SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas, Texas 75206

PAPER
NUMBER

S P E 1 700

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Volume Requirements In Air Drilling

By
Roger J. Schoeppel, Member AIME, Oklahoma State U., Stillwater, Okla., and
Ashok R. Sapre, Student Member AIME, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla.
Copyright 1967
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
This work was carried out to obtain a more
realistic method for prediction of bottom-hole
pressures and air or gas volumes required in air
and gas drilling. The approach presented allows
a prediction of the volume of air or gas required to lift particles from the point in the
annulus of critical lift: the region just above
the drill collars. Besides particle-lift considerations, this prediction method considers
particle-wall and gas-wall frictional effects,
real gas behavior and other pertinent variables
such as changes in temperature due to depth,
effect of co-current vertical flow and penetration rate. Calculations are presented for a
number of examples which show the volume of air
required as a function of drilling rate and
depth. Bottom-hole pressures at the design
point are also determined. Calculated results
are shown to agree more closely with field
observations than do volumes predicted by the
Martin,l Angel,2 or McCray and Cole 3 methods.
The proposed method may eliminate the need for
experience factors in determining appropriate
air or gas volumes.

nuclear testing. The method as now practiced

is limited in more universal applications by
only its inability to cope with high formation
pressures, unstable hole conditions, or large
rates of water influx.
Present standards for the selection of air
volumes are inadequate and require an experience
factor to determine requirements under any
given condition. The presence of water makes
the present criteria even less effective. A
need is seen for a prediction method which
eliminates the need for such factors.
From drilling of limestone rocks in quarry
operations, it was found that air volumes
sufficient to give an annular velocity of 3,000
ft/min. evaluated using standard density air
provided both adequate cleaning ahead of the
bit as well as efficient removal of the drilled
solids. However, in deeper drilling or with
different rock formations, a general uncertainty exists as to the air or gas volume
required for effective cuttings removal. It is
in such instances that an experience factor is
used in determining air or gas volume requirements.

INTRODUCTION
Development of the technique in which air
or gas is used as the circulating fluid represents one of the most significant breakthroughs
in cost reduction that the drilling industry has
experienced in the last 15 years. Credit for
this achievement is due the many drilling people
whose initiative and accumulated experiences
have refined the method and determined situations where the technique is most applicable.
From this accumulated knowledge, much is now
known of geographical areas and depths where the
method has the advantage over more conventional
circulating fluids including the use of air or
gas as a completion fluid to overcome formation
damage, in drilling water wells and in drilling
big holes for mine shafts and underground
References and illustrations at end of paper.

The first method proposed for predicting

volume requirements in air and gas drilling was
presented by Martin of Hughes Tool Co.l His
predictions were based on application of the
Weymouth formula for horizontal gas flow and
did not attempt to include such effects as the
drilled solids or variations in temperature with
depth. As has been generally observed in practice, Martin's method gives a much smaller
volume than is actually required. Angel's
method of predicting volumes required included
the effect of drilled solids by considering
drilling rate as a parameter and includes depth
corrections for pressure and temperature. 2 His
approach assumes that the mixture of gas and
solid particles behaves hydrostatically as a
perfect gas. According to his example, the
bottom-hole temperature instead of an average

50

SPE-1700

VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IN AIR DRILLING

temperature is used in his calculations. Although his method includes the hydrostatic
effect of vertical flow, it neglects particlewall resistance as well as changes in potential
energy of the solids and gas or air. Following
this work, McCray and Cole presented a more
fundamental approach in which the change in
potential energy of the gas as well as a constant percentage slip between solid particles
and the gas was considered. 3 Both Angel, and
McCray and Cole assumed that a linear velocity
of 3,000 ft/min of standard density air was
required to lift the solid particles. Volumes
predicted by the three methods generally increase in the order: Martin; Angel; McCray and
Cole. Unfortunately, the method of McCray and
Cole has not received adequate field testing to
determine its general applicability.
Despite these various methods of predicting
volume requirements in air and gas drilling,
field experience has generally shown that more
air is required than is predicted by any of
these methods. In an attempt to eliminate the
need for such an experience factor, it is the
purpose of this paper to present a volume prediction method based on particle-lift analysis
in which the vertical flow equation, real gas
behavior, gas-wall and solid-wall frictional
effects, and "critical" slip of the cuttings
are considered. Average temperature variations
with depth are included when evaluating average
effects, whereas an estimate of the actual
temperature is used when determining conditions
at point locations in the flow system. The
method is based on the lifting to the surface
of a specific desired size of spherically equivalent particles.

particle diameter capable of being lifted by an

annular velocity of 3,000 ft/min. of standard
density air, assuming that rock cuttings are
expressed in terms of their spherical equivalent
diameters, is about 1/5 in. Thus an annular
velocity of 3,000 ft/min at the surface would
not be capable of removing a particle of this
size from great depths. Further, if this or any
other constant volume is circulated in drilling
to deeper depths, the size of the cuttings
capable of being lifted continually decreases
with increasing depths. Therefore, depending
on the nature of the rock and the drilling
environment, production of only dust-size
particles could be indicative of inadequate
circulation volumes.
Taking as the design criterion4 the condition where the air just floats the desired
size particle to be produced and letting
Vs

V - V . . . . . . . . . . . [2]

[3]

and
PM
Pg = ZRT ,

[ 4]

then Rittenger's equation takes the form

DEVELOPMENT OF EQUATIONS
Applying subscripts 1 and 2 to the point of
critical lift and the top of the hole respecIn any particle-lift analysis approach for
determining minimum gas volume requirements, the tively, recognizing that V = 0 in the critical
. design section, and substituting 0.00203T as an
depth in the annulus where the least lifting
approximate compressibility factor for air at
forces exist must be the design criterion. By
pressures to 500 psi 4, gives:
an analysis of Rittenger's equation

V
s

4 CPs - P ) gd s '
g

3f

D Pg

,- . [1]

it can be shown that, 4-7 although buoyancy

forces increase with increasing gas density, the
velocity of slip Vs between a suspended particle
and the gas decreases at a faster rate. Such
an analysis leads to the conclusion that the
depth of critical lift will ocour in the annulus
just above the top of drill collars. Particles
larger than the critical diameter capable of
being lifted by the circulating gas will tend
to accumulate in the section above the drill
collars and behave as a fluidized bed until they
are crushed or broken up to a size capable to
being lifted out of the hole. The critical

VI '"

V~~ O.002~~ gd s RTL2,

3f DPI M

[6]

The mass flow rate of air or gas can be expressed as:

m

p A V .
gl 1 1

Substituting Vl from Eq. 6 gives:

51

ROGER J. SCHOEPPEL and ASHOK R. SAPRE

SPE-1700

and hence Eq. 13

n(d 2

m
g

~ gd Pl:'1

. 1

i2

.00203R'.:'_2

Eq. 7 gives the minimum mass of gas required

per unit time to lift a single solid particle
of critical diameter d s ' It will be noted that
Eq. 7 contains two unknowns, Pl and mg' Therefore, another equation will be required for an
explicit solution of these two variables.

+ dz + ~ + dOw) + dW

gc

0.

. [8J

. . [9 J

0.

in a similar fashion and demass ratio of the solids being

mass of flowing air, the energy
solid phase can be written as Y

If no work is done on or by the air, then dW s

and

gc

. . . . [13]

Proceeding
fining r as the
lifted per unit
balance for the

vdp + dz + udu + d(iw)

g (d c 1

is the final energy balance on the gaseous

state.

A second equation can be developed from

Bernoulli's equation which, in differential
form, can be expressed as 8

vdp

- h )

P 2 - Pi

---"----=='-

d (1 w )

= O.

Ps

Considering first an energy balance on the

gaseous phase, assuming steady-state flow, and
recalling that, for compressible fluid flow,
mass velocity G is constant, then Eq. 9 can be
written as

dv

+ dz + dP + 2fG dL

O. [lOJ

where f is the Fanning friction factor. Substituting ZRT/PM for v and integrating for the
limits from the critical or design point of
lift to the surface yields:

. . . . . . [14 J

A: the design point, the velocity of solids l

wJ.ll be equal to zero. The frictional term
d[lwJ for both the solid and gas phases is combined to include particle-wall effects following
the work of White and Vogt lO as shown in the
Appendix. Although their experimental data were
only for small pipes, due to lack of better
data, their results are used for calculations
here. Upon consideration of the above, the
energy balance for the combined solids and gas
system becomes

v
2
in-v
gc
1

--2ZRT 1

+ L

(h

gc

(P

2
Z

-P

2
1

2 - hi) +

2
2fG (h
)

g (d
c
1

- h )
Z
1
- d )

O.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . [llJ

But

M
2
2
2Z RT- (P 2 - Pi)

28 fGZ (h2 - hi)

gc (d

- d )
2

, . . . . . . . . [12]

0, . . . . . . . . . . [15]

