PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

2016, VOL. 34, NO. 6, 736–743

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02726351.2015.1116475

On the particle–particle contact effects on the hole cleaning process via a CFD–DEM
model
Siamak Akhshika, Mehdi Behzada, and Majid Rajabib
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran; bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of
Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The accurate and precise computational models in order to predict the hole cleaning process is one of CFD–DEM model; contact
the helpful assets in drilling industries. Besides the bulk properties such as the flow velocity, particles microscopic properties;
average size, cleaning fluid properties, etc., that will affect the cleaning process, there is an unanswered deviated well drilling; model
updating; particles transport
question about the microscopic properties of the particles, particularly those which determines the
mechanism
contact characteristics: Do those play a major role or not? The rudimentary answer is not. The first
purpose of the present work is to answer this question via a developed computational fluid dynamics
coupled with discrete element method (CFD–DEM) in which the six unknown rolling and sliding friction
coefficients of particle–particle contact, particle–wall contact, and particle–drill contact are considered as
the main microscopic properties of the contacts. The second purpose is to search for optimum values of
these coefficients in order to calibrate the CFD–DEM model with the experimental data for a near
horizontal well cleaning available in the literature. The verification of the calibrated CFD–DEM model is
checked by simulation of the hole cleaning process for different inclination angles of the deviated well.
The results indicate the pivotal role of the microscopic properties of the particles on the characteristics of
the particle transport mechanism.

Introduction the hole cleaning) with tolerable deviation with the experi-
mental data; although, for low fluid flow velocity regimes, the
One of the most critical issues in deviated well drilling is the
errors may exceed than 40%. In that model, arbitrary values
transport mechanism of the particles by drilling fluid. Having
are attributed to the sliding and rolling friction coefficients of
a good understanding about the physical properties of the par-
particle–particle, particle–well, and particle–drill pipe contacts
ticles transport phenomena helps the engineers and research-
due to this pre-judgment that those microscopic properties may
ers to optimize the quality of equipment’s and fluids and
not have so significant effects on the results. There is a broad
ultimately, to improve the performance of the drilling process.
existence of the reports focusing on the microscopic particles
All activities in these area have been devoted to the exper-
properties carried out with experimental and numerical
imentally or numerically investigations about the macroscopic
methods (Zhou et al. 2001; Feng and Yu 2007; Ai et al. 2011;
characteristics of the hole cleaning process without consider-
Wensrich and Katterfeld 2012; Zhao and Shan 2013; Wensrich,
ation about the particles’ microscopic properties (Tomren,
Katterfeld, and Sugo 2014; Akhshik et al. 2015c). However,
Iyoho, and Azar 1986; Ford et al. 1996; Nguyen and Rahman
according to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no infor-
1996; Larsen, Pilehvari, and Aza 1997; Kamp and Rivero
mation concerning microscopic particles properties in hole
1999; Martins, Santana, and Gaspari 1999; Masuda et al.
cleaning process. The main aim of the present work is to exam-
2000; Li and Walker 2001; Ramadan et al. 2001; Kelessidis
ine the possible contribution of the particles’ microscopic
and Bandelis 2004; Ozbayoglu et al. 2005; Capo et al. 2006;
properties (i.e., sliding and rolling friction coefficients) on the
Chen et al. 2007; Espinosa-Paredes, Salazar-Mendozab, and
accuracy and precision of the developed CFD–DEM model.
Cazarez-Candia 2007; Ozbayoglu et al. 2010; Sorgun, Aydin,
and Ozbayoglu 2011). Just recently, the authors of the present
work, Akhshik et al. (2015a, 2015b), have developed a compu- Mathematical formulation
tational fluid dynamics coupled with discrete element method
(CFD–DEM) model in order to simulate the hole cleaning The computational models are based on the developed CFD–
process in a deviated well considering the particle–particle, DEM model provided by the same authors, Akhshik et al.
particle–wall, and particle–fluid interaction via a two way coup- (2015a). The fluid motion is modeled with the local averaged
ling approach. Their model could predict the macroscopic Navier–Stokes equations on a computational cell scale, while
properties of the phenomenon such as the particle volume con- the particles are modeled as a discrete phase, solved by New-
centration (as an index of deposition and the performance of ton’s laws of motion through the calculated flow field. The
coupling between CFD and DEM is furnished via proper

CONTACT Siamak Akhshik [email protected] Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/upst.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 737

Table 1. Governing equations and contact forces.

Governing Equations and Contact Forces Equation
Fluid Continuity Equation: @ ðaqf Þ
þ r:ðaqf uf Þ ¼ 0; (1)
@t
Fluid Conservation Equation of Momentum:
@ ðaqf uf Þ
þ r:ðaqf uf uf Þ ¼ arp þ r:as Sf þ aqf g; (2)
@t h i (3)
s ¼ 23 ðlr:uf ÞI þ l ruf þ ðruf ÞT ;
(4)
PN �
Source Term: Sf ¼ Ff ;i Vcell ;
i¼1
Ff ;i ¼ 1 3 (5)
6 pdp qf g
þ FD;i þ FS;i þ FM;i
Dynamics Viscosity: (6)
8
< l ¼ lyield ; when c_ < lsyield 0

