 (φ + ( − φ) 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 φ − 𝑐𝑜𝑠φ𝑠𝑖𝑛φ) 𝑡𝑎𝑛φ lifting velocity, the critical point was estimated to be at
𝑈= 2
3𝜌𝑓 𝐶𝐿 the inclination angle equal to 90° (horizontal), which is
close to the experimental observations, where at high
[ ] (20) wellbore angles (close to vertical), the rolling is the
2.4. Analytical Models Limits dominant mechanism.
In order to study the limits of the analytical solutions of
critical velocities, we performed a derivative study to
detect the critical inclination angles.
3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 0.8
3.1. Experimental Measurement of Lift and Roll 0.7

Annular velocity [m/s]

Velocities 0.6
0.5
Experimental Procedure
0.4
This study used three different types of cuttings. Each 0.3
type has a specific density, sphericity, and size. The use 0.2
of cuttings with a wide range of properties will help to 0.1
validate the analytical solution presented earlier.
0
For each case, first, we found the size distribution of the 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
cuttings particles based on the sieve analysis and Grain size [mm]
identified the average particles’ diameter. Then we
measured the repose angle. Finally, we determined the URoll ULift
density of the cuttings.
The experiments started with low cuttings concentration Fig. 8. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 90o
to prevent thick bed formation, which makes velocity inclination (Sand).
measurements more complex due to the change of the area
open to the flow. 0.8
0.7

Annular velocity [m/s]

3.1.1. Case 1: Lapis Lustre Clean Dry Sand
0.6
A clean Lapis Lustre Sand with a density of 2.6 gcc with
grain size distribution described in Table 1, was used as 0.5
cuttings for the first experiment. The repose angle of this 0.4
sand is 37°, as shown in Figure 7. 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Grain size [mm]

URoll ULift

Fig. 9. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 75°

inclination (Sand).

0.8
0.7
Annular velocity [m/s]

Fig. 7. Lapis Lustre Clean Dry Sand repose angle measurement.

0.6
0.5
Tab. 1. Lapis Lustre Clean Dry Sand grain size distribution. 0.4
0.3
Sieve nbr Diameter (mm) Mass (gr) Percentage %
0.2
14 0.055 1.397 367
20 0.0331 0.84074 993 0.1

25 0.0278 0.70612 76 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
30 0.0234 0.59436 43
40 0.0165 0.4191 20 Grain size [mm]
rest <0.0165 <0.4191 1 URoll ULift

Fig. 10. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 60°

inclination (Sand).
 0.8
0.5
0.7

Annular velocity [m/s]

0.6
Analytical Velocity [m/s]

0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2 0.2
0.1
0.1 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003

0
Grain size [mm]
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
URoll ULift
Experimental Velocity [m/s]
Symetry Plan 25% Error Margin
Fig. 13. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 90o
inclination (Proppants).
Fig. 11. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting
(Sand). 0.8
0.7

Annular velocity [m/s]

0.6
3.1.2. Case 2: Ceramic Proppants 0.5
Ceramic Proppants with a density of 2.95 gcc with grain
0.4
size distribution described in Table 2 were used as
cuttings for the second experiment. The repose angle of 0.3
this sand is 26°, as shown in Figure 12. 0.2
0.1
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Grain size [mm]

URoll ULift

Fig. 14. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 75°

inclination (Proppants).

0.8
0.7
Annular velocity [m/s]

Fig. 12. Hydraulic Fracturing Ceramic Proppants repose angle 0.6

measurement. 0.5
0.4
0.3
Tab. 2. Hydraulic Fracturing Ceramic Proppants grain size
distribution. 0.2

Sieve nbr Diameter (mm) Mass (gr) Percentage % 0.1

14 1.4 390 55.71 0

0 0.001 0.002 0.003
16 1.18 286 40.86
rest < 1.18 24 3.43 Grain size [mm]
URoll ULift

Fig. 15. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 65°

inclination (Proppants).
 0.8
0.5
0.7

Annular velocity [m/s]

0.6
Analytical Velocity [m/s]
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2
0.2 0.1
0
0.1 0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Grain size [mm]
0 URoll ULift
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Experimental Velocity [m/s]
Symetry Plan 25% Error Margin
Fig. 19. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 75°
inclination (Rock fragments).

0.8
Fig. 16. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting

Annular velocity [m/s]

0.7
(Proppants).
0.6
3.1.3. Case 3: Rock Fragments 0.5
Rock fragments with a density of 3.11 gcc with grain size 0.4
distribution described in Table 3 were used as cuttings for 0.3
the third experiment. The repose angle of this sand is 40°, 0.2
as shown in Figure 17. 0.1
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Grain size [mm]
URoll ULift

Fig. 20. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 61°

inclination (Rock fragments).

0.8
0.7
Analytical Velocity [m/s]

Fig. 17. Rock fragments repose angle measurement.

0.6
0.8 0.5
0.7
Annular velocity [m/s]

0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.1
0.2 0
0.1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0 Experimental Velocity [m/s]
0 0.001 0.002 0.003
Grain size [mm] Symetry Plan 25% Error Margin
URoll ULift

Fig. 21. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting

Fig. 18. Experimental vs. Analytical Rolling and Lifting at 90°
results (Rock fragments).
inclination (Rock fragments).
Tab. 3. Rock fragments grain size distribution. horizontal plane); after this angle, the cleaning becomes
Sieve nbr Diameter (mm) mass percentage % easier.
5-8 2.8 - 99
REFERENCES
3.2. Discussion 1. Blevins, R. D.: “Applied fluid dynamics
The experimental results of the initial velocity needed for handbook”. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
the clean sand particles to start rotating and being lifted York. (1984)
(Fig. 7) were compared to analytical solutions for the lift 2. Brown, N.P., Bern, P.A., and Weaver, A.:
and roll velocities (see Fig. 8 to Fig. 10). For the proppant "Cleaning Deviated Holes: New Experimental and
particles (Fig. 12), the results are also plotted for Theoretical Studies," paper SPE 18636 presented
comparison with the analytical solution (Fig. 13 to Fig. at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
15). The third cuttings used composed of rock fragments Orleans, Feb. 28-Mar. 3.
(Fig. 17) showed the highest repose angle of 40°, and 3. Chepil, W.S.: "The Use of Evenly Spaced
these results were compared with analytical predictions Hemispheres to Evaluate Aerodynamic Forces on
(Fig. 18 to Fig. 20). the Soil Surface". Trans., American Geophysical
The experiments showed that the prediction of the rolling Union (1958) 39, No. 3, 397-404.
and lifting velocities match the experimental 4. Chien, S.F.: "Settling Velocity of Irregularly
observations. The comparison of the analytical versus Shaped Particles," paper SPE 26121 (1993).
experimental results, as presented in Figures 11, 16, and 5. Clark, R. K., & Bickham, K. L.: "A Mechanistic
21, respectively, shows that the velocity data in all cases Model for Cuttings Transport. Society of
are clustered around the 45° line, which means a close Petroleum Engineers, SPE28306 (1994, January
agreement between the two methods. The points lay 1) doi:10.2118/28306-MS
within the 25% margins, which is an accepted margin for 6. Coleman, N.L.: ''A Theoretical and Experimental
analytical models. Study of Drag and Lift Forces Acting on a Sphere
Resting on a Hypothetical Streambed".
For different cuttings’ sizes, densities, repose angles, and Proceedings 12th Congress of the International
wellbore inclinations, the analytical solution showed Association for Hydraulic Research, Fort Collins
accurate predictions of the critical velocities. (1967) 3, 185-195.
At high wellbore angles (higher than the complementary 7. Duan M., Miska S., Yu M., Takach N., Ahmed R,
angle of the repose angle), the rolling pattern was Hallma J.: "Experimental study and modeling of
dominant; the cuttings rolled and slightly bounced along cuttings transport using foam with drillpipe
the bed interface. rotation". SPE Drilling and Completion (2010)
25(3): P 352–362
At wellbore angles (from the horizontal plane) superior to 8. Duan M.: " Study of cuttings transport using foam
the repose angle of the cuttings, the lifting process is with drill pipe rotation under simulated downhole
dominant; cuttings are lifted from a churning fluidized conditions". PhD thesis, Tulsa University, USA,
bed. (2007).
9. Einstein, H.A. and El-Samni, E.A.:
4. CONCLUSIONS "Hydrodynamic Forces on a Rough Wall,"
Reviews of Modern Physics (1949)21, No. 3, 520-
The analytical models for lifting and rolling provided 524.
good estimates of velocities compared to experimental 10. Samni, E.A.: "Hydrodynamic Forces Acting on
measurements. Particles in the Surface of a Stream Bed". PhD
The repose angle was shown to be an important parameter dissertation, U. California, Berkeley, CA (1949).
in hole cleaning efficiency. This assumption was 11. Ford, J., et al.: "Development of Mathematical
confirmed analytically and experimentally. Models Describing Drilled Cuttings Transport in
Deviated Wells," paper 93-1102 presented at the
The lift velocity is the limiting velocity needed to start 1993 CADE/CAODC Spring Drilling Conference,
cleaning a bed deposited at the wellbore. This value is not Calgary, Apr. 14-16.
the optimum velocity for cleaning; however, it is the limit 12. Ford, J.T., et al.: "Experimental Investigation of
where the cuttings start to be transported out of the well. Drilled Cuttings Transport in Inclined Boreholes,"
The cuttings transportation becomes more difficult when paper SPE 20421 presented at the 1990 SPE
increasing the angle until reaching a critical angle more Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
than the complementary of the repose angle (from the New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
13. Iyoho, A.W.: "Drilled-Cuttings Transport by Non- repose for coarse sediment” Department of
Newtonian Drilling Fluids through Inclined, Geology. The College of Wooster, OH (2009).
Eccentric Annuli," Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Tulsa, 28. Zamora, M. and Hanson, P.: "More Rules of
Tulsa, OK (1980). Thumb to Improve High-Angle Hole Cleaning,"
14. Jalukar, L.S.: ''A Study of Hole Size Effect on Pet. Eng. Intl. (Feb. 1991) 22, 24, 26-27.
Critical and Subcritical Drilling Fluid Velocities 29. Zamora, M. and Hanson, P.: "Rules of Thumb to
in Cuttings Transport for Inclined Wellbores," MS Improve High-Angle Hole Cleaning," Pet. Eng.
thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1993). Intl. (Jan.1991) 44-46, 48, 51.
15. Larsen, T.I., Pilehvari, A.A., and Azar, J.J.:
"Development of a New Cuttings Transport Model
for High-Angle Wellbores Including Horizontal
Wells," paper SPE 25872 presented at the 1993
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Apr. 12-14.
16. Larsen, T.I.: ''A Study of the Critical Fluid
Velocity in Cuttings Transport," MS thesis, U. of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1990).
17. Luo, Y. and Bern, P.A.: "Flow-Rate Predictions
for Cleaning Deviated Wells," paper IADC/SPE
23884 presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 18-21.
18. Okrajni, S.S. and Azar, J.J.: "The Effects of Mud
Rheology on Annular Hole Cleaning in
Directional Wells," SPEDE I (Aug. 1986) 297-
308.
19. Pigott, R. J. S.: "Mud Flow in Drilling," Drill. and
Prod. Pract., API (1942) 91-103.
20. Piroozian A., Ismail I., Yaacob Z., Babakhani P.,
Ismail ASI: " Impact of drilling fluid viscosity,
velocity and hole inclination on cuttings transport
in horizontal and highly deviated wells. J Petrol
Explor. Prod. Technol. (2012) 2:149–156
21. Rasi, M.: "Hole Cleaning in Large, High-Angle
Wellbores," paper IADC/SPE 27464 presented at
the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Feb. 15-18.
22. Sifferman, T.R. and Becker, T.E.: "Hole Cleaning
in Full-Scale Inclined Wellbores," SPEDE (June
1992) 115-120.
23. Stevenik, B.C.: "Design and Construction of a
Large-Scale Wellbore Simulator and Investigation
of Hole Size Effects on Critical Cuttings Transport
Velocity in Highly Inclined Wells," MS thesis, U.
of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1991).
24. Stokes, G.G.: Transactions of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, (1845).
25. Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., and Azar, J.J.:
"Experimental Study of Cuttings Transport in
Directional Wells," SPEDE (Feb. 1986) 43-56.
26. Wicks, M.: "Transport of Solids at Low
Concentration in Horizontal Pipe," in Advances in
Solid-Liquid Flow in Pipes and lts Application, I.
Zandi (ed.), Pergamon Press, New York. (1967)
101-124.
27. Wilson, M. A.: “Talus cones on north shore of
Isfjord, Svalbard, Norway, showing angle of