52

VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IN AIR DRILLING

where V2 is evaluated by using E~s. 1 and 2.
The term ~, as defined by White and Vogt and
reconstructed in Fig. 1 for a given set of
conditions, is the relative pressure drop due
to solids. The compressibility relation for
air has been previously defined. The remaining
unknowns in the above equation for any depth
are r and Pl. If the drilling rate K is known,
the mass of solids flowing per unit time can
be expressed as

SPE-1700

DISCUSSION

Air and gas volume requirements as herein

determined by the maximum size particles one
desires to have produced at the surface offers
a more realistic design approach than those
heretofore proposed. Such a more fundamental
analysis lends understanding to the physical
system; for example in predicting the accumulation of cuttings larger than the critical
diameter in the enlarged section above the
drill collars. These cuttings fall to bottom
ill
S
and explain one source of "fill" so frequently
found upon interruption of the circulation
so that
system. The critical particle diameter
11 d 2
approach also suggests that, although satisr
"4 1 Kp/illg "
factory drilling progress has been reported at
standard density air velocities of from 2,000 to
Hence, for a given drilling rate and depth, the
4,000 ft/min.,2 the size of cuttings capable of
only unknowns are Pl and m as in E~s. 7 and 15.
being removed by the circulation system
Their simultaneous solution will give the
minimum amount of air re~uired and corresponding increased pro~ortionately from about 1/16 in. at
the 2,000 ft/min. rate to about 1/4 in. [spheripressure at the design point. Use of these
cal diameter equivalents] at the higher rate.
e~uations for determining volume re~uirements
The higher air and gas volumes re~uired for
other than air will require appropriate comremoval of agglomerated cuttings when "damp" or
pressibility corrections.
"mist" drilling conditions exist is likewise
explained by this approach. The possibility of
CALCUIATIONS
including water influx as a variable to air and
gas
volume re~uirements is presently under
Calculations have been completed for a
consideration by the authors.
number of drilling situations in which air
volumes were determined as a function of depth
A comparison of the volumes predicted by
and penetration rate. Attempts were made in
2
this initial effort to use basic data eguivalent the method presented herein with those of Ange1
3
and McCray and Cole under similar conditions is
to those of Angel,2,11 McCray and Cole,) and
presented in Fig. 3. As shown, the volumes
Martinl so that predicted volume requirements
predicted by this method are larger than 'those
could be compared under similar conditions.
of McCray and Cole which are in turn larger than
Typical results of the calculations for one
those predicted by Angel. The increase is
specific drilling situation are as presented
greatest at shallow depths. A similar compariin Fig. 2. Specific data used in the calculation are listed in Table 1. Volume requirements son with Angel's and Martin's prediction is presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 5 shows the relative
are shown to increase rapidly with both depth
increase predicted by the method proposed herein
and penetration rate which is in qualitative
with that of Angel's. In this instance, the
agreement with experience and that predicted by
volume predicted by the critical diameter
previous methods. Pressures existing at the
approach
increases rapidly over Angel's value to
critical lift depth where volume determinations
a factor of about 1.9 at 3,000 ft and then
were made are also shown in Fig. 2.
decreases gradually to 1.35 at 15,000 ft. Such
a
result is consistent with field experience in
The calculation procedure used in deterwhich Angel's predicted volumes are increased by
mining the data of Fig. 2 was as follows: The
mass of solids ms to be lifted per unit time was a factor varying from 1.25 to 2.0 for general
field application. 12
first determined for a given drilling rate and
hole and pipe size. Eqs. 7 and 15 were then
The linear velocity of 3,000 ft/min. has
solved by successive trial and error procedures
been
shown by Gray7 to be capable of lifting a
for the air mass flow rate mg and bottom-hole
1/5-in. diamete. particle when the air exists at
pressures necessary to lift 1/5-in. diameter
atmospheric conditions. To lift a particle of
spherical particles from the given depth. Air
the same size at depth, a velocity of standard
mass flow rates were then converted to volume
density
air in excess of 3,000 ft/min. will be
rates for practical considerations.
re~uired.
By this reasoning it is apparent that
any volume reqUirements prediction method should
An IBM 1620 was used for all calculations.
include parameters characterizing the worst gas
Use of the computer greatly facilitated the
lifting capability in the well annulus and the
trial-and-error solution.
size of spherically equivalent cuttings diameter
desired at the surface. Therefore, the method
proposed and the increases in volumes predicted

ROGER J. SCHOEPPEL and ASHOK R. SAPRE

SPE-1700

over those proposed by Angel appear to be

reasonable and justified.
A spherically equivalent particle diameter
of 0.2 in. has been used in all previous calculations to eliminate particle size as a variable
in comparing the different methods. Since the
method proposed herein does not assume the
linear velocity of 3,000 ft/min. of standard
density air, and instead is based on the particle size desired at the "blooie" line, the
influence of particle diameter on volume
requirements was of interest. Predicted volume
requirements for varying size particles,
analogous to the drilling conditions of Fig. 2,
are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. These plots
show the increased circulation rates required
if particles larger than 0.05 in. are desiredo
It is significant to note that the change in
circulation volume is not in the same ratio as
the change in particle diameter.
Actual field verification of volume
requirements predicted by the method proposed
herein must include a sphericity analysis of the
largest cuttings recovered during the testing
period. Since such data are not readily available, no attempt was made to compare predicted
volumes with field data. Once tested, this
method may eliminate the need for experience
factors in determining the prescribed gas circulating volwne.

= depth, ft
K = drilling rate, ft/sec
M = molecular weight of gas
= mass flow rate of gas, Ibm/sec
= mass flow rate of solids, Ibm/sec
= pressure, Ib f /ft 2
R = gas law constant, ft-lbf/lb-mole oR
r = mass of solids per unit mass of gas,
dimensionless
T = temperature, oR
V = velocity of gas or air, ft/sec
V = velocity of solids, ft/sec
Vs = slip velocity, ft/sec
Z = compressibility factor, dimensionless
~ = relative pressure drop~ dimensionless
Pg = density of gas, Ibm/ft)
Ps = density of solids, Ibm/ft 3
h

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The technique presented in this paper
represents the cUlmination of work over the
previous six years. Persons due special thanks
for their initial suggestions and encouragement
are P. L. Moore and R. Goldsmith. The principal
author also wishes to acknowledge the graduate
program of Oklahoma U. wherein this approach
originated. The assistance of J. Langston in
critically reviewing the manuscript is appreciated.
REFERENCES

CONCLUSIONS
A more fundamental method for the prediction of volume requirements in air and gas
drilling, which eliminates the need for
experience factors, is presented. Volume
requirements predicted by this method increase
with depth and penetration rate in agreement
with previous prediction methods and field
experience. Volumes predicted are greater than
those proposed by Angel and others. In one
specific comparison with Angel's work, the new
method predicts that about 1.9 times more air
is required at 3,000 ft, the factor decreasing
gradually to 1.35 at 15,000 ft. Such an increase appears to be reasonable and justified
and is in agreement with volumes normally used
in field operations. Calculation of the bottomhole pressure during the two-phase co-current
vertical flow of air and solids is also possible by the method proposed.

A
dl
d2
f
fD
G
gc

= annular

diameter, ft

= Fanning's friction factor, dimensionless

4.
5

6.

area, sq ft

= hole diameter, ft

= pipe

2.

8.

NOMENCLATURE

~rag coefficient, dimensionless

= mass velocity, Ibm/sec-ft 2
= Newton's-law conversion factor, ft-lb m/
Ibr- sec2

53

9
10.
11.

Martin, D. J.: "Use of Air or Gas as a

Circulating Fluid in Rotary DrillingVolume Requirements", Hughes Engr. Bull.
No. 23 [Nov. 28, 1952].
Angel, R. R.: "Volume Requirements for Air
or Gas Drilling", Trans., AIME [1957] 210,
325
McCray, A. W. and Cole, F. W.: Oil Well
Drilling Technology, U. of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, Okla. [1958] 271.
Schoeppel, R. J.: Unpublished graduate
work, U. of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla. [1961].
Moore, P. L.: "Problems Associated with
Design Programs for Air and Gas Drilling"
.
'
Drlll.
Contr. [May-June, 1965] 47.
Bradshaw, S. K.: "A Numerical Analysis of
particle Lift", Thesis, U. of Oklahoma,
Norman, Okla. [1964].
Gray, K. E.: "The Cutting Carrying
Capacity of Air at Pressures Above Atmospheric", Trans., AIME [1958] 213, 18o.
Smith, J. M. and Van Ness, H.~: Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 2nd
Ed. [1959] 238.
McCabe, W. L. and Smith, J. C.: Unit
Operations of Chemical Engr. [1956}:272.
White, R. R. and Vogt, E. G.: "Friction in
the Flow of Suspensions", Ind. and Eng.
Chem. [Sept., 1948] 1731.
Angel, R. R.: Volume Requirements for Air

VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IN AIR DRILLING

and Gas Drilling, Gulf Publishing Co.

[1958J.
12.

Snyder, F.: Ingersoll-Rand Co., Private

Communication [1966J.

