0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Numerical Study on Effects of Drilling Mud Rheological Properties on the Transport of Drilling Cuttings

[+] Author and Article Information
E. GhasemiKafrudi

Computational Fluid Dynamics
Research Laboratory,
School of Chemical Engineering,
Iran University of Science
and Technology,
Tehran 16846, Iran

S. H. Hashemabadi

Associate Professor
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Research Laboratory,
School of Chemical Engineering,
Iran University of Science
and Technology,
Tehran 16846, Iran
e-mail: hashemabadi@iust.ac.ir

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 16, 2015; final manuscript received May 23, 2015; published online September 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Christopher J. Wajnikonis.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 138(1), 012902 (Sep 16, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: JERT-15-1019; doi: 10.1115/1.4031450 History: Received January 16, 2015; Revised May 23, 2015

Inaccurate prediction of the required pressures can lead to a number of costly drilling problems. In this study, the hydrodynamics of mud-cuttings were numerically studied using the Mixture Model. To this end, an in-house code was developed to calculate the velocity and pressure fields. The mud velocity profile using of Herschel–Bulkley model and solid phase volume fraction were locally calculated; moreover, pressure drop through the annulus was taken into account. The effects of velocity, mud properties, and solid phase volume fraction on pressure drop were discussed and a new correlation was proposed for calculating friction factor based on corresponding parameters.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) The boundary conditions, (b) forces on a moving particle in drilling fluid, (c) a control volume to calculate the velocity and pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison the numerical simulation and experimental data [19] of solid particles average velocity versus liquid average velocity (water as carrier fluid) in vertical (0 deg) and inclined annulus (20 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of numerical simulation and experimental data [19] of (a) solid particles' average velocity (b) pressure drop versus liquid average velocity (0.4% CMC solution as carrier fluid) in vertical (0 deg) and inclined annulus (20 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Drilling mud and cutting velocity profiles with different sizes, solid loading 5%, with D.F-10 fluid (Table 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Cutting volume fraction with different sizes on developed flow region with D.F-10 fluid (Table 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of two different carrying ratios for different cutting sizes (0.1, 0.4, and 1 cm) and drilling mud (D.F-1 and D.F-10, Table 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure drop versus average velocity for five different fluid types (Table 1) (ρp  = 2550 kg/m3, αp=%3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pressure gradient versus input velocity in different solid volume fraction (αp=0–15% with D.F-1 (Table 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Pressure gradient versus input velocity and increased drilling string rotation velocity. With D.F-1 fluid αp=8%.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the friction factor predicted by numerical solution and new correlation (Eq. (17))

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In