n n
: l ¼ s0 þkðc_ ðc_s0 =lyield Þ Þ ; when c_ > s0
lyield
Transitional
! Motion of a Particle: (7)
@u Pp Figure 1. Configuration of problem.
mp @tp ¼ mp g þ Fc;q þ FD þ FS þ FM þ Fp ;
q
Rotational Motion of a Particle: (8)
P� p �
p
d
I x
dt p p ¼ T t;q þ T p
r;q þ T DT ; Configuration of problem
q
Contact Forces: Fpc;q ¼ Fn;pq þ Fdn;pq þ Ft;pq þ Fdt;pq ; (9) The configuration of the problem consists of a finite length
pffiffiffiffi (10)
Normal Contact Force: Fn;pq ¼ 43 E � R� d3=2 ; eccentric annulus created by two cylindrical bodies, deviated
qffiffi n;pq pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (11)
Normal Damping Force: Fdn;pq ¼ 2 56 pffiffilnffi2ffiffieffiffiffiffiffi2ffi Sn;pq m� vn;pq ; from the vertical by the angle of θ. The interior cylinder rotates
ln eþp (12)
Tangential(Contact Force: � with a constant rotating velocity around its axis. The two-
� � �
d� t;pq S�t;pq ; for �Ft;pq � < ls �Fn;pq � phase flow including dispersed particles in a progressive fluid
Ft;pq ¼ l �F � vt;pq ; for�F � � l �F ��
� � �
s n;pq jv j
t;pq
t;pq s n;pq is entered interior the annulus from one end and exited from
qffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (13)
d
Tangential Damping Force: Ft;pq ¼ 2 56 pffiffilnffi2ffiffieffiffiffiffiffi2ffi St;pq m� vt;pq ;
the other. Boundary conditions of the problem include the
� ln
� eþp
(14) specific value for the velocity inlet and the pressure outlet
Tangential Torques: Tpt;q ¼ rpq � Ft;pq þ Fdt;pq ; (see Figure 1). The fluid flow on the wall is taken no slip.
� �� � x (15)
Rolling Resistance Torque: Tpr;q ¼ lr �rpq ��Fn;pq � xpq ; The slip is considered for all interactions between particle–
j pq j
Pressure Gradient Force: Fp ¼ Vp ∇ p (16) particle, particle–wall, and particle–fluid. The process is
considered isothermal.
consideration of particles–fluid interaction forces. Table 1 gives The geometrical parameters, the rheological constants
details of the full governing equations. Furthermore, the hydro- and the operational characteristics are inspired from the
dynamic forces and hydrodynamic torques are given in Table 2. experimental study by Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986) as given
in Table 3. The fluid domain is divided into 140,000 CFD
computational cells for adequate stability of the solution and
Table 2. Hydrodynamic forces and hydrodynamic torque. satisfactory convergence.
Hydrodynamic Forces and Hydrodynamic Torques Equation
Drag Force: FD ¼ Ap(uf up), (17)
3 ð1 aÞql juf up j (18) Results and discussions
Particle Exchange Coefficient: Ap ¼ 4 CD dp a 1:65 ;
30:0
Drag Coefficient: CD ¼ Re HB
þ 67:289
e5:03u ;
(19) In the utilized model, six different values will characterize
(20) the contact effects: the sliding and rolling friction coefficients
Particle Reynolds Number: ReHB ¼ 1þRe7pPLBiHB ;
24
BiHB ¼ (τ0/k)(dp/|uf up|) (21) of particles–well contact, ls, p w, lr, p w, the sliding and roll-
� �2 n (22)
RePL ¼ qf �uf up � dpn =k ing friction coefficients of particles–drill pipe contact, ls, p d,
� �5 (23)
q d
Drag Torques: TpDT ¼ 2p 2p CDR jXjX lr, p d, and the sliding and rolling coefficients of the particles–
X ¼ $ × uf/ 2 ωp (24) particles contact, ls, p p, lr, p p. In a view, all of six unknown
( (25)
12:9
Re0:5
þ 128:4
Rer ; 32 � Rer < 1000
Rotational Drag Coefficient: CDR ¼ r
64p Table 3. Data used for verification of numerical solution and the experimental
; Re r < 32
Rer
� data reported by Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986).
Reynolds Number of Particle Rotation: Rer ¼ qdp2 jXj l (26)
� � � Parameter Variable Value Units
Shear Lift Force (Saffman): FS ¼ CLS q8f p dp3 uf up � xf (27)
Drill String Length L 12 m
Curl of the Fluid Velocity: ωf ¼ ∇ × uf (28) Angle of Inclination θ 00,20,40,60,80 deg
(29) Pipe Diameter Dp 48.26 mm
CLS ¼ 4:1126
Re0:5
f ðReHB ; Res Þ Hole Diameter Dh 127 mm
s � � (30)
1 0:3314b0:5 e ReHB =10 þ 0:3314b0:5 ReHB � 40 Particle Diameter dp 6.35 mm
f ðReHB ; Res Þ ¼ Particle Density Dry density ρp 2619 Kg/m3
0:0524ðb:ReHB Þ0:5 ReHB > 40
β ¼ 0.5Res/ReHB (0.005 < β < 0.4) (31) Fluid Density ρf 1012 Kg/m3
� Power Law Exponent n 0.65 –
Reynolds Number for Shear Flow: Res ¼ qf dp2 jxf j l (32)
� � ½X�ðuf up Þ� (33) Consistency Factor k 0.28 Pa.sn
Rotational Lift Force (Magnus): FM ¼ p d2 qf CLM �uf up � 8 p jXj
Fluid Inlet Velocity uf, inlet 0.58(1.9), m/s (ft/s)
Coefficient of Rotational Lift:� (34) 0.72(2.39), 1.165(3.82)
� Drill Pipe Rotation Speed ωdrillpipe 50 Rpm
0:5684Re0:4 0:3
CLM ¼ 0:45 þ ReReHBr 0:45 e r ReHB
Eccentricity Ratