SPE 134514

A Comparison of High-Viscosity and High-Density Sweeps as Hole Cleaning

Tools: Separating Fact From Fiction
Terry Hemphill, Halliburton

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

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
High-viscosity sweeps have long been used in the drilling industry as a tool to enhance hole cleaning. They have found
application in vertical as well as high-angle / horizontal wellbores, with variable results. Sometimes they have been used in
tandem pills or in two-part sweeps (e.g., a low-viscosity sweep followed by a high-viscosity sweep, a high-viscosity sweep
followed by a high-density sweep, etc.).
Determination of the efficiency of sweeps centers on accurately predicting the settling velocity of various sized particles by
using equations valid for turbulent and laminar slip. However, nearly all of the previous studies of particle settling velocity have
been carried out under static flow conditions, which are rarely present while drilling a wellbore. Recent efforts in the modeling of
the hydraulic effects of drill pipe rotation now allow more advanced modeling of the effects of drill pipe rotation on particle
settling velocities under dynamic conditions.
These recent studies show that use of high-viscosity sweeps to improve hole cleaning is often not as efficient as use of high-
density sweeps under the same conditions. This is especially true when larger-sized particles are resident in the wellbore, as when
wellbore instability conditions persist. This paper presents data that shows the conditions under which viscous sweeps can be used
and those conditions under which they should be supplanted by high-density sweeps for enhanced hole cleaning.

Introduction
The use of sweeps as hole cleaning aids is found in both vertical / near-vertical wellbores and in high-angle / horizontal wellbores.
On many drilling projects, sweeps are used frequently to improve the cleaning of a wellbore, especially when the flow rates are
insufficient for efficient hole cleaning. Sweeps work by reducing the settling velocity of particles in a wellbore that come into
contact with the sweep. Sweeps can be classified into five basic categories:
• Low-viscosity sweeps, in which an unviscosified base fluid or a fluid having a lower viscosity than the base fluid is used.
These types of sweeps are not considered in the sweep study presented here.
• High-viscosity (HV), in which a volume of drilling fluid is viscosified to a level higher than the base fluid
• High-density (HD), in which the density of a volume of drilling fluid is increased to a level higher than the base fluid
density
• High-density / high-viscosity (HV/HD), in which a volume of drilling fluid is both viscosified and increased in density
• Tandem sweeps (2 consecutive sweeps) composed of any of the three listed earlier

The study of the efficiency of drilling fluid sweeps and recommendations for their use in high-angle / horizontal wellbores has
been presented1. However, their use in vertical / near-vertical wellbores has received little attention until recently. “Conventional
wisdom” (or general oilfield protocol) for cleaning vertical/near-vertical wellbores usually includes recommendations of flow rate
and use of high-viscosity sweeps. However, use of these sweeps has received little rigorous study, and serves as the focus of this
paper. From the modeling produced in support of this paper, it is evident that the use of high-viscosity sweeps in vertical / near-
vertical wellbore needs to be revisited. Recommendations are made for sweeps based on their efficiency at minimizing particle
settling velocity, or slip, and specific recommendations for their deployment in the field are presented.
2 SPE 134514

Background
Approximately a year ago, the author investigated a well exhibiting wellbore stability / hole cleaning problems in North Africa.
Conversations with those involved in the drilling process included the following information:
• Large volumes of large-diameter cavings were seen at the shakers and were stored in the reserve pits.
• Particle diameters ranged between 0.15-in and 1-in, though cavings larger than 1-in were evident in the photographs taken
at the rigsite.
• Numerous high-viscosity sweeps were used to clean the hole, with some success. But sometimes, few cavings were seen
at the shaker, and then a short while later, the shakers would become covered with particles having large average
diameters.
• The caving debris came out in many shapes – some blocks, some long and thin pieces, and some thick and long pieces.
• While circulating, the hole was never completely cleaned of debris.

In the investigation that followed, it was concluded that insufficient mud density was the root cause, which led to the wellbore
stability problems. The problems with cleaning the hole were more related to the enlarged hole diameter, which led to reduced
annular velocity, and to the efficiency of the high-viscosity sweeps being used to clean the hole. An early attempt to understand
the sweep cleaning deficiency involved the calculation of cuttings transport efficiency values of large-diameter pieces seen at the
shakers. The sweep properties used in the analysis were taken from rig reports and were not those modeled in this paper.
In order to calculate transport efficiency, the particle settling rates in static fluids are first calculated. The results are shown in
Fig. 1, which basically showed the high-viscosity sweeps in use were not very efficient in transporting cuttings (or, by definition,
in slowing down the static particle settling velocity) for very large diameter particles > 0.5-in diameter. In fact, the calculated
particle transport efficiency was lower in the base mud than in the viscous sweeps, which meant that for improved cleaning, it
would have been better to not run high-viscosity sweeps at all! This surprise finding led to the body of theoretical work presented
in this paper.

Particle Settling Velocity Calculations

To predict the settling velocity of a particle of a known average diameter, equations have been developed to predict single particle
settling rates in non-Newtonian drilling fluids. Hindered settling of multiple particles is not addressed in these calculations.
Forces controlling the slip on a settling particle are both viscous and inertial in nature, and equations for the drag coefficient
include both to accurately predict settling rates. The calculation procedure is thoroughly explained for static particle settling
cases2.
A large volume of experimental data has been collected and studied on the settling rates of various sizes and densities of
particles falling through various fluids of known density. From the experimental data, values for drag coefficients have been
correlated with calculated values of dimensionless particle Reynolds number (NRe), which is defined as:

NRe = d * Vs * ρ / μeff………........................................................................................................................................................(1)

where: d = particle diameter

Vs = calculated particle settling velocity
ρ = fluid density
μeff = effective fluid viscosity for static or dynamic settling shear rate

A simplified version of the relationship3 between the drag coefficient and dimensionless particle Reynolds number is produced
in Fig. 2. In this figure, laminar slip zone is shown to the left and the slope of the line is equal to 30/NRe. As drag on the particle is
reduced, the particle falls faster and higher values of NRe result. When slip is fully-turbulent, the drag forces reach a minimum and
remain at that level with increasing NRe. In turbulent slip, the viscous forces on the particle are overwhelmed by the inertial forces,
and particle / fluid density and particle shape control the rate of slip. Between the areas of laminar and turbulent slip is the zone of
transitional slip. The specific zones of laminar-to-transitional slip and transitional-to-turbulent slip are not well defined. Full
laminar slip is seen when NRe values are less than 10 and full turbulent slip is seen with NRe values greater than 100. The linear
profiles added to the published material in Fig. 2 show the two trendlines intersect at a value near NRe = 20. In this study, the
following flow regimes are identified for values of NRe:
• Laminar slip: NRe < 20
• Transitional slip: 20 ≤ NRe ≤ 30
• Turbulent slip: 30 < NRe
SPE 134514 3

Evaluation of Sweep Efficiency

In order to evaluate the performance of a sweep in vertical / near-vertical wellbores, a number of items should be taken into
account:
• The rheological properties of the sweep should be measured. The field or lab measurements are then input into the
Herschel-Bulkley rheological model (currently API 13D Recommended Procedure4) and the fluid rheological parameters
are calculated.
• Static particle settling velocity predictions are made using the method first proposed by Chien2 in 1994. In this numerical
procedure, the particle settling velocity is calculated using the particle settling shear rate (γs) intermediate calculation.
This calculation is valid for evaluating particle slip in a static fluid, but is insufficient by itself for use in dynamic cases
where the fluid is being sheared in the annulus while circulating and/or while rotating the drill pipe. A modified Chien
method of calculating settling velocities was used to obtain the dynamic results produced in this paper.
• With the ability to model local point velocities with drill pipe rotation in an annulus, the coupled fluid velocities resulting
from axial and rotational flow can be calculated for any level of eccentricity of the drill pipe5,6. The contribution of the
drill pipe rotation to changing annular velocities is dependent upon the size of the annular gap and the speed of the
rotation. These velocities are modeled for a cross-section of the annulus where the flow is largely helical near the rotating
drill pipe and largely axial near the outer wall in pattern.
• From the local point velocities calculated for the annulus, average shear rates across the annular gap can be calculated.
From the coupled local point velocities, the coupled shear rates can be calculated using a known distance between
velocity pairs. This extra calculation is very advantageous, as it allows for determination of fluid viscosity levels as the
drilling fluid is sheared, and it serves as a base for calculating particle settling velocities in dynamic flow situations.
• With the known particle settling shear rate calculated for static cases and the average non-wall shear rate across the
annulus modeled for dynamic flow cases, the resulting overall shear rate experienced by the settling particle can be
predicted. Given the non-Newtonian nature of most drilling fluid systems in use today, increased shear of the fluid results
in reduced fluid viscosity. In the study of particle settling rates in the laminar regime, this resulting drop in fluid viscosity
for a particle settling in dynamic situations will predict higher levels of particle slip velocity compared to those predicted
for static cases. This viscosity effect does not apply to fully-turbulent slip cases.
• The predicted values for particle slip under dynamic conditions are then classified using the laminar, transitional, and
turbulent slip regimes based on the calculated NRe.
• The calculated particle settling velocity was used to judge the efficiency of each sweep at a constant flow rate. In short,
the lower the dynamic particle settling velocity, the greater the sweep’s ability to carry the particles out of the wellbore.
Of course, very high flow rates can mask performance of sweeps having high particle settling velocity, but the calculated
dynamic particle settling velocity values will provide a consistent way to evaluate each sweep according to its rheological
and density properties.

Modeling Scenarios Used

In this paper, the dynamic particle settling velocities are compared for several different fluids and particle sizes. A total of five
fluids were used in the simulations:
• a base case representing the drilling fluid system (Base Fluid)
• a high-viscosity sweep (HV)
• a high-density sweep (HD)
• an extra-high viscosity sweep (XHV)
• a combination high-viscosity/high-density sweep (HV/HD)

In Table 1, the fluid rheological properties and fluid densities are shown for each of the fluids. In Fig. 3, the rheograms of the
fluids used in the simulations are shown. It is evident that a very wide range in fluid viscosity is used in this study. In order to
better evaluate the effectiveness of sweeps when a well is unstable, average particle diameters used in the simulations were 0.25-
in, 0.5-in, and 0.75-in. The sphericity of the particles was held constant at Ψ = 0.8, a level representative of block-shaped
particles. Table 2 contains the various drilling parameters used in the simulations. Three hole internal diameter (ID) values were
used in the simulations, as the effect of the drill pipe rotation speeds in changing the annular point velocities are different with
changes in annular gap width. Since the focus of this study is the evaluation of sweeps as a function of particle slip velocity, no
attempt was made to model the effect of pump rate to produce enhanced hole cleaning with each sweep type.

Annular Point Velocity and Shear Rate Modeling

For all hole size / drill pipe rotation speed combinations, the non-wall velocity distribution in the horizontal plane was calculated
for each of the fluid types. Fig. 4 shows the simulated results for the 12.25-in interval and four drill pipe rotation speeds. The
4 SPE 134514

base case and the plug flow in the center of the annular gap can be seen in the dashed black curve. On the left side, the velocity
produced at the wall by the rotating drill pipe is shown, and the predicted decrease in coupled velocity as a function of distance
across the gap is seen. The effects on coupled velocity are greatest for the 125-rpm case and least for the 25-rpm case, as one
would naturally expect. The extent of the rotation effect on annular point velocity appears to dissipate somewhere near the center
of the annular gap. From this point outward to the wall, fluid velocity is purely axial flow.
From the annular point velocity calculations, the local shear rates were next calculated for small distance intervals across the
annular gap. The shear rate results for the 12.25-in interval case are shown in Fig. 5. Here, the base case is again depicted with a
dashed black line. For the non-rotating case, in the middle of the annular gap is the area of plug flow, with zero shear rate.
Rotation of the drill string causes part of the plug flow to break up and increases in shear rate are seen in the area near the rotating
drill pipe. It can be seen from the simulation that the effect of drill pipe rotation is to produce increased shear rates across much of
the annular gap. The greater the drill pipe rotation speed, the more elevated are the shear rates in the area near the rotating drill
pipe.

Particle Settling Velocity Modeling Results

Static Particle Settling Velocity. With the various input parameters and velocity / shear rate modeling in hand, calculations
were first performed for the static case. Fig. 6 shows the results for the static particle settling velocity modeling for the five fluids.
As expected, particle settling rates increase with increasing particle size and the highest settling rates are seen for the Base Fluid
case. All of the sweeps exhibited very low settling rates for 0.25-in diameter particles, but the differences in performance between
the various sweeps become more apparent with increasing particle diameter. Of the four sweeps, the HV sweep performed least
effectively, and the HV/HD sweep, which incorporates both increased viscosity and density, performed the best in terms of
reducing static settling rates. These results are typical of what the drilling industry uses to gauge sweep efficiency. But they have
a major drawback: they are for static cases only, and do not incorporate any shear produced by drill string rotation or axial flow or
of the coupling of rotation and axial flow typical of normal drilling situations.

Dynamic Particle Settling Velocity. Using the method of prediction of shear rates for coupled velocity in an annulus with
rotating drill pipe, dynamic particle settling velocity values were calculated. For the 12.25-in interval case, results are shown
separately for modeling done with 0.25-in (Fig. 7), 0.5-in (Fig. 8), and 0.75-in (Fig. 9) particles. In all cases, the settling rates for
each particle size are higher than those seen in the static cases modeled in Fig. 6. This is due to the increased level of shear in the
annulus caused by the rotating drill pipe. For the 0.25-in case, there is not much difference in performance between the four sweep
types, but with increasing particle size the differences in performance between them become more evident. Dynamic particle
settling rates are higher for the 0.5-in particles compared to the 0.25-in particles, and the differentials become even greater for the
0.75-in case. In terms of their ability to provide reduced dynamic particle settling velocity for all particle sizes simulated, the
sweeps can be ranked in order of decreasing effectiveness in a 12.25-in diameter hole:
• HV/HD: best
• XHV: second best
• HD: third best
• HV: fourth best

In the results seen in Fig. 9 for the 0.75-in particles, the base fluid and two of the sweeps (the HV and HD) showed particle
slip to be in the turbulent regime. It is because of the turbulent slip regime that the HV sweep performs much worse than the XHV
sweep. While the HD sweep was also predicted to be in turbulent slip for the 0.75-in particles, its higher density led to the reduced
particle settling rate values. In turbulent slip, the fluid having the higher density will have lower settling rates than will the lower
density fluid. This same phenomenon is often seen in the field when wells are unstable and producing large diameter cavings. The
best performance of all four types was shown by the HV/HD sweep, which combines both increased viscosity and density
properties to effectively reduce settling velocities for the largest-diameter particles. Importantly, in the simulations produced here,
particle slip for the HV/HD sweep was continually calculated to be in laminar slip, the preferred settling regime for reduced
settling rates to aid hole cleaning.

Sweep Results for All Data

A total of 180 cases were modeled in this study:
• Five fluid types
• Three hole ID sizes
• Four drill pipe rotation speeds
• Three particle diameters
SPE 134514 5

Here the results are shown for the various calculated particle settling rates vs. the calculated NRe. The results for all
simulations are seen in Fig. 10. Here the boundaries for laminar and turbulent slip are noted. Of all the sweeps, the overall best
performer is the HV/HD sweep, which reduces particle slip through decreasing the density differential between the fluid and
particle. The HD sweep tracked second in overall performance, while the HV and XHV sweeps had overall higher particle slip
velocities in the laminar regime (decreasing viscosity with shear). It is interesting to also note that some of the predictions for the
HD sweep in turbulent flow were lower than those calculated for the HV and XHV sweeps in laminar flow. Once again, the
combined effect of density and its lower shear-thinning nature allows the HD sweep to perform well.
The performance of the various sweeps in laminar-only slip vs. NRe is seen in Fig. 11, where results are plotted for NRe < 15.
Trendlines have been added to make it easier to see the difference in performance for the data set. The HV/HD and HD sweeps
track very closely together, while the HV and XHV sweeps track at higher settling velocity than does the Base Fluid. These results
mirror the initial findings in the North African field that, for very large-diameter particles, use of viscous sweeps produce higher
particle slip than use of the base fluid.
The settling velocity results vs. NRe for the three particle sizes simulated are found in Fig. 12 (0.25-in diameter), Fig. 13 (0.5-
in diameter), and Fig. 14 (0.75-in diameter). For the 0.25-in diameter simulations, all of the sweeps reduced particle settling rates
to low values and the calculated NRe values showed particle slip to be in the laminar regime for all sweeps. Of the four sweeps, the
best-performing sweeps were again the HD and the HV/HD sweeps by a small amount. The HD and HV/HD sweeps had higher
NRe due to their increased density (13.0 lbm/gal vs. 10.0 lbm/gal).
Of greater interest are the results for the larger-diameter particles. In Fig. 13, the results are shown for the 0.5-in particles.
Here, two distinct profiles emerge: the HD and HV/HD track close together and the HV and XHV sweeps track together at
generally higher particle settling velocities. At NRe > 10, the increase in particle slip velocity is around 5 cm/s higher for the HV
and XHV sweeps than for the HD and HV/HD sweeps. Prediction of turbulent slip is seen only for some of the settling velocity
simulations done for the Base Fluid case. Everything else is in laminar slip.
For the 0.75-in diameter particles, the results are shown in Fig. 14. Here several simulations showed particle slip to be
turbulent (NRe > 30). Only the HV/HD sweep exhibited laminar slip for all cases simulated. Of the cases in turbulent slip, the
HD sweep gave the lowest particle settling rate predictions, which is a result of its higher density. In the laminar slip regime, the
HV and XHV sweeps once again tracked very closely together in performance. There was more separation seen between
performance of the HD and HV/HD sweeps here. Again, this is explained by the reduced shear-thinning nature of the HD sweep
compared to that for the HV/HD sweep.

Turbulent Slip
Turbulent slip was predicted to occur in several simulated cases with NRe > 30, especially those involving the 0.75-in diameter
particles. However, given the fact that some researchers predict full turbulent slip only with NRe > 100, simulations were rerun for
all cases using the equations for laminar slip. The relative stacking order of particle slip vs. NRe for the various sweeps did not
change. The occurrence of turbulent particle slip was not only dependent upon particle size, but also on hole diameter and drill
pipe rotation speed. The highest levels of non-wall shear in the annulus were found in the smaller hole diameters (12.25-in and
8.5-in) with the drill pipe rotating at 125 rpm. In these cases, the HV sweeps exhibited higher levels of particle slip than did any of
the other sweeps. For HV sweeps to work efficiently in the field, reduced levels of annular shear are needed.

Conclusions / Recommendations
A number of conclusions and recommendations can be drawn from this work:
• Particle settling velocity predictions can be made for cases in dynamic flow in addition to static cases.
• For more realistic predictions for particle settling velocity, the effect of drill string rotation should be coupled with axial
flow to obtain additional shear rate across the annular gap typical of drilling situations where the drill pipe is rotating.
• In vertical / near-vertical wellbores, the HV/HD sweep overall outperformed the other sweeps in terms of reducing
dynamic particle settling velocity. The closest in performance to the HV/HD sweep was the HD sweep. Both of these top
performers have the increased density (3.0 lbm/gal) in common, which can make them best suited for reducing laminar
and transitional/turbulent slip.
• For equivalent particle sizes, sweeps that can provide a laminar slip environment will have reduced dynamic particle
settling rates compared to those that allow turbulent slip. Dynamic laminar slip is preferred to dynamic turbulent slip.
• If HV and XHV sweeps are used, they will perform best at low drill pipe rotation speeds to minimize coupled shear rates.
• The HD sweep modeled here has 3.0 lbm/gal higher density than the Base Fluid. For a particular drilling case, more
dynamic modeling should be done to determine the optimum density of an HD sweep for a particular use in the field.
Generally, the higher the sweep density, the more efficient is the lifting of cuttings through increased particle buoyancy1.
• For drilling cases having narrow safe drilling windows, hydraulic modeling of sweeps should also be performed before
their use in order to gauge the magnitude of any increases in Equivalent Circulating Density.
6 SPE 134514

Nomenclature
BP = Bingham plastic rheological model
d = particle diameter
Dh = Hole diameter, in
Dp = Pipe diameter, in
HB = Herschel-Bulkley rheological model
HD = High-density sweep
HV = High-viscosity sweep
HV/HD = Combination high-viscosity and high-density sweep
K = Consistency Index, lbf sn / 100 ft2
n = Flow Behavior Index, dimensionless
NRe = Particle Reynolds number, dimensionless
PV = Plastic Viscosity, cP (Bingham plastic rheological model)
RP = Recommended Practice
rpm = Revolutions per minute
Vs = Particle settling velocity
XHV = Extra-high viscosity sweep
YP = Yield Point, lbf / 100 ft2 (Bingham plastic rheological model)

γs = Particle settling shear rate, s-1

ρ = Fluid density
τ0 = Yield Stress, lbf / 100 ft2
Ψ = Particle sphericity, dimensionless
μeff = Fluid viscosity at effective particle settling shear rate

References
1. Hemphill, T. and Rojas, J. C., “Drilling Fluid Sweeps: Their Timing, Evaluation, and Applications”, paper SPE 77448 presented at the
2002 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in San Antonio (29 September – 2 October).
2. Chien, S.F., “Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shaped Particles”, paper SPE 26121 presented at the 69th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in New Orleans (25-28 September 1994). Paper was later published in SPE Drilling & Completion, 281-289 (December 1994).
3. Applied Drilling Engineering (1991), Burgoyne, et al, Fig. 4-46 (176).
4. API RP13D: Recommended Practice on the Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-well Drilling Fluids (June 1996).
5. Hemphill, T., and Ravi, K., “Calculation of Drill Pipe Rotation Effects on Fluids in Axial Flow: An Engineering Approach”, paper SPE
97158, presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Dallas, October 9-12.
6. Hemphill, T. and Ravi, K.,” Pipe Rotation and Hole Cleaning in an Eccentric Annulus”, paper SPE 99150 presented at the 2006 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference in Miami, February 21-23.

Table 1 – Fluid Rheological Parameters and Density

Fluid / Sweep Type H-B ‘n’ H-B K H-B τ0 BP PV BP YP Density
(lbf sn /100 ft2) (lbf/100 ft2) (cP) (lbf/100 ft2) (lbm/gal)

Base Fluid 0.66 0.5 7 17 19 10.0

HV 0.55 1.75 9 24 36 10.0
HD 0.7 0.45 9 21 21 13.0
XHV 0.52 2.25 13 24 44 10.0
HV/HD 0.55 1.75 9 24 36 13.0

Table 2 – Drilling Parameters Used in Simulations

Parameter 17.5-in ID Hole 12.25-in ID Hole 8.5-in ID Hole
Drill Pipe OD (in) 5 5 5
Pump Output (gal/min) 1100 850 400
Avg. annular velocity (ft/min) 96 166 207
Drill pipe rotation speed (rev/min) 0, 25, 75, 125 0, 25, 75, 125 0, 25, 75, 125
Drill pipe eccentricity 0 0 0
Hole deviation (°) 0 0 0
Particle density (sg) 2.4 2.4 2.4
Particle sphericity 0.8 0.8 0.8
SPE 134514 7

100
T ran sp o rt E fficien cy (% )

80
50
60 Base mud

C alcu lated S h ear R ate (1/s)

Hi-vis pill
40
40 Hi-wt pill
0 RPM
30
20 25 RPM
75 RPM
0 20
125 RPM
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
10
Particle Diameter (in)

0
Fig. 1 – Transport efficiency modeling based on static 0.002 0.006 0.010 0.014 0.046 0.078 0.082 0.086 0.090
particle settling velocity calculations, North Africa well.
Distance from DP (m)

Fig. 5 – Local shear rates for Base Fluid coupled flow across the
annular gap, 12.25-in ID hole.
100

80
Dial Reading (deg)

50

Static Settling Velocity (cm/s)

60

40
40 Base Fluid
30 HV
20 HD
20 XHV
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
HV/HD
10
Viscometer RPM (rev/min)
0
Fig. 2 – Rheogram of fluids simulated. 0.25 0.5 0.75
Particle Diameter (in)

4 Fig. 6 – Static particle settling velocity vs. particle diameter.

50
Dyn am ic S ettlin g V elo city (cm /s)

2
Log Drag Coefficient
40
1 Base Fluid
30 HV
0 HD
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 20 XHV
Log NRe HV/HD
10
Fig. 3 - Log of the drag coefficient vs. log of the particle
Reynolds number. 0
0 25 50 75 100 125
Drill Pipe RPM (rev/min)
1
Calculated Point Velocity (m/s)

0.8 Fig. 7 – Dynamic particle settling velocity vs. drill pipe

0 RPM
rotation speed - 0.25-in particles in 12.25-in ID hole.
0.6
25 RPM
75 RPM
0.4
125 RPM

0.2

0
0.000 0.006 0.012 0.046 0.080 0.086 0.092
Distance from DP (m)

Fig. 4 – Annular point velocity of Base Fluid coupled

flow across the 12.25-in annular gap.
8 SPE 134514

50 12
Dynam ic S ettling V elocity (cm /s)

Dyn am ic S ettlin g V elo city (cm /s)

40 10
Base Fluid Base Fluid
8
30 HV HV
HD 6 HD
20 XHV XHV
HV/HD 4
HV/HD
10
2

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drill Pipe RPM (rev/min) Particle Reynolds Number

Fig. 8– Dynamic particle settling velocity vs. drill pipe Fig. 12 – Dynamic settling velocity vs. particle Reynolds
rotation speed - 0.5-in particles in 12.25-in ID hole. number – 0.25-in diameter particles only.

50 30
Dynam ic S ettling V elocity (cm /s)

Dynam ic S ettling V elocity (cm /s)

40 25
Base Fluid Base Fluid
20
30 HV HV
HD 15 HD
20 XHV XHV
HV/HD 10
HV/HD
10
5

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Drill Pipe RPM (rev/min) Particle Reynolds Number

Fig. 9 – Dynamic particle settling velocity vs. drill pipe Fig. 13 – Dynamic settling velocity vs. particle Reynolds
rotation speed - 0.75-in particles in 12.25-in ID hole. number – 0.5-in diameter particles only.

50 50
Dynam ic Settling Velocity (cm /s)

Dynamic Settling Velocity (cm /s)

Laminar
slip
40 40
Base Fluid Base Fluid
30 HV 30 HV
HD HD
20 XHV 20 XHV
HV/HD HV/HD
10 Transitional 10
slip
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Partlcle Reynolds Number Particle Reynolds Number

Fig. 10 – Dynamic particle settling velocity vs. particle Fig. 14 – Dynamic settling velocity vs. particle Reynolds
Reynolds number – all data. number – 0.75-in diameter particles only.

35
Dynam ic Settling Velocity (cm /s)

30

25 Base Fluid

20 HV
HD
15
XHV
10 HV/HD

0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Particle Reynolds Number

Fig. 11 - Dynamic particle settling velocity vs. particle

Reynolds number for NRe <15.