Design of Muds for Carrying Capacity

R. E. Walker, SPE-AIME,LamarU.
T. M. Mayes, SPE-AIME, Milchem, Inc.

Introduction
Hole cleaning is an important function of a drilling liquid.
The ability to predict the degree of cleaning possible for a
given mud and flow rate is a definite advantage in'planning and completing a successful drilling operation. The
prediction is normally made by calculating 'the transport
velocity, the difference in the annular velocity and the
slip velocity of the particles, by assuming the slip velocity is equal to the terminal settling velocity of the particle
in a stationary liquid. The settling velocity is easily calculated if the annular flow is turbulent or the particle settles
in the turbulent regime. Under these conditions, the slip
velocity depends on the density difference between the
mud and the particle and on the particle shape and size.
The slip velocity is not a function of the liquid viscosity.
However, these settling velocities may be high, up to 74
ft/min for a shale sphere Vs in. in diameter, and high
annular velocities are needed to clean the hole.
There are many cases where high annular velocities are
unavailable and/or undesirable. Annular velocities may
be low because of pump limitations or an enlarged hole,
or may be low where risers are used. Also, it may be
necessary to restrict annular velocity to minimize the
equivalent circulating density or to maintain laminar flow
opposite drill collars. If turbulent-regime slip velocities
are too high for the annular velocities, the viscous properties of the liquid must be increased until the particle falls
in a transition or laminar regime where slip velocities are
influenced by viscous forces. Unfortunately, none of the
methods proposed in the literature for predicting terminal

settling velocities in the transition or laminar regimes are

suitable for field application. Most of the theoretical and
experimental work is with spheres1~8-10~13~14 or with liquids that are almost Newtonian. 5~6 In work using nonNewtonian liquids, the rheological measurements are not
sufficient for defining properties in the experimental
range, 6 or the prediction equations use rheological models with constants defined in a shear-rate range different
than that of the experimental work. 4 One study19 uses
viscosities not associated with that of the liquid surrounding the particle, while another study13 provides a solution
so complex that it is impractical for field use.
An assumption that the terminal settling velocity will
be the'same as the slip velocity is questionable because of
the complex motion of the particle in the annulus. The
moving liquid has a velocity profile, near parabolic in
form, that is affected by hole geometry, liquid flow
properties, and pipe rotation. 11 The particles tilt with the
velocity profile, which in turn affects their settling velocity. Drillpipe rotation introduces a centrifugal force causing radial migration, 15 and some particles are also
trapped near the pipe.18~19 If the mud is non-Newtonian,
the viscosity of the liquid around the particle is dependent on the settling velocity and the flowing- velocity
profile. An additional complication is the various shapes
a cutting or caving may have.
Improvement in methods for predicting successful
hole cleaning is dependent on a better understanding of
how viscous forces retard particle settling. Practical ap-

The ability to predict the degree ofhole cleaning possible with a given mud andflow rate is an
advantage in successfully planning and completing a drilling operation. A simple, reasonably
accurate, mathematical-prediction technique is developed that can be used in the field.

JULY, 1975

893

plications of methods for improving hole cleaning require

a simple approach. The objectives of this paper are. to
relate the size, density, and slip velocities of cuttings and
cavings to the shear stress vs the shear rate relationship of
the liquid and to establish a simple mathematical procedure applicable to field use.

.................. (1)

Settling Velocity
The settling velocity of any particle depends on a number
of factors such as the density and flow properties of the
liquid and the volume, density, and shape of the particle.
Nonnally, the relations are correlated by plotting a drag
coefficient vs a Reynolds number. The drag coefficient is
defined as twice the net vertical force (volume times
density difference) divided by the product of the particle
velocity squared, projected area of the particle, and the
liquid density. The Reynolds number contains a liquidviscosity term. convenient for Newtonian liquids, but
unsuitable for non-Newtonian liquids.
Work with Newtonian liquids shows that the drag
coefficient vs the Reynolds-number relation can be divided into three regimes: turbulent, laminar, and transition. In the turbulent regime, the only resistance slowing
the fall of the particle is caused by the momentum forces
of the liquid; viscosity plays no part. Thus, if a particle is
falling in the turbulent regime, increasing the mud viscosity will not slow the settling rate until the viscosity is
increased sufficiently to force a change from the turbulent
to the transition or the laminar regime. In the laminar
regime, the entire resistance slowing the fall is caused by
the viscous forces of the liquid; the momentum forces are
negligible. The drag coefficient in this regime varies
inversely with the Reynolds number. Between the two
regimes is the transition regime, where both viscous and
momentum forces retard the falling particle.
If the flow in an annulus is turbulent, a particle slips in
turbulence. If the flow is laminar, a particle may slip in a
turbulent, transition, or laminar regime depending on its
geometry and on the viscous proptrties of the liquid.
Work with Newtonian liquids2~7 indicates that the
laminar-transition-regime change for a particle occurs at
a Reynolds number between 0.1 and 0.3 and the change
from the transition to turbulent regime occurs at a
Reynolds n\lmber of 100.
The approach used in this paper to develop a useful
method for predicting slip velocities is to assume a simple
set of conditions and develop predictive equations. The
results are compared with laboratory experiments and
with the results of the work of others.
The problem is simplified by assuming a disk shape
that is the simplest shape consistent with a cutting form. It
also assumes that the qisk falls flat",side down, which
represents the condition for the highest terminal settling
velocity. Drag coefficients are established for this disk
shape and orientation, and the relations with Reynolds
numbers for each flow regime are assumed from Newtonian liquid data. An assumption is then made about the
viscosity term in the Reynolds number to develop the
settling-rate equation as a function of the liquid shear
stres s and the shear rate.

Vp = (

)3/4

24

E,quation Development
Terminal settling velocity equations are developed by
combining the drag coefficient and the Reynolds number
894

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

redefined and the shear stress equation (Eq. 7) had to be

modified. This resulted in a more complex calculation
that was only slightly more accurate than can be obtained
by extrapolating Eq. 8 into the laminar regime. So Eq. 8
is used for both laminar and transition regimes.

Laboratory Experiments
Laboratory experiments were conducted to establish the
degree of accuracy. of Eqs. 6 and 8 in predicting terminal
settling velocities. Terminal settling velocity refers to
that observed in static conditions, whereas slip velocity
represents the particle fall rate under dynamic conditions.
The experiments were made by timing the fall of particles inside a 6~in.-ID, 5-ft-high glass tube. Data were
obtained for three densities of disks with specific
gravities from 1.38 to 8.77. The disks ranged in size from
1M to 1 in. in diameter and from 1/32 to lh in. in thickness.
Five liquids with varying flow properties were used to
provide a range of data in the laminar, transition, and
turbulent regimes. The specific gravity of all the liquids
was1.0.
The slip .velocities were timed with a stop watch for
the lower velocities experienced with the first three liquids. A photo-electric circuit and electronic timer system
was used to measure the higher velocities experienced
with the last two liquids. Normally, a dozen disks were
dropped and an average time was used to arrive at the
velocities.
Disks were released under the liquid surface either in a
flat or an edgewise position. The fall orientation' 'flat"
or "edge" refers to the position assumed by the disk in
fall through the timed interval, regardless of orientation
at release. With some combinations of disks and liquid
flow properties, disks released in an edgewise or flat
orientation remained in the same orientation throughout
the fall; these are referred to as stable. Others assumed a
TABLE l-SHEAR STRESS VS SHEAR RATE RELATIONS OF THE
UQUIDS*
Liquid Number
Polymer
DensitY,lb/gal

1
XC
8.33

Shear Rate
(sec-I)
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
. 5.0
10.
20.
50.
100.
200.
500.
1,000.

2
XC+CMC
8.33

3
CMC
8.33

5
CMC
8.33

Shear Stress (Ib/100 fF)

1.14
1.60
2.70
3.86
5.10
7.00
8.60
10.2
12.9
15.2
18.4
24.4
30.6

Plastic
viscosity
6.3
Yield point
18.3
Power-model
constants based
on 500 and
1,000 sec- l
K, Ib-sec/100 fF 3.20
n
0.327

1.38
2.02
3.32
4.60
6.20
8.60
10.4
12.6
16.2
19.8
24.2
32.6
43.0

0.05
0.11
0.25
0.46
0.84
1.94
3.60
6.20
12.4
20.0
30.4
53.7
78.0

0.015
0.007
0.015
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.15
0.06
0.29
0.12
0.29
0.74
0.59
1.47
2.94
1.17
6.85
2.80
12.4
5.30
9.50
20.6
19.5
36.3
55.5
32.5

Fw =

d w -1.6dp
d w -dp

.....

(9)

Discussion of Experimental Data

The method used to evaluate the accuracy of the equations considered the difference between measured and
calculated settling velocities. The measured particle velocity was used to calculate the Reynolds number.
There are 87 sets of useful experimental data, with 10
additional sets negated because of unstable fall. The data
include a Reynolds-number range from <0.1 to 833. The
average difference in the velocities is 0.66 ft/min, with a
standard deviation of 6.26 ft/min and a standard error of
the mean of 0.67 ft/min.
As shown in Fig. 1, the variation in velocities is fairly
uniformly distributed throughout the range of velocities.
The average values for each liquid listed in Table 2 shows
that there is no significant difference in the variation in
velocities between liquids. If a difference of 10 ft/min
is arbitrarily assumed as an acceptable error, only 77 of
the 87 sets of data are acceptable. Of the 10 sets that ex-

+ 25
of 20

+ 15

+ 10
+5

... .
.
. ."': ... ': .
.....

---------~-----------

f/)

::>

1, ..:

..

CONTROL
LIMITS

-5

10.4
22.3

24.7
29.9

19.5
17.4

13.2
6.6

10

15

L- -

- 20
- 25

2.72
0.399

1.89
0.539

* Measurements made with a rotating rheometer identified as the

JULY, 1975

4
CMC
8.33

45 fall regardless of their orientation at release. Some

fell at a slant and ricocheted off the walls; in these
instances, the disk fall was called unstable and velocity
data were not recorded.
Table 1 lists the shear stress vs shear rate relations of
the liquids used in the experiments. Liquids 1 and 2 were
used primarily to obtain laminar- and transition-regime
data. Liquid 1 had a 2.2-lb/bbl concentration of an XC
polymer treated to increase transparency. Liquid 2 was
made by adding CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) to Liquid 1. The other liquids used had various concentrations
of CMC to obtain additional data in the transition and
turbulent regimes.
Experimental data are listed in Tables 2A and 2B. In
addition to the observed and measured results, the tables
contain calculated values for the Reynolds number and
the difference between observed and calculated settling
velocities (observed minus calculated). Eq. 6 was used to
calculate velocities where the Reynolds number exceeded 100, and Eq. 8 was used for the other cases. The
computed velocities were multiplied by a wall-effects,
factor, F w, developed from settling rates observed in the
first three liquids. The equation for F w is

0.807
0.613
LRC-l. 1 7

0.200
0.737

b'------12'1o-~Il~o0 -----'4'0---L6'0~-~8'O--~I~O~~12~'
OBSERVED

SETTLING

VELOCITY,

Ft /min

Fig. l-Comparison of calculated with measured settling

velocities.

895

00

\0
0\

TABLE 2A-EXPER-IMENTAlRESULTS (DIFFERENCE B'ETWEEN OBSERVED AND CALCULATED SLIP VELOCITIES)

Liquid 2

Liquid 1
Diameter ,Thickness
(in.)
(in.)
--

C-t

~
Z
>
t-t
0

~,

td

~
~

0
t-t
tn
C
~
~

tn

(J

14

Disk
1
2
Disk
1
1M
Disk
1
Va
Disk
1
1/16
Disk
1
1/.32
-Disk
2
2
Disk
4
'2
Disk
2
a
- Disk
2
1/16
Disk
Y4
1M
Disk
4
a
Disk
1M
1/16
Disk
1
2
Disk
1
-1M
Disk
2
2
- Disk
2
1M
Disk
1M
1M
Disk
1
1/32
Disk
2
1/32
Disk
1M
1/32
Square**
1.04
0.248
Triangular***
0.66
0.247
- Rectangular t
0.82
0.236
Average velocity
Standard deviation of velocity
'Standard errorofthe mean

liquid 3

----------

Particle Shape
Specific
Gravity

Terminal Ve,locity
(ft/min)
Observed Difference*

Orientation

Reynolds
Number

Flat
Flat
Flat
Unstable
Edge

478.
136.
21.7
' 3.1
1.0

Flat
_Unstable
Edge
Stable
Edge
Edge
'Edge
Edge
Flat
Edge
Stable
Flat
Unstable
Unstable

55.
8.6
2.3
'10.0
1.9
0.2
12.8
2.4
1.4
0.3
<:0.1
22.0
10.2
3.7

Terminal Velocity
(ft/min)
Observed Difference*

Orientation

Reynolds
Number

Flat
Flat
-Flat
Unstable
Edge

203.
50.
8.1
1.1
0.4

Flat
. Unstable
Edge
Stable
EdgeEdge
Edge
Edge
Flat
Edge
Stable
Flat
Unstable
Unstable

17.8
2.6
0.8
3.2
0.6
0.1
5.1
0.8
0.5
0.1
. <0.1
8.9
3.1
1.1

Terminal Velocity
(ft/min)
.Observed Difference*

Ori-entation

Reynolds
Number

Flat
Flat
-Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
45
Unstable
Unstable
Flat
Flat
Edge
Flat
, Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat

100.
,'50.
23.9
12.6
71.
37.9
20.0
8.9
10.6
5.9
2.5
39.2
20.0
12.6
6.6
1.8
47.2
19.5
7.4

---

2.'83
2.83
2.83
2.83
' 2.83
2.69
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.68
2.68
- 2.68
1.38
1.38
1.38_
1.38
1.,38
8.77
- 8.77
8.77

Ill.
74.
33.8

1.0
(4.1)
(1.4)

8.0

2.6

_60.

(15 ..8)

18.9
24.6
-13.6
4.2
.26.2
12.4
5.6
2.7
0.65
31.5

9.2
(24.2)
(3.6)
(2.1)
(0.5)
2.3
(14.7)
(4.9)
(4.9)
(7.0)

113.
68.
27.9

2.6
4.3
4.1

5.3

1.2

48.2

0.0

12.8
19.3
8.9
2.8
.22.2
8.5
4.1
1.9
0.44
28.0

6.0
(11.9)
(2.7)
(1.5)

3:9
1.6
(9.8)
(3.3)
(3.4)
2.2

88.
48.5
29.2
16.4
_101.
- 67.
38.4
21.7
35.9

10.1
3.6
5.5
2.8
(4.8)
6.9
4.3
3.7
(5.7)

39.7
24.7
"25.4
16.3
8.8
44.9
37.1
28.0

1.6
' 4.2
(3.5)
0.7
(2.5)
(2.4)
1.2
1.8

1.42
1.42
1.42
(4.5)
8.1
-2.1

*Observed minus calculated: ( ) minus.

**Square plate, I.-in. sides, l.04.;.in. effective diameter.
***45 isosceles-triangle with l-'in. sides, O.66-in. effective diameter.
tl- x Y2-in. rectangle, O.82-in. effective diameter.

(0.4)
5.0
1.3

1.6
4.2
1.0

ceed these limits, six are in the turbulent regime; in .each

case, the difference is less than 20 percent of the measured velocity. The four remaining cases -occurred with
disks whose thickness was equal to or one~half ofthe
diameter; in each instance, the particle was in transition
fall.
Terminal velocities of thfee nondisk shapes were
measured in Liquids 4 and 5. All were made from
lA-in.-thick plastic. One shape~as a square with I-in.
sides; another was a triangle made by cutting the square
along a diagonal; and the third was a 1- x Vz-in.rectangle. The differences in velocities were in the _same
range as those obtained for disks when the effective
diameters were calculated by the hydraulic-diameter
equation: 3

d eq == ~Ac

Lc

.. _

disk thickness equaled its diameter, flat fall occurted'at

a Reynolds number of 2 and stable fall occurred at a
Reynolds number of 1. When unstable fall occurred, it
was in the,Reyno~ds number range of 2.5 to 10. The
largest errors in the predicted-to-observed velocities in
the laminar and transition regimes occurred with disks
having thickness-to-diameter ratios of 0.5,and 1.0. This
was probably because the equations do not account for
the viscous drag on the peripheral area of the disk.

Equation Evaluation

...

..

Experiments that simulate continuous tran~port in a wellbore and provide rheologic'al info'rmation are limited.
Field data _containing requisite information are almost
nonexistent.
,
Williams and Bruce 18 measured the ,transport rate for
disks in an annulus with Newtonian fluids where pa.rticle
slip was turbulent. The terminal settUng-veloci~y,eqiation, Eq. 6, is equivalent to the slip- velocity equation
developed in their work.
.
Sifferman et al. 12 measured, the transport velocity of
simulated cavings carried up an annulus with gel muds. A
comparison between their calcul~ted slip 'veiocities; es- ,
tablished by subtracting the t~ansport velocity from the
bulk-liquid velocity, and the terminal settling velocities
predicted with Eqs. 6 and 8 are listed in Table 3. Evaluation was limited to four sets of data; one set ~here
particles were in turbulent fall, one set in transition fall,
and two sets in laminar fall. Agreement was excellent for
the turbulent and transition regimes, but not as .good for
the laminar regime. The laminar conditions were calculated for two different particle orientations because a shift

(10)

In summary, the equations predicted the velocity

within 10 ft/min for 88 percent of the test sets and closer
than either ,10 ft/min or 20 percent -of the measured
velocities over 95 percent of the time. The over-all error
could be reduced by modifying the equation for the turbulent regime, as the difference in this regime averages
+4.2 ft/min, and by altering the equation in the ~aminar
regime, where the average-error is ~1.8 ft/min. The
correlation is deemed sufficiently accurate for field
application.
Disk orientation appears to be influenced by many
factors. Within the limits of this study, flat fall always
occurred above a Reynolds number of 13 and edge fall
occurred predominantly below 3~5. However, when the

TABLE 2B-EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBSERVED AND CALCULATED SLIP VELOCITIES)
Liquid 5

Liquid 4
Particle Shape
Diameter Thickness
(in.) ,
(in.)

------

V2 .
1
Disk
Disk
1
~
l/s
1
Disk
Disk
1
1/16
Disk
1
1/32
1/2
Disk
V2
Disk
V2
~
Disk
V2
Vs
. V2
Disk
1/16
Disk
V4
V4
Disk
V4
Vs
Disk
V4
1/16
Disk
1
V2
Disk
1
V4
1/2
Disk
V2
1/4
Disk
V2
1/4
Disk
V4
Disk
1
1/32
Disk
V2
1/32
1/4
Disk
1/32
Square**
1.04
0.248
Triangular***
0.66
0.247
Rectangular t
0.82
0.236
Average velocity
Standard deviation of velocity
Standard error of the mean

Terminal Velocity
(ft/min)
Specific
Difference* Orientation
_Q~~!t_ -Observed
------ ------- -----18.0
2.83
128-.
Flat
11.9
2.83
90.
Flat
2.83
56.
1.2
Flat
2.83
3.4
38..8
FIClt
2.83
24.0
Flat
3.0
2.69
123.
8.7
Flat
(3.5)
2.83
Flat
83.
2.83
Flat
49.1
1.4
2.9
2.83
29.8
Flat
(6.3)
45
2.68
51.
1.2
Flat
2.68
33.8
5.5
Flat
2.68
23.8
Flat
0.1
1.38
52.
Flat
1.7
1.38
32.5
(3.1)
Stable
1.38
36.3
Flat
24.6
1.2
1.38
(2.1)
1.38
14.9
45
(6.1)'
Flat
8.77
51.
2.0
8.77
52.
Flat
8.9
8.77
45.3
Flat

Reynolds
Number
----

348.
211.
115.
71.
44.0
162.
97.
50.
27.3
28.6
17.2
10.9
95.
60.
33.2
22.5
6.8
104.
53.
23.2

Terminal Velocity
(ft/min.)
Observed Difference*

------- -------

Orientation

-------

Reynolds
Number
-----

117.
78.
54.

6.5
0.3
(1.5)

Flat
Flat
Flat

.833.

111.
98.

(3.4)
13.6

Flat
Flat

390.
303.

41.0
85.
47.2

( 1.5)
1.7
(4.5)

Flat
Flat
Flat

94.
117.
61.

61.
39.
60.
38.2
26.6
70.

10.8
3.4
5.5
1.2
(0.3)
13.0

Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat

282.
178.
137.
87.
30.5
360.

487~

277.

1.42

36.8

3.3

Flat

70.

38.3

1..3

Flat

183.

1.42

32.5

4.4

Flat

39.2

39.9

0.8

Flat

120.

1.42

33.2

'3.6
2.7
5.4
1.1

Flat

49.8

33.9

(3.5)
2.55
5.4
1.3

Flat

127.

*Observed min us calculated: ( ) min us.

**Square plate, I-in. sides, l.04-in. effective diameter.
***45 isosceles triangle with I-in. sides, O.66-in. effective diameter.
tI- x V2-in. rectangle, O.82-in. effective diameter.

JULY, 1975

897

in orientation would be expected at a low Reynolds

number. An assumption of edge fall, which is likely to
occur under laminar conditions, more closely approximates experimental results .
Additional information is needed before drawing definite conclusions but, based on the available ,data, terminal settling and slip velocities can be considered the same
and' the predicted velocities are consistent with experiments of others.

which is developed in Appendix B.

Yb

de

Slip Velocities
The developed equations can be more easily applied in
the field by transposing to the following units:
velocity - ft/min
.
density -lb/gal
particle dimensions - in.
shear stress -lbf /100 sq ft
The specific gravity of the solids is assumed to be 2.5 or
20.8 Ib/gal.
The first step in estimating the slip velocity is to calculate the shear stress developed by the particle:
= 7.9

Yh c (20.8 -

Pc)

Vc

16.62 T~

V;;;

.....

1.22Tc~~(tranSitiO~+laminar)
.

The particle thickness can be estimated from samples

(over the shaker, junk basket, viscous plugs, or offset
wells).
.
The second step is to estimate whether the annular flow
is laminar or turbulent.l 6 If it is laminar, skip to Step 3; if
it is turbulent, calculate the slip velocity for the turbulent
regime:
Vc =

(11)

'.'

(13)

vP;-

The final step is to calculate the settling r~gimeand

velocity. The shear.rate for .a particle is the rate that
corresponds to ,the shear stres's given by Eq. 11. ,One
method 16 'of obtaining this shear rate is to, plot the Fann
dial readings (shear stress) vs the shear rate (1.7 times
revolutions per minute), draw a smooth curve tp.rough the
points, and read off the shear rate that corresponds to the
shear stress calculated. from Eq. 11. Measuremen~s
should be made at four or more speeds, anda log-log plot
will facilitate drawing a smooth curve. If this she~r rate is
greater than that given by Eq. 13, the particle is' falling in
the turbulent regime and the velocity is calculated by Eq.
12. If the particle shear rate is less than that given by Eq.
13, the particle is falling' in, the transition or laminar
regime and the slip velocity is calculated from Eq. 14.
Eq. 14 is obtained by combining Eqs .. 6 and 7 and converting the units to those used in this section.

Application

Tc

186

.,. (14)

Pc

Example
An operator was drilling a 17Vz-in. Qole with 10-lb/gal
brine at an annular velocity of 66 ft/min basedon a gauge
hole. At 1,800 ft, severe sloughing began from unconsolidated sands thought to be at 1,400 ft. The well was
mudded up with a guar-gum mixture and silt and 1/8~in.
sand grains were removed, but a tight hole developed as
soon as the circulation stopped. The well had been drilled
through anhydrites and the then-current practices generally resulted in several hundred feet of enlarged hole.
A good deal of information can be obtained by analyzing the particles that come over the shaker. The V8 -in.

(12)

rhe third step is to determine the turbulent-transition

rt<gime boundary by calculating the shear rate at which
the Reynolds number is 100. This is done using Eq. 13,

TABLE 3-CALCULATION OF SLIP VELOCITIES BASED ON DATA OF SlfFERMAN ET AL. AND COMPARISON WITH THEIR OBSERVED RESULTS
Mud*
Lb/gal
Cross-over
shear rate,
. sec- 1
For lower shea rrate range

K**
n'
For highershear
rate range

K**
n
Particlet
Thickness, in.
Diameter, in.
Shear stress,
Ibl100 sq ft
Reynolds number
Shear rate,
sec- 1
Flow regime
Calculated slip,
ft/min
Observed slip, ft/min.

Thick
8.6

Inter
8.6

Thin
8.6

196

280

502

15.9
0.159

9.9
0.174

1.5
0.380

0.0015
1.0

4.9
0.381

1.7
0.485

0.42
0.585

0.0015
1.0

Flat

Edge

Edge

Flat

Flat

Flat

Va

1;4

Va

1;4

Va

Va

0.167

lIa

0.167

Va

0.167

0.167

8.0
10-4

11.2
0.0003

8.0
0.002

11.2
0.026

8.0
10.

8.1
5,215

0.01
Laminar

0.11
Laminar

0.3
Laminar

2.0
Laminar

82
Transition

Turbulent

0.9

1.2

4.0

20.5
19.0

45.5
44.4

0.3
2.6

9.0

*Mudidentified as in Fig. 4 of Ref. 12.

**Units are Ib-sec/100 ft. 2
tAli particle densities 16. 7Ib/gal, flat means thinnest dimension is vertical, edge is the thickest dimension vertical, particles were
Shear-rate value has no meaning in turbulent flow.

898

Water
8.3

Va

X l/a X

% in.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

sand grains exert a stress of7 .5Ib/100 ft 2 in the 10-lb/gal

mud. A spherical shape is used for the sand grains, and
the effective thickness to use in Eq. 11 is two-thirds the
sphere diameter. Slip velocity estimates for spheres are
valid in the laminar and transition regimes because Eqs. 4
and 5 are valid for both spheres and disks, but Eq. 3
(turbulent regime) is not valid for spheres. The flow in the
annulus was laminar. From the shear stress vs shear rate
plot shown in Fig. 2, the shear rate corresponding to a
stress of 7.5 Ib/100 ft 2 is 91 sec- i (Point A). This shear
rate is less than the limit for the transition regime (Line
C), so the transition equation, Eq. 14, is used to calculate
a slip velocity of 17 ft/min. A mud velocity of 27 ft/min
might be considered necessary to clean the hole (17
ft/min to overcome the slip and 10 ft/min to move the
particles through the enlarged hole in a reasonable time).
A 26lh-in.-diameter hole will have a bulk velocity of 27
ft/min, which is a reasonable hole size.
A viscous plug was run in the well, removing ~-in.
gravel. Because of the odd shapes of the gravel, the
effective thickness was difficult to determine. The effective thickness was estimated by measuring the shear
stress developed by the particles. This was done by timing the terminal settling velocity of a handful of the gravel
dropped into water contained in a verticaI2-in.-diameter
glass pipe 10 ft high. Since the flow regime is turbulent,
Eq. 12 can be used to solve for particle shear stress; the
result can be substituted into Eq. 11 to calculate the
thickness. Or, the effective particle thickness can be
calculated from Eqr 15, obtained by combining Eqs. 11
and 12, using the density of water.

he

= (I~O)2

velocity in 95 percent of the cases.

2. Data for comparison is limited, but the available
information indicates that the terminal settling velocities
calculated by the proposed equations are numerically
similar to slip velocities calculated from transport-rate
measurements .
3. Limited data indicate that the equations developed
for disks can be used to predict slip velocities and hole
cleaning for other shapes commonly encountered when
drilling.
4. These equations permit comparing hole-cleaning
capabilities of muds with different flow properties and
provide a method to adjust flow properties to clean an
annulus.

Nomenclature
A e = projected cross-sectional area of
particle, ft 2
de = particle diameter, in.
d eq = equivalent particle diameter, ft
dp :=;;: particle diameter, ft
dw :=: inside diameter of glass pipe, ft
Fw == wall-effect factor defined in Eq. 9
F T === dimension factor, Ib f /100 ft 2
g ~ acceleration of gravity, 32.17 ft/sec 2
ge = gravitational constant,
32.17 Ibm -ft/(lbf -sec 2 )
he = particle thickness, in.
hp = particle thickness, ft,
L e = perimeter around projected area of
particle, ft
Ned::::: drag coefficient defined by Eq. 1
N Re == Reynolds number
V e = particle velocity relative to the liquid,
ft/min
V p = particle velocity relative to the liquid,
ft/sec
y:: : shear rate, sec- i

(15)

The effective particle thickness is 0.108 in. This gives

a shear stress of 8.6 Ib/l00 ft 2 in 10-lb/gal mud. The
effective diameter of the larger particles is estimated at 14
in.
To clean the hole, the larger particles must have the
same or a lower slip velocity than the l/s-in. sand grains.
The shear rate corresponding to a slip velocity of 17
ft/ min for the 14-in. -diameter particles is, from Eq. 14, 33
sec-i. The mud must be changed to give a shear stress
equal to or greater than 8.6Ib/l00 ft 2 at a shear rate of 33
sec- i (Point B in Fig. 2).
The hole was displaced with a prehydrated gel mud
weighted in brine to 10 lb/gal. This mud, which cleaned
the hole and allowed problem-free drilling to continue,
closely matches the required shear stress at 33 sec- i , as
shown in Fig. 2.
In retrospect, the 14-in. gravel has a slip velocity of 45
ft/min in 10-lb/gal brine and 30 ft/min in the guar-gum
mud. In each mud, the particles would be carried up the
gauge hole to accumulate in the enlarged hole and would
then fall back when the circulation stopped.

MAXIMUM SHEAR RATE FOR

TRANSITION REGIME: SLIP FOR

I/~'

100-r------------r-:1/~-;--,
PA-RT-IC-LE-S-l...,..----T-:?----,

o
Q
........
.Q

"I

f./)
Cf)

W
0::
~
Cf)

0::

::I:

CI)

10 +---P-OI-NT-S--..--.,..--~""-t--7'---SH-e:A-R-S-TR-E-SS-D-E-Vt-LO-P-E
D-----i
-:-=~"'--""-BY RIVER GFtAVEL
8

JULY, 1975

---

I -P~T~A
I.
I
I
I

Conclusions
1. A simple set of equations were developed that predict the terminal settling velocity of disks in turbulent,
transition, or laminar fall for a wide range of test conditions. The equations predict the terminal settling velocity
within 10 ft/min in 88 percent of the cases and within
either 10 ft/min or 20 percent of measured settling

PARlICL"-1

SHEAR STRESS

BY

Df:VELOPED

liS" SAND

I
I

I
I
I

I
I

10

SHEAR

100

RATE -

1000

SEC-I

Fig. 2-Stress-rate relations for two field muds

899

Yb = shear rate corresponding toN

Re

= 100, sec- 1

IL = viscosity, lbm/ft-sec
Pc = liquid density, Ibm/gal
PL = liquid density, Ib m/ft3

Ps = particle density, Ib m/ft3 .

2
T e = shear stress, lb f /100 ft
2
T p = shear stress, Ib m/ft-sec

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Milchern, Inc., for permission to publish parts of this article
and to the Lamar U. Research Committee for their
support.

APPENDIX A
Eq. 8 is obtained by combining Eqs. 1, 2, 4, and 7 as
follows. First, Eq. 4, the relation between the drag coefficient and the Reynolds humber, is inverted and cubed to
give
1

(Ned )3

(NRe )
(24)3

(A-I)

Next, substitute for N Re and Ned . The viscosity term in the

Reynolds number is replaced by shear stress divided by
shear rate to give
N Re =

d p VPPLY

(A-2)

Tp

References
1. Ansley, R. W. and Smith, T. N.: "Motion of Spherical Particles in
a Bingham Plastic," AIChE Journ. (1967) 13, 1193.
2. Becker, H. A.: "The Effects of Shape and Reynolds Number on
Drag in the Motion of a Freely Oriented Body in an Infinite Fluid,' ,
Cdn. J. Chem. Engr. (April 1959) 85.
3. Bennett, C. O. and Myers, J. E.: Momentum, Heat, and Mass
Transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1962) 174.
4. Brookes, G. F. and Whitmore, R. L.: "Drag Forces in Bingham
Plastics," Rheologica Acta (1969) 9, 472.
5. Carey, W. W.: "Settling of Spheres in Newtonian and NonNewtonian Fluids," PhD thesis, Syracuse U., Syracuse, N.Y.
(1970).
6. Hall, H. N., Thompson, H., and Nuss, F.: "Ability of Drilling
Mud to Lift Bit Cuttings," Trans., AlME (1950) 189, 35-46.
7. Lappe!, C. E. and Shepherd, C. B. : "Calculation of Particle
Trajectories," I and E Chem. (1940) 32, 605.
8. Michael, Paul: "Steady Motion of a Disc in a Viscous Fluid,"
Physics ofFluids (1966) 9, 466.
9. Rimon, Y.: "Numerical Solution of the Incompressible TimeDependent Viscous Flow Past a Thin Oblate Spheroid," Physics of
Fluids (1969) 12, Sup II, II-65.
10. Rimon, Y. and Cheng, S. 1.: "Numerical Solution of a Uniform
Flow Over a Sphere at Intermediate Reynolds Numbers," Physics
ofFluids (1969) 12,949.
11. Savins, 1. G. and Wallick, G. C.: "Viscosity Profiles, Discharge
Rates, Pressures and Torques for a Rheologically Complex Fluid in
a Helical Flow," AIChE Jour. (1966) 12, No.2, 357.
12. Sifferman, T. R., Meyers, G. M., Haden, E. L., and Wahl, H. A.:
"Drill-Cutting Transport in Full-Scale Vertical Annuli," J. Pet.
Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1295-1302.
13. Slattery, J. C. and Byrd,. R. B.: "Non-Newtonial Flow Past a
Sphere," Chem. Eng. Sc. (1961) 16,231.
14. Turian, R. M.: "An Experimental Investigation of the Flow of
Aqueous Non-Newtonian High Polymer Solutions Past a Sphere,"
AIChE Jour. (1967) 13, 999.
15. Walker, R. E.: "Migration of Particles to a Hole Wall in a Drilling
Wall," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1969) 147-154.
16. Walker, R. E. and Korry, D. E.: "Field Method of Evaluating
Annular Performance of Drilling Fluids," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1974) 167-173.
17. Walker, R. E. and Othmen, Al Rawi: "Helical Flow of Bentonite
Slurries," paper SPE 3108 presented at the SPE-AIME 45th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
18. Williams, C. E. and Bruce, G. H.: "Carrying Capacity of Drilling
Muds," Trans., AIME (1951) 192, 111-120.
19. Zeidler, H. Udo: "An Experimental Analysis of the Transport of
Drilling Particles," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1972) 39-48; Trans.,
AlME, 253.
Original man uscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 31, 1974.
Revised manuscript received May 13, 1975. Paper (SPE 4975) was first presented atthe
SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974. Copyright
1975 American I nstitute of Min ing, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paperwill be included in the 1975 Transactions volume.

900

and the shear stress is replaced by the right side of Eq. 7

to give
N Re =

100dp V p PL ;/ge
(A-3)
V 100FThp (Ps - PL) g/ge
Next, the right side ofEq. A-3 is used to replaceNRe and
the right side of Eq. 1 is used to replace Ned in Eq. A-I
to give'

24 v p PL

J
3

2g hp (ps - PL)

(100 dpv p PL y)2

100hp (Ps - PL)g ge FT
Solving Eq. A-5 for velocity gives
Vp

(~)3/4

(A-4)

dp 'Y hp (Ps - PL) g

v'pL FTge/ lOO

24

, .. (A-5)

which is Eq. 8.
APPENDIXB
Eq. 13 is developed starting with Eg. A-2, which is
solved for shear rate and is squared to give
............ (B-1)
Then, the shear-stress term is replaced with the right side
of Eq. 7 and the velocity term is. replaced with the right
side ofEq. 8 to give
100 (12)2/3 gc F T
=
NRe
2
( dpPL
(100)2 ge d p 'Y

y2

VPLge FT
100

....... (B-2)

Eq. B- 2 is solved for shear rate and the units are changed
to those listed under" Application" to give

.y =

8.62 (N Re )2/3
..................... (B-3)
de V;;;
IfN Re = 100, Eq. B-3 yields
.~

Yb =

186
,
de vP;which is Eq. 13.

(B-4)

JPT

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY