Modeling of Transient Cuttings Transport
in Underbalanced Drilling (UBD)
Q.T. Doan,* SPE, Vincano Inc.; M. Oguztoreli,** Mustafa Oguztoreli Inc.; Y. Masuda, SPE, U. of Tokyo;
T. Yonezawa, SPE, TRC/JNOC, and A. Kobayashi,† TRC/JNOC; S. Naganawa, SPE, U. of Tokyo;
and A. Kamp, SPE, PDVSA Intevep
Summary
Underbalanced drilling (UBD) holds several important advantages
over conventional drilling technology. These include minimization
of formation damage, faster penetration rate, and ability for evalu-
ation of reservoir productivity during the drilling process. As UBD
technology matures, it has also been used more and more in dif-
ferent applications. However, many aspects of UBD technology
remain poorly understood. The model presented in this paper seeks
to understand the mechanisms involved in the transport of cuttings
in UBD.
The model simulates the transport of drill cuttings in an annulus
of arbitrary eccentricity and includes a wide range of transport
phenomena, including cuttings deposition and resuspension, for-
mation, and movement of cuttings bed. The model consists of
conservation equations for the fluid and cuttings components in the
suspension and the cuttings deposit bed. Interaction between the
suspension and the cuttings deposit bed, and between the fluid and
cuttings components in the suspension, are incorporated. Solution
of the model determines the distribution of fluid and cuttings con-
centration, velocity, fluid pressure, and velocity profile of cuttings
deposit bed at different times.
The model is used to determine the critical transport velocity
for different hydrodynamic conditions. Results from the model
agree quite closely, qualitatively, with experimental data obtained
from a cuttings transport flow loop at the Technology Research Cen-
ter of the Japan Natl. Oil Corp. (TRC/JNOC)’s Kashiwazaki Test
Field in Japan. These results show the importance of slippage in the
formation of the cuttings deposit bed. The model is useful in evalu-
ating the minimum flow rate for effective cuttings removal in UBD.
Introduction
Rommetveit et al.1 developed a numerical model for UBD with
coiled tubing. The main features of this transient, 1D model in-
cluded reservoir-wellbore interaction, alternative geometries for
gas injection, and rheology of different fluids, among others. The
model consisted of seven mass conservation equations (for free
produced gas, free injected gas, mud, dissolved gas, formation oil,
formation water, and drill cuttings) and one overall momentum con-
servation equation. Simulation results showed that a lower gas injec-
tion rate was required in the case of gasified drilling fluid, compared
with annular gas injection strategy. Gas-oil ratio of the reservoir pro-
duction into the wellbore was found to have important effects on the
ability to maintain downhole conditions underbalanced.
Liu and Medley2 compared results generated from their com-
puter model with results from Chevron’s Foamup program and test
data. Two different equations of state for foam were derived:
downward flow in the drillstring, and upward flow in the annulus.
For the upward flow, the model allowed for three phases: gas and
liquid in the foam, and solid cuttings. Correspondingly, two me-
* Now with APA Petroleum Engineering Inc.
** Now with Shell Trading Gas and Power.
†
Now with Telnite Co., Japan.
Copyright © 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 85061) was revised for publication from paper SPE 62742, first presented
at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 11–13
September. Original manuscript received for review 15 September 2000. Revised manu-
script received 14 March 2003. Manuscript peer approved 24 March 2003.
160
chanical energy equations were obtained. Allowance was also
made for the changes in the foam, caused by the influxing of
reservoir fluids. The average error between simulation results and
Chevron’s results and test data was 11.2%. Foam quality was
restricted to 0.97 in this model.
Wang et al.3 pointed out the importance of monitoring and
controlling downhole pressure, as this affected reservoir fluids
influx and, therefore, foam rheological properties. Field data from
a Brazilian underbalanced well revealed that the equivalent circu-
lating densities, which were needed in the numerical model, did
not reach steady state and fluctuated by up to 50% during the time
required to drill one section of pipe. It was postulated that changes
in gas and liquid density, void fraction, surface control of choke
for two-phase flow, and disturbances attributed to drillstring con-
nections and tripping operations caused the pressure fluctuations.
Wang et al.,4 in a follow-up study, reported the application of
their model to two field cases. Dynamic effects such as circulation
start-ups and shutdowns, tripping, and gas injection were included.
In the first case, nitrogen gas was injected into the annulus as a
means of controlling underbalanced conditions. The simulator
overpredicted the bottomhole pressure by 3.7%, compared to field
measurement. In the second case, nitrogen foam was used as a
drilling fluid in a naturally fractured reservoir exhibiting serious
loss of circulation. It was found that the simulator overpredicted
bottomhole pressures, and the overprediction increased with higher
gas injection rates.
Langlinais et al.5 presented experimental data of annular fric-
tional pressure drops for mud-gas mixtures flowing in vertical
wells. The mixtures were composed of water-base drilling mud
and nitrogen gas. Both the Bingham plastic and power-law mod-
els (for slot flow) showed deviation from measured data. Several
different two-phase flow correlations were used to calculate the
frictional pressure drop. The Hagedorn and Brown correlation,
coupled with a power-law rheological model and equivalent diam-
eter, was found to provide the best fit for the experimental data.
Luo et al.6 combined dimensionless groups with experimental
data to develop a model for critical flow rates. The model did not
consider the effects of penetration rate and drillpipe rotation. The
difference between the predicted critical flow rate and laboratory
data (for concentric annulus) showed a difference of 15.9%, on the
average. Comparison was also performed against field data ob-
tained for three different hole sizes from wells in several North Sea
fields. The model was found to overpredict field data for the larger
holes, and underpredict in the case of smaller holes. Hole cleaning
charts were then developed from numerical results of the model,
for different hole angles, maximum rates of penetration, and trans-
port indexes.
Sharma and Chowdhry7 presented an isothermal, steady-state
model for annular flow of gas-solids suspension. Some of the main
assumptions of the model included: no rotation of inner and outer
pipes, and negligible momentum transfer owing to particle-particle
collisions and particle-wall collision. A friction coefficient for the
solids-gas mixture was defined, based on frictional pressure drop
between pipe wall and air, and drag forces between the fluid and solid
particles. Results from this model were compared against indepen-
dently obtained data of simulated air drilling experiments. The dif-
ference between calculated friction coefficient and measured value
was within 6%; however, experimental data were obtained for a nar-
row range of particle sizes, and there were no reported pressure data.
June 2003 SPE Journal
 Hemphill and Larsen8 compared experimental data on hole
cleaning performance of oil- and water-based drilling fluids. Ef-
fects of fluid rheological properties on critical flow velocities for
various hole angles were the main objective of this study. Bingham
plastic, power-law, and yield power-law models were all used to
describe the cuttings transport data. Two different flow rates were
defined: critical flow rate (at which a cuttings bed begins to form)
and subcritical flow rate (at which cuttings accumulation takes
place). Oil-based and water-based mud had similar hole cleaning
performance under equivalent velocity and rheological conditions;
additionally, fluid velocity had a more pronounced effect than mud
weight on cuttings transport, especially at high angles of inclina-
tion and for equivalent fluid viscosities.
Guo and Rajtar9 calculated the volume of air required to opti-
mize hole cleaning performance for aerated drilling. The model
incorporated cuttings transport, pipe sticking, hole stability, and
formation damage. The required air and liquid (water) volumes
were dependent on the optimum flowing bottomhole pressure
(which affected hole stability, pipe sticking) and cuttings transport
capacity of the aerated mud (which affected formation damage).
Increasing liquid flow rate, while fixing air injection rate, led to
lower cuttings transport performance for the aerated mud because
of higher mixture density and large reduction in its velocity (to
below the cuttings slip velocity).
Gao et al.10 tried to establish minimum transport velocity for
cuttings removal. Experimental data and analytical consideration
were used to define the minimum transport velocity for cuttings
rolling and cuttings suspension. The Hershel-Bulkley rheological
model was selected. The fluids were assumed incompressible and
inelastic; the flow was laminar, isothermal, and steady. The mass
and momentum conservation equations were solved to determine
the velocity profile, shear rate profile, and flow rate-pressure drop
relationship in the annulus. Different cases were investigated, in-
cluding those with concentric or eccentric flow with and without
pipe rotation.
Larsen et al.11 developed correlations from experimental data
of cuttings transport in horizontal and high-angle wells. They de-
fined the critical transport fluid velocity to be minimum velocity
for cuttings transport, and subcritical fluid-flow velocity to be the
annular fluid velocity below which cuttings begin to accumulate in
the wellbore. One of the derived correlations was found to over-
predict cuttings concentration in the annulus under subcritical
transport fluid velocity, and the overprediction increased with
higher-viscosity muds. It was believed that flow was diverted to
the underside of the annulus as the diversion of flow increased
with higher-viscosity muds. A correction factor was introduced to
account for the overprediction.
Kamp and Rivero12 presented a 2-layer model for steady-state
cuttings transport in highly inclined wells. The two layers were a
homogeneous suspension above and a deposit bed below. Cuttings
resuspension was based on friction velocity, and governed by a
heavyside function. The deposit bed movement was influenced by
Fig. 1—Quasi-stationary borehole-aligned axial coordinate system (s, n).
June 2003 SPE Journal
interfacial shear stress exerted on it by the flowing suspension. The
model predicted deposit bed height as a function of mud rate,
cuttings diameter, mud viscosity, pipe eccentricity, and so on. It
was determined that, compared to independently obtained experi-
mental data, the model overpredicted cuttings transport for a given
mud flow rate and larger particles. The authors suggested that
separate momentum equations be solved for the solids and mud in
the suspension layer in inclined wells.
Development of the Model
The following assumptions are made in the formulation of the
model. The transport of drill cuttings inside the annulus during the
UBD process is modeled as a two-phase flow process. The con-
tinuous fluid phase is uniform in properties; it could be 100%
liquid, 100% gas, or a mixture of liquid and gas. In the last case,
the mixture has uniform transport properties insofar as the settling
behavior of drill cuttings is concerned. What this means is that the
effects of gas bubble size and liquid droplet size on the settling
tendency of drill cuttings are not considered in this model. The
disperse solid phase is composed of uniform-size and spherical
drill cuttings. It is further assumed that the drill cuttings are ini-
tially uniformly dispersed in the fluid phase. Also, reservoir fluids
(oil, gas, and/or water) produced into the annulus because of the
underbalanced condition are assumed to instantaneously combine
with the drilling mud to become a new continuous phase with
uniform and homogeneous transport properties. The solid particles
(drill cuttings) are under the influence of several forces, including
gravity, drag force, and lift force. These forces and others affect
the distribution of the drill cuttings inside the annulus. The flow
inside the annulus is isothermal, transient, and 1D (from the drillbit
to the surface). Empirical correlations in the literature are assumed
to be valid and applicable to describe the interphase and intraphase
momentum transfer processes, within limitations which arise out
of different experimental conditions.
Features of the Model. The model has the following main features:
• Arbitrary geometry (i.e., the well/borehole profile is not fixed
to be either vertical or horizontal; rather, it could assume any
inclination). This is accomplished through coordinate transforma-
tion technique, which relates segments of the borehole in the (x,z)
Cartesian coordinate system with their transformed counterparts in
the (s,n) coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 1.
• Arbitrary eccentricity (i.e., the drillstring and borehole are
not necessarily always concentric with one another). Within the
annulus between the drillstring and the borehole, there can be, at
maximum, two regions. In Region 1, there is a cuttings deposit
bed. This deposit could either be stationary or moving, depending
on hydrodynamics conditions. In Region 2, which is the portion of
the annulus above the deposit bed, drilling fluids and drill cuttings
are transported through, as seen in Fig. 2.
• The deposit bed is assumed to have packed concentration.
Continuing deposition and/or re-entrainment of drill cuttings affect
161
 1
␶1 = ␭1u1 ␭1 = f1␳1|u1|
2
1
␶2 = ␭f 2uf 2 ␭f 2 = ff 2␳f |uf 2|, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
2
where hydrodynamic wall shear stress in the suspension Region 2
is assumed to be a function of the fluid hydrodynamics only. The
hydrodynamic wall friction coefficients, f1 and ff2, depend on the
bed and suspension Reynolds numbers, Re1 and Ref2, respectively.
They assume the form of the well-known Blasius formula for
turbulent tube flow, as shown in Eq. 5:
f1 = ␣1Re1−␤1 and ff 2 = ␣2Ref 2−␤2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
Reynolds numbers are determined using power-law form for non-
Newtonian flow with fluid flow index, n,
␳1ⱍu1ⱍ2−n Dn1
Re1 =
8n−1␮1
Cf 2␳f |uf 2|2−n Dn2
Ref 2 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
8n−1␮f
Fig. 2—Two-layer annulus model geometry, with arbitrary an- and hydraulic diameter, D,
nulus eccentricity.
4A1
D1 =
共L12 + L1,outer + L1,inner兲
the height of the deposit bed, but not its concentration (i.e., solid
4A2
phase concentration is fixed and constant). As a result, the interface D2 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
area between Region 1 and Region 2 varies with the flow process. 共L12 + L2,outer + L2,inner兲
• In Region 2, the flowing fluid phase and solid phase expe- The bed mixture viscosity, ␮1, is correlated to the fluid viscosity,
rience slippage (i.e., they move at different velocities). Their con- ␮f, and an interaction function (Kirkwood et al.15), fi, at high bed
centrations vary with space (axial location, height) and time be- solids concentration, Cs1.
cause of deposition and/or re-entrainment.

Conservation Equations
There are three mass conservation equations: one for Region 1
(deposit bed), one for the fluid phase, and one for the solid phase
(cuttings) in Region 2. These equations, together with the three
momentum conservation equations, are listed in Appendix A. In
the momentum conservation equations, the following aspects of
multiphase flow were considered. Multiparticle drag forces, Fsf,
between solid and fluid are considered in the suspension Region 2
(Shook and Roco13).
Fs,2␴ = Cs2F2␴ + Fsf
Ff,2␴ = Cf2F2␴ − Fsf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
For 1D flow,
冋
␮1共Cs1兲 = 4␮f Cs1 .8 + .767共 fi − 1兲 +
1
共 fi − 1兲
册 . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
The coefficients ␣1, ␣2, ␤1, and ␤2 in Eq. 5 for turbulent and
laminar flow are to be calibrated using experimental data.
Hydrodynamic interfacial shear stress (existing at the interface
between the two layers) is assumed to be a function of the fluid
hydrodynamics only. It is expressed in terms of relative velocities
between fluid flowing in suspension and the moving bed regions.
␶12 = ␭12 共uf 2 − u1兲
1
␭12 = f12␳f |uf 2 − u1|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
2
The interfacial friction coefficient, f12, in Eq. 9 is evaluated using a
modified Colebrook formula for rough pipes (Televantos et al.16).

Fsf = A2Cs2␭sf 共uf2 − us2兲⌬s,

3CD␳f |uf 2 − us2|
1
公f12
= −.86ln 冉 dp
+
2.51
3.7 D2 Re12 公f12 冊
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

␭sf = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The interface Reynolds number, Re12, is evaluated using power-
4dp 共1 − Cs2兲1.65 law form for the non-Newtonian flow associated with the fluid
flowing in suspension relative to the moving bed’s rough surface
where the drag coefficient CD is determined from the Reynolds
(of roughness dimension equal to the particle diameter, dp), as
number, Rep.
shown in Eq. 11.
Cf 2␳f |uf 2 − us2 |2−n dnp Cf 2␳f |uf 2 − u1|2−n Dn2
Rep = Re12 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
8n−1 ␮f 8n−1␮f
D = .44
C* Rep ⱖ 989 Deposition and entrainment rates, vDEP and vENT, determine the
volumetric material transfer rate across the interfacial boundary,
24共1 + 0.15Rep 0.687
兲 aligned in the direction normal to bulk flow. The deposition rate,
D=
C* Rep ⬍ 989
Rep vDEP, is determined as the hindered terminal settling velocity of a
single particle, vp. A force balance on a single particle equates the
CD = ␣DC*
D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) drag force FD to the gravitational force Fg.
A drag factor, ␣D, is assumed as a corrective measure to be cali- ␲d3p
brated with experimental results. The particle Reynolds number is Fg = 共␳s − ␳f兲g
determined using power-law for non-Newtonian flow with fluid 6
flow index, n. Hydrodynamic shear stresses are modeled by the 1 ␲d2p
FD = CD␳f v2p , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
following expressions (Doron et al.14): 2 4

162 June 2003 SPE Journal

where the drag coefficient, CD, is calculated using the power-law
non-Newtonian particle Reynolds number, Rep, with respect to the
terminal settling velocity, as shown in Eq. 3.
The single-particle terminal velocity is iterated using the fol-
lowing expression:
locity difference, the more re-entrainment of deposited cuttings
into the flowing suspension layer. The slope, mENT, and critical
* , are tuning parameters to match simulation results
threshold, u12
with experimental data for cuttings concentration.
The sum of driving forces in Region 1 must overcome the dry
friction resistance force, F1, in the direction opposing flow for the

vp = 冑 4共␳s − ␳f兲gdp
3␳f CD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Doron et al.14 suggest the following equations to consider the
concentration effects on the hindered terminal settling velocity:
vDEP = vpCf2m
m = 4.45ReDEP−0.1 ReDEP ⬍ 596
m = 2.39 ReDEP ⱖ 596, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
where ReDEP⳱the Reynolds number iterated with respect to the
hindered terminal velocity deposition rate, vDEP .
The entrainment rate, vENT, is assumed to be a function of the
interfacial shear velocity u12, as suggested by Doron et al.14
bed to move (Doron et al.14). The definition for this dry friction is
given by Eq. A-7 in Appendix A.
The system of six nonlinear first-order partial differential equa-
tions for mass balances and momentum balances completely de-
fine the behavior of six unknown variables, Xⴕ, including the area
(height) of the deposit bed, deposit bed velocity, cuttings concen-
tration in the suspension layer, mud velocity and cuttings velocity
in the suspension layer, and pressure.
X⬘ = 关A2,u1,Cs2,us2,uf 2,p兴T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
The equations were differenced and solved simultaneously using New-
ton’s method with relaxation to obtain stable numerical solutions.
Discussion of Results
The numerical model was run to generate results for a variety of
hydrodynamic conditions, including fluid rheology, mud rate and

冑 冑
viscosity, and cuttings size. The results were analyzed and com-
␶12 ␭12|uf2 − u1|
u12 = = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15) pared to experimental data obtained from a cuttings transport flow
␳f ␳f loop system (CTFLS) at TRC/JNOC’s Kashiwazaki Test Facility
in Japan. Masuda et al.17 provided a comprehensive description of
For this study, a simple linear dependence on the interfacial shear the experimental apparatus and procedure to determine the cuttings
velocity with slope, mENT, and a critical threshold, u12
* , is assumed. velocity and concentration values inside the test section. Fig. 3 is
a schematic drawing of the flow loop. The annular test section was
vENT = 0 u12 ⱕ u12
* 9 m long, and consisted of a 5-in. (127.0 mm) ID transparent
vENT = mENT共u12 − u12
*兲 u12 ⬎ u12
* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16) acrylic outer pipe (borehole or casing). A 2.063-in. (52.4 mm) or
2.875-in. (73.0 mm) OD steel inner pipe (drillpipe) was used. The
test section was mounted on a movable frame, and the inclination
As such, it is seen that below the critical threshold, no deposited of test section could be set at an angle ranging from 0 (horizontal)
cuttings are re-entrained into the flowing suspension layer. Above to 90° (vertical) in 15° increments. Drillpipe eccentricity could be
the critical threshold, the re-entrainment rate is assumed to be changed from 0 to 100%. Inner drillpipe could rotate at speeds
directly proportional to the velocity difference: the larger the ve- ranging from 0 to 80 rpm.

Fig. 3—Schematic drawing of TRC/JNOC’s Kashiwazaki Cuttings Transport Flow Loop System (CTFLS) at Kashiwazaki Test
Facility.

June 2003 SPE Journal 163

 Mud containing a determined concentration of drill cuttings
was circulated in the flow loop by a PC pump. The flow rate of
mud-cuttings mixture was measured by an electromagnetic flow-
meter. The mud flowed through the annulus in the transparent test
section and returned to the mud tank. The mud circulation lines
were made of 3-in. (7.62 mm) fixed and flexible pipes. Four pres-
sure transducers and one temperature sensor were mounted along
the test section. Other pressure and temperature sensors and flow
meters were positioned at different points in the loop. Water and
polyacrylamide solutions were used to simulate drilling mud, and
ceramic beads with average diameter of either 0.732 cm (∼0.25 in.)
or 0.366 cm (∼0.125 in.) were used to simulate drilled cuttings.
The moving behavior of cuttings at both steady-state and unsteady-
state flow conditions was recorded by a CCD video camera sys-
tem. The captured images were analyzed to obtain the velocity
profile, cross-sectional distribution, and average velocity of cut-
tings in the annulus. The LabVIEW™ program was used to display
pressure, temperature, flow rate data in real time, and to save these
data in hard disks at intervals of less than 0.1 s. Table 1 provides
a summary of the experimental conditions, as well as data used in
the simulation runs.
Fig. 4—Pressure distribution profile for a simulation run (Mud 2
drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0 mPaⴢs, n=0.61, ␳s=2.40
g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings
injection rate=2.148 L/min.
164
Results of Typical Simulation Run
Figs. 4 through 9 provide a history of a simulation run exhibiting
critical behavior. In this case, the borehole was horizontal; the
distribution of pressure, cuttings concentration and velocity, mud
velocity, deposit bed velocity, and normalized height with time
were determined with the distance measured downstream from
the drill bit. A non-Newtonian drilling mud (Mud 2) was used
(␮⳱216 mPa•s, n⳱0.61, ␳f⳱1.19 g/cm3). The simulation was run
for a duration of 201 seconds of simulated time. The mud flow rate
was 40 m3/hour, and drill cuttings were introduced into the test
loop at a rate of 2.148 l/min (corresponding to a prescribed pen-
etration rate). The cuttings concentration worked out to be approxi-
mately 0.3% (volume). Initially, there was no deposit bed inside
the annulus, and the cuttings were fully suspended at the inlet. Fig.
4 shows the pressure profile in the 9-m test section throughout the
run. The pressure drop reached a maximum value of 8.2 Pa at the
end of the run. It can be seen that after about 90 seconds, the
pressure drop started to increase, corresponding to an increase in
the height of the accumulating and moving deposit bed (Figs. 8 and
9). The cuttings, after being introduced, began to deposit down-
stream, as shown in Fig. 5. There was negligible slippage between
the mud and the few still-suspended cuttings in Region 2 because
of the high mud viscosity. Therefore, the two velocity profiles
tracked one another closely, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
Fig. 5—Solid-phase concentration distribution profile for a
simulation run (Mud 2 drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0
mPaⴢs, n=0.61, ␳s=2.40 g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud
rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings injection rate=2.148 L/min.
June 2003 SPE Journal
Fig. 6—Solid-phase velocity distribution profile for a simulation
run (Mud 2 drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0 mPaⴢs, n=0.61,
␳s=2.40 g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud rate=40 m3/hour;
cuttings injection rate=2.148 L/min.
In Fig. 8, there was no deposit bed for the first 90 seconds of
the run. The deposited cuttings were initially dragged slowly along
the bottom of the annulus by the dilute suspension flowing above
it. Their velocity was about 40% of the mud flow rate (velocity).
As the cuttings continued to deposit, the bed became less mobile
and stagnated at a point about 4.0 m downstream from the drill bit.
There, the cuttings accumulated to form a stationary bed, which
grew and spread with time. After 90 seconds, the height of the
stationary deposit bed increased to its maximum value of 30% of
the annulus, at 7.5 m downstream from the drillbit. Over the length
of the deposit bed (between 4.0 and 8.0 m), its average height was
about 25% of the annulus (Fig. 9).
The following is offered to explain the phenomena associated
with the behavior observed in the simulation results. A stationary
bed formed locally as friction forces (owing to increased wall
contact) countered the momentum of a growing deposit bed. The
onset of a stationary bed developed at a stagnation point. At this
point, the friction forces were greater than the local driving forces
(from interfacial stress, bulk momentum transfer, and pressure
gradient). Bed particles accumulated locally as a result of particles
deceleration. The formation of a stationary deposit bed had an
impact on the profiles of the suspended cuttings velocity, mud
Fig. 8—Deposit bed velocity distribution profile for a simulation
run (Mud 2 drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0 mPaⴢs, n=0.61,
␳s=2.40 g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud rate=40 m3/hour;
cuttings injection rate=2.148 L/min.
June 2003 SPE Journal
Fig. 7—Fluid-phase velocity distribution profile for a simulation
run (Mud 2 drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0 mPaⴢs, n=0.61,
␳s=2.40 g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud rate=40 m3/hour;
cuttings injection rate=2.148 L/min.
velocity, and pressure distribution. As the deposit bed height in-
creased, the flow area became constricted. This, in turn, led to an
increase in the mud velocity, and thus an increase in the pressure
drop across the constricted interval. Furthermore, the increase in
mud velocity also led to an increased interfacial stress and mo-
mentum transfer to the bed mass accumulating at the stagnation
point. Locally, the bed mass moved again to approach a local
steady-state velocity which balanced the driving forces with fric-
tion. Consequently, the stagnation point and the leading edge of
the deposit bed shifted downstream.
Matching Simulation Results With
Experimental Data
Figs. 10 through 13 show the comparison between simulation
results generated by this model and experimental data. In Fig. 10,
water was the drilling fluid, and its flow rate was 40 m3/hour. Two
different experiments were carried out, each having a different
cuttings rate (0.92 and 1.076 l/min, respectively). The measured
cuttings velocity for these two cases was 48.2 and 42.2 cm/s,
correspondingly. The simulator calculated average cuttings veloc-
ity of 48.5 and 44.7 cm/s for the same two runs (giving a maximum
Fig. 9—Deposit bed height distribution profile for a simulation
run (Mud 2 drilling fluid, ␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216.0 mPaⴢs, n=0.61,
␳s=2.40 g/cm3; cuttings size=0.366 cm), mud rate=40 m3/hour;
cuttings injection rate=2.148 L/min.
165
Fig. 10—Comparison of experimental data and simulation results, horizontal borehole, water drilling mud (␳f=1.00 g/cm3, µ=0.65
mPaⴢs, ␳s=2.40 g/cm3); mud rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings injection rate=0.920 and 1.076 L/min.