SPE-1700

By further assuming that the number of

collisions that each particle makes with the
pipe wall is proportional to the ratio of the
particle velocity to the pipe diameter, it can
be shown that

APPENDIX
As surmised from the work of White and
Vugt,lO the mechanics of turbulent flow of
fluids are so complex that empirical methods
have proven very effective in correlating the
relations involved. The turbulent flow of
single phase fluids is generally correlated by
the familiar Fanning equation as derived by
dimensional analysis,
_ {).P

2
2fu L

g D
c

with usual notations.

When solid particles are suspended in a
fluid phase, the additional variables are those
describing the solid phase and local acceleration effects due to gravity. The variables
that describe the solid phase are the average
effective diameter and density of the particles,
weight ratio of solids to fluid in the flow
stream, and the shape of the particles.

~ \'"

1 = A r

D 2
K
C) (.Q. ---.;;.r_)
d
w R
e

where A and K are empirical constants which are

functions of the dimensionless group

(w - ~) Q&d

\.L

and new variables are defined as:

D = pipe diameter
d = particle diameter
p = fluid density
w = solid density
Re = Reynolds number.

It is assumed that, when a particle in

motion strikes the pipe wall, it loses a fraction of its kinetic energy so that the particle
then moves at a lower velocity that does the
fluid. The energy expended by the fluid in
maintaining the motion of the particle will
balance the loss in kinetic energy due to
collision with the pipe wall.

TABLE I

Data Used In Calculations

0.0213 (Re)-119

168 lb/ft

Geothermal gradient

P2

.015

F/ft,

14.7 psia

0:2 inches (Figs. 1-5)

I.CI6~~~----r---~-----r----~---'r----'

21_ _ _1-

18

+-I-r-+-----~--I-L-

't-U

1. CC31----+--\-

_ --j-----_ -

AIR

c' =C.2"
c'S=6-2!4"
c'h-~_1/2N
:1--

Ii)

-15
N
I
Cl

><
w

14

--

I-

<t:
0:::
0

"'" 12

U)

1. C C41--+-------f---------''x

C\1
I

co

LJ

I
CD

s:----________ ____'__ ____'

~

10
XlO-3, ft

14

12

DE?TH XlO-3,

Fig. 1 - Variation in Relative Pressure

Drop Due to Entrained Solids
Hole Condition 1, 30 ft/hr

ft

13

Fig. 2 - Volumes and Pressures Predicted

for Air Drilling
Hole Condition I, 30 and 120 ft/hr

2:1----

2::

N
I

27

~n

><

't--

Ld
I-

Ii)

;;::17

- -+---

.-I

><

~'.::-

13

-l

=>
U

0:::

~~

~ 13

15

LJ

12

~E?TH XlC- 3 , ft

16

20

Fig. 3 - Comparison of Volume Requirement

Predictions
Hole Condition I I, 60 ft/hr

4
~Ei'TH

6
XIO-3,

10

ft

Fig. 4 - Comparison of Volume Requirement

Predictions
Hole Condition I I I, 30 ft/hr

2.2
I

-------t--- +--------

2c

1.J
-0
(l)

(/)

rl

n..

(l)

L,

0
L

1.6

1--1-----+----+-

------t--- -.".....----+.-

i i '
I.
LI
I

n. <t:

1.4

--T-

1.2

-I--+--- i- - -

i .----,---

I
I

-J-- - 1. __J _

1.0
0

10

12

14

DEPTH XlO-3, ft
Fig. 5 - Comparison of Volume Requirement
Predictions
Hole Condition I, 60 ft/hr

27~--~----,-----,---~----,-,

d =C.2C"
24~---4-----+

__~4-----+----~-~

.-

't-

~211------~~--+-

241---------,4- AI R
d h =6-3/4"N
F
d =3-1/2
't1-----,4----+- Kg 1 20ft f h r ----l----1
~21
N

S13~,L-+---+-----l--~~-=~-+~

~13~~-~--+-~~4---~--~~

W
I-

I-

~l~~--~--~~~--l---~~~~~

1 5 1------t---7""-----l

C)

~12~~L-~~-+-~~--l---.+~~~~

=>

=>

CJ

u::
u

~12~~L-r-~~+.~~~~--~~---~
-.J

-.J

0-:

3~__~+-~~~~---l---_+--_+~

5 I-~-+--.~-+
O~--~----~--~~--~~--~

12

DEPTH XlO-3, ft

15

Fig. 6 - Effect of Desired Particle Diameter

on Required Circulation Rate
Hole Condition I, 30 ft/hr

DEPTH XlC'-3, ft
Fig. 7 - Effect of Desired Particle Diameter
on Required Circulation Rate
Hole Condition I, 120 ft/hr