deviation of 6% of simulated velocity from measured data). It is
noted that in the experiments, cuttings velocity and concentration
were (essentially) measured at a single point along the 9-m test
section (where the CCD video system was stationed). The numeri-
cal model, on the other hand, enabled the cuttings velocity and
concentration to be determined at different points along the whole
test section. Consequently, these ranges of values allowed the
minimum, average, and maximum cuttings velocity and concen-
tration for the whole test section to be determined.
In these and other cases (of different mud rheologies and cut-
tings sizes), the simulator was run at different inlet cuttings rates
to determine the corresponding cuttings velocity profiles. This was
to extend the experimental range and establish critical conditions
for each of the cases. The results were plotted to produce an
envelope of minimum and maximum velocity observed over the
entire length of the test section at the terminal simulation time.
Within the envelope, velocities averaged over the length of the test
section were also included to represent the flow profile in compact
form. Critical and subcritical conditions are represented when the
minimum cuttings velocities are zero. Therefore, at some point
along the length of the annulus, a stagnation point (as discussed
earlier) will be encountered. Cuttings rate above the critical will
lead to subcritical condition. Cuttings rate below the critical will
lead to nonzero cuttings velocity.

Fig. 11—Comparison of experimental data and simulation results, horizontal borehole, Mud 1 drilling mud (␳f=1.00 g/cm3, µ=355
mPaⴢs, n=0.469, ␳s=2.40 g/cm3); mud rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings injection rate=0.013 and 0.018 L/min.

166 June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 12—Comparison of experimental data and simulation results, horizontal borehole, Mud 2 drilling mud (␳f=1.19 g/cm3, µ=216
mPaⴢs, n=0.610, ␳s=2.40 g/cm3); mud rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings injection rate=0.016, 0.250, 1.043, 1.696, and 2.148 L/min.

It is seen that for the cases simulated, the minimum cuttings
velocity tends to concave downward and approaches critical at an
inlet cuttings rate of approximately 1.4 l/min. What this means is
that for inlet cuttings rates above this critical value, a mud rate of
40 m3/hour would not be sufficient to remove cuttings effectively
from the system.
Similar simulation runs were made for non-Newtonian muds.
In Fig. 11, Mud 1 was used. Its flow rate was also 40 m3/hour. Two
different injected cuttings rates were used: 0.013 and 0.018 l/min,
respectively. The simulator calculated cuttings velocity values of
17.2 and 19.0 cm/s for the two runs, compared to their measured
values of 21.5 and 10.8 cm/s, correspondingly. For this mud, the
envelope of minimum and maximum velocity observed over the
length of the test section at terminal simulation time followed the
same trend as that observed in Fig. 10. For the hydrodynamic con-
ditions associated with Mud 1, the minimum cuttings velocity tends to
approach critical at an inlet cuttings rate of approximately 1.3 l/min.
A point must be made regarding the relatively poorer match
between simulation results and experimental data of cuttings ve-
locity in this case (Mud 1) compared to the previous case (water).
It was observed that simulation results deviated from experimental
data at extreme dilute cuttings rates (for the cases studied, less than
0.05 l/min). In these cases, it is believed that the two-layer model
with a level interface does not represent the system adequately.

Fig. 13—Comparison of experimental data and simulation results, horizontal borehole, Mud 1 drilling mud (␳f=1.00 g/cm3, µ=355
mPaⴢs, n=0.469, ␳s=2.40 g/cm3); mud rate=40 m3/hour; cuttings injection rate=0.169 L/min.

June 2003 SPE Journal 167

This deviation of simulation results from experimental data was
also observed in the case of Mud 2 at extreme dilute cuttings rate
(as shown in Fig. 12). In the Mud 2 case, five different values of
injected cuttings rate were used, ranging from 0.016 l/min at the
low end to 2.146 l/min at the high end. Most of the values were
above 0.10 l/min. In these cases, the calculated cuttings velocities
matched very closely with measured values, as seen quite clearly in
Fig. 12. In the Mud 2 case, the minimum cuttings velocity tends to
approach critical at an inlet cuttings rate of approximately 4.0 l/min.
In Fig. 13, Mud 1 was also used. In this case, the cuttings size
was 0.25 in. The mud flow rate was 40 m3/hour. Only one experi-
mental injected cuttings rate was used: 0.169 l/min. The cuttings
velocity calculated by the model was 38.3 cm/s, which agreed to
within 3.5% of the measured cuttings velocity of 37.0 cm/s. For
this case, the minimum cuttings velocity tends to approach critical
at an inlet cuttings rate of approximately 3.0 l/min.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are offered from the study:
1. A transient, 1D numerical model has been developed to simulate
the transport of drill cuttings in UBD. Its main features include
two-layer formulation, interaction between the fluid phase
(mud) and the solid phase (drill cuttings) in the suspension layer,
and interaction between the two layers (deposit bed and suspen-
sion layer). Its formulation enables, as shown by the results
generated and presented in this paper, a wide range of transport
phenomena to be simulated.
2. The model was run to generate results—including the unsteady-
state profiles of pressure distribution, drill cuttings and mud
velocity distributions, cuttings concentration distribution, distri-
bution of the deposit bed velocity, and height—for different
mud rheologies, mud rates, cuttings sizes, and cuttings rates.
Explanations are offered to provide possible insights into dif-
ferent behaviors observed from consideration of physical fea-
tures of the model.
3. In a majority of the cases studied, the numerical model success-
fully matched experimental data. The calculated cuttings veloc-
ity typically agreed quantitatively with the measured cuttings
velocity. The match was, however, relatively poorer in the case
of extremely dilute cuttings injection rates, as the two-layer
model with a level interface does not adequately describe the
interfacial phenomena.
4. In addition to being used to match experimental data, the numerical
model was also run for other conditions to establish envelopes of
minimum and maximum velocity for critical behavior.
Nomenclature
A ⳱ total annulus cross-sectional area open to flow
A1 ⳱ bed cross-sectional area
A2 ⳱ suspension cross-sectional area
A12 ⳱ interfacial surface area between bed and suspension
CD ⳱ drag coefficient
Cf1 ⳱ volumetric bed fluid concentration
Cf2 ⳱ volumetric suspension fluid concentration
Cs1 ⳱ volumetric bed solid concentration
Cs2 ⳱ volumetric suspension solid concentration
dp ⳱ particle diameter
D1 ⳱ bed region equivalent hydraulic diameter
D2 ⳱ suspension region equivalent hydraulic diameter
Douter ⳱ wellbore diameter
f1 ⳱ bed mixture hydrodynamic wall friction coefficient
f12 ⳱ bed-suspension interfacial friction coefficient
ff2 ⳱ suspension fluid hydrodynamic wall friction
coefficient
fi ⳱ solid-fluid interaction function (Kirkwood et al.15)
F1 ⳱ dry bed friction force
FD ⳱ drag force
Fg ⳱ gravitational force
Fsf ⳱ solid-fluid drag force
168
F␴ ⳱ surface force
g ⳱ gravitational acceleration
L12 ⳱ cross-sectional length of the level interface
L1,inner ⳱ contact length between bed and the drillstem surface
L2,inner ⳱ contact length between suspension and the drillstem
surface
L1,outer ⳱ contact length between bed and the borehore surface
L2,outer ⳱ contact length between suspension and the borehore
surface
m ⳱ hindered terminal settling correlation concentration
exponent
mENT ⳱ slope parameter of entrainment function
n ⳱ flow index
n ⳱ curvilinear borehole trace normal vector in (s, n)
p ⳱ pressure
Qf,IN ⳱ fluid volumetric inflow rate
Qs,IN ⳱ solid volumetric inflow rate
R ⳱ local cross-sectional drillstring centered radial
coordinate in (r, ␪); or drillstring radius
Re1 ⳱ bed mixture Reynolds number
Re12 ⳱ bed-suspension interfacial shear Reynolds number
ReDEP ⳱ hindered terminal settling deposition Reynolds
number
Ref2 ⳱ suspension fluid Reynolds number
Rep ⳱ particle Reynolds number
s0 ⳱ drill-bit inlet boundary location
s ⳱ curvilinear borehole trace tangent vector in (s, n)
S ⳱ borehole axial coordinate
t ⳱ time
u1 ⳱ bed bulk velocity
u12 ⳱ bed-suspension fluid shear velocity
u*12 ⳱ critical bed-suspension fluid shear velocity
uf2 ⳱ suspension fluid bulk velocity
us2 ⳱ suspension solid bulk velocity
vDEP ⳱ volumetric deposition transfer rate
vENT ⳱ volumetric entrainment transfer rate
vp ⳱ single-particle terminal settling velocity
vDEP ⳱ deposition velocity
vENT ⳱ entrainment velocity
V ⳱ volume
w ⳱ density related coefficients
x ⳱ Cartesian horizontal coordinate axis in (x, z)
Xⴕ ⳱ base unknown solution vector
z ⳱ Cartesian vertical coordinate axis in (x, z)
⭸ ⳱ partial differential operator
␣ ⳱ wellbore inclination angle
␣1 ⳱ bed wall friction coefficient parameter
␣2 ⳱ suspension wall friction coefficient parameter
␣D ⳱ drag factor
␤1 ⳱ bed wall friction coefficient parameter
␤2 ⳱ suspension wall friction coefficient parameter
⌬ ⳱ difference operator
␨ ⳱ cross-sectional drillstring centered Cartesian vertical
coordinate axis in (␩, ␨); or bed-suspension interface
height
␨offset ⳱ vertical borehole center offset
␩ ⳱ cross-sectional drillstring centered Cartesian
horizontal coordinate axis in (␩, ␨); or dry friction
coefficient
␪ ⳱ cross-sectional drillstring centered polar coordinate in
(r, ␪); or bed-suspension interface angle
␭1 ⳱ bed hydrodynamic wall shear stress function
␭2 ⳱ suspension hydrodynamic wall shear stress function
␭12 ⳱ bed-suspension hydrodynamic shear stress function
␭sf ⳱ solid-fluid drag function
June 2003 SPE Journal
 ␮1 ⳱ bed mixture viscosity 15. Kirkwood, J.G., Maun, E.K., and Adler, B.J.: “Radial Distribution
␮f ⳱ fluid viscosity Functions and the Equation of State for a Fluid Composed of Rigid
␳1 ⳱ bed bulk density Spherical Particles,” Jour. of Chemistry & Physics (1950) 18, 1040.
␳2 ⳱ suspension bulk density 16. Televantos, Y. et al.: “Flow of Slurries of Coarse Particles at High
␳s ⳱ solid bulk density Solids Concentrations,” Can. Jour. of Chemical Engg. (1979) 57, 255.
␳f ⳱ fluid bulk density 17. Masuda, Y. et al.: “Experimental Study to Determine Critical Flow
␶1 ⳱ bed wall shear stress Rate of Cuttings Transport During Underbalanced Drilling,” paper
␶2 ⳱ suspension wall shear stress IADC/SPE 62737 presented at the 2000 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drill-
ing Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 11–13 September.
␶12 ⳱ bed suspension shear stress
Subscripts
Appendix A—Mass Conservation Equations
1 ⳱ bed region
Mass balances over differential volume elements of length ⌬s will
2 ⳱ suspension region
relate the mass accumulation over time to the net rate of mass
12 ⳱ interface between bed and suspension regions inflow across the bounding surface. For the moving bed mixture in
D ⳱ drag Region 1,
DEP ⳱ deposition
ENT ⳱ entrainment ⭸ ⭸
F ⳱ fluid 共A ␳ 兲⌬s + 共A1␳1u1兲⌬s
⭸t 1 1 ⭸s
G ⳱ gravitational
I ⳱ spatial grid index
inner ⳱ drillstring wall inner boundary
= ␳s + 冉
Cf1
冊
␳ C v L ⌬s − ␳1vENT L12⌬s. . . . (A-1)
Cs1 f s2 DEP 12
offset ⳱ borehole center offset The mass conservation for the solids component and fluid com-
outer ⳱ borehole wall outer boundary ponent in the flowing suspension mixture in Region 2 is given by
p ⳱ particle
s ⳱ solid ⭸ ⭸
sf ⳱ solid-fluid 共A ␳ C 兲⌬s + 共A2␳sCs2us2兲⌬s
⭸t 2 s s2 ⭸s
␴ ⳱ surface = −␳sCs2vDEP L12⌬s + ␳sCs1vENT L12⌬s
+ ␳sQs,IN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
References
1. Rommetveit, R. et al.: “A Dynamic Model for Underbalanced Drilling ⭸ ⭸
共A ␳ C 兲⌬s + 共A2␳f Cf 2uf 2兲⌬s
With Coiled Tubing,” paper SPE/IADC 29363 presented at the 1995 ⭸t 2 f f 2 ⭸s
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 28 February–2 March. Cf1
2. Liu, G. and Medley, G.H. Jr.: “Foam Computer Model Helps in Analy- = −␳f Cs2vDEP L12⌬s
Cs1
sis of Underbalanced Drilling,” Oil & Gas Journal (1 July 1996) 114. + ␳f Cf1vENT L12⌬s + ␳f Qf,IN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
3. Wang, Z. et al.: “Underbalanced Drilling Requires Downhole Pressure
Management,” Oil & Gas Journal (16 June 1997) 54.
Momentum Conservation Equations
4. Wang, Z. et al.: “Underbalanced Drilling Model Simulates Dynamic
Well Bore Conditions,” Oil & Gas Journal (7 July 1997) 62. The rate of change in total linear momentum over a stationary
5. Langlinais, J.P., Bourgoyne, A.T., and Holden, W.R.: “Frictional Pres- volume element will have contributions from transient local ac-
sure Losses for Annular Flow of Drilling Mud and Mud-Gas Mixtures,” celerations, net convective acceleration and momentum transfer
Jour. of Energy Resources Technology (March 1985) 142. associated with mass deposition and entrainment between suspen-
6. Luo, Y., Bern, P.A., and Chambers, B.D.: “Flow Rate Predictions for sion and bed regions.
Cleaning Deviated Wells,” paper IADC/SPE 23884 presented at the Momentum balance for the moving bed in Region 1 is given by
1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 18–21 February.
7. Sharma, M.P. and Chowdhry, D.V.: “A Computational Model for ⭸ ⭸
共A ␳ u 兲⌬s + 共A1␳1u1u1兲⌬s
Drilled Cutting Transport in Air (or Gas) Drilling Operations,” Jour. of ⭸t 1 1 1 ⭸s
Energy Resources Technology (March 1986) 8. ⭸p
= −A1 ⌬s − A1⌬s␳1g sin ␣
8. Hemphill, T. and Larsen, T.I.: “Hole-Cleaning Capabilities of Oil- ⭸s
Based and Water-Based Drilling Fluids: A Comparative Experimental + ␭12共uf 2 − u1兲L12⌬s
Study,” paper SPE 26328 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical − ␭1u1共L1,outer + L1,inner兲⌬s
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. − u1vENT␳1L12⌬s + us2vDEPCs2␳s L12⌬s
9. Guo, B. and Rajtar, J.M.: “Volume Requirements for Aerated Mud Cf1
Drilling,” SPEDC (September 1995) 165. + uf 2vDEPCs2 ␳f L12⌬s − F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
Cs1
10. Gao, E. et al.: “A New MTV Computer Package for Hole Cleaning
Design and Analysis,” paper SPE 26217 presented at the 1993 SPE
Momentum balance for the suspended solids and fluid in Region 2
Computer Conference, New Orleans, 11–14 June.
are given by
11. Larsen, T.I., Pilehvari, A.A., and Azar, J.J.: “Development of a New
Cuttings Transport Model for High-Angle Wellbores Including Hori-
⭸ ⭸
zontal Wells,” SPEDC (June 1997) 129. 共A2␳sCs2us2兲⌬s + 共A2␳sCs2us2us2兲⌬s
12. Kamp, A.M. and Rivero, M.: “Layer Modeling for Cuttings Transport ⭸t ⭸s
⭸p

冤 冥
in Highly Inclined Wellbores,” paper SPE 53942 presented at the 1999
A2 ⌬s + A2⌬s␳s g sin ␣
SPE Latin American and Carribean Petroleum Engineering Confer- ⭸s
ence, Caracas, 21–23 April. = −Cs2 + ␭12共uf 2 − u1兲L12⌬s
13. Shook, C.A. and Roco, M.C.: Slurry Flow: Principles and Practice,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, Massachusetts (1991).
+ ␭2uf 2共L2,outer + L2,inner兲⌬s
14. Doron, P., Granica, D., and Barnea, D.: “Slurry Flow in Horizontal + u1vENTCs1␳sL12⌬s − us2vDEPCs2␳sL12⌬s
Pipes—Experimental and Modeling,” Intl. Jour. of Multiphase Flow
(1987) 13, No. 4, 535. + A2␭sf 共uf 2 − us2兲⌬s, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)

June 2003 SPE Journal 169

 ⭸ ⭸
共A ␳ C u 兲⌬s + 共A2␳fCf2uf2uf2兲⌬s
⭸t 2 f f2 f2 ⭸s
⭸p
冤 冥
A2 ⌬s + A2⌬s␳f g sin ␣
⭸s
= −Cf2 + ␭12共uf 2 − u1兲L12⌬s
+ ␭2uf 2共L2,outer + L2,inner兲⌬s
Cf1
+ u1vENTCf1␳fL12⌬s − uf2vDEP Cs2␳fL12⌬s
Cs1
− A2␭sf 共uf 2 − us2兲⌬s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
The sum of driving forces in Region 1 must overcome the dry
friction resistance force, F1, in direction opposing flow for the bed
to move (Doron et al.14), as follows:
再 冋冉
2共␨1 + ␨兲
1 −1
F1 = ␩ 共␳ − ␳f兲gC1sDouter
2
Douter
2 s
⌬s sgnu1cos␣
⭸p
F1␴ = A1 ⌬s − ␶12L12⌬s + ␶1共L1,outer + Li,inner兲⌬s
⭸s
+ F1 and 兺
Fdriving ⬎ F1 for |u1| ⬎ 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
where ␩⳱the dry friction coefficient, and sgnu1 cos ␣ accounts for
the inclined flow direction.
Quang T. Doan is a reservoir engineer at APA Petroleum Engi-
neering Inc. in Calgary, Canada. e-mail: qdoan@apa-
inc.com. He was previously a senior engineer in the R & D
Group of the Computer Modelling Group Ltd. in Calgary. Be-
fore joining CMG Ltd., he was a consultant involved in devel-
oping simulators for multiphase flow in production and drilling
processes and undertaking a number of reservoir analysis and
well-performance studies. He has taught courses in production
engineering, reservoir engineering, and simulation, as well as
supervised MSc and PhD theses on thermal recovery pro-
cesses, cold production of heavy oil, and multiphase flow
modeling. His interests include heavy oil recovery and mul-
tiphase flow phenomena. Doan holds BSc, MSc, and PhD de-
grees in petroleum engineering, all from the U. of Alberta,
Canada. Mustafa Oguztoreli is currently Director of Quantita-
tive Resources at Shell Trading Gas and Power in Houston.
170
e-mail: oguztoreli@ibm.net. Previously, he was with Real Op-
tions Group in Milan, Italy, as Director of Oil & Gas, Energy and
Natural Resources. He has also worked as a consultant spe-
cializing in mathematical modeling, numerical simulation, and
software development in the areas of engineering, manage-
ment, and finance. Currently, he is developing stochastic dy-
namic programming decision-making tools to value optimal
operating policies and path-dependent action plans for peak-
ing power plants and gas reservoir storage assets with con-
straints contingent on economic, physical, operational, and
contractual states. Oguztoreli holds a PhD degree in engineer-
ing management, MBA and MSc degrees in petroleum engi-
neering, and a BSc degree in physics. Yoshihiro Masuda is cur-
rently an associate professor in the Dept. of Geosystem Engi-
neering at the U. of Tokyo, Japan. e-mail: masuda@geosys.t.
u-tokyo.ac.jp. His current research activities include hole
cleaning in underbalanced drilling, in-situ polymer gelation in
冊冉 冊册冎
sediments, and development of a numerical simulator predict-
␶
␪+ ing gas production behavior from methane-hydrate reservoirs.
2 He previously was a petroleum engineer with Japan Petroleum
+ cos␪ Exploration Co., Ltd. He holds a doctoral degree in engineer-
ing from the U. of Tokyo. Tetsuo Yonezawa is currently a Project
Manager of the Research Project Team, Methane Hydrate,
Technology Research Center of Japan National Oil Corp., Ja-
pan. e-mail: yonezw-t@jnoc.go.jp. His current activities include
drilling and completion R&D projects including, among others,
UBD and borehole stability. He holds a BA degree in engineer-
ing from Hokkaido U., Japan. Atsushi Kobayashi is currently a
section manager in the Tokyo Technology Center of Telnite
Co., Ltd. e-mail: atsushi_kobayashi@telnite.co.jp. He previously
joined with JNOC/TRC for the Underbalanced Drilling Project in
JNOC. Kobayashi holds a BSc degree in chemical engineering
from Akita U., Japan. Shigemi Naganawa is currently a re-
search associate in the Dept. of Geosystem Engineering at the
U. of Tokyo, Japan. e-mail: naganawa@kelly.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
His current research activities include cuttings transport in di-
rectional wells and modeling of drill-bit/strings dynamics. Na-
ganawa holds a Meng degree in mineral development engi-
neering from the U. of Tokyo, Japan. Arjan M. Kamp was until
recently employed as researcher and project leader in PDVSA
Intevep in Venezuela. e-mail: caroyarjan@cantv.net. His re-
search activities include multiphase flow applications in the oil
industry, varying from drill cuttings transport, underbalanced
drilling, flow in horizontal wells, and heavy oil flow in reservoirs.
Mr. Kamp is an applied physicist from the Eindhoven U. of Tech-
nology in the Netherlands. He holds a PhD degree in fluid me-
chanics from the Inst. Natl. Polytechnique de Toulouse, France.
June 2003 SPE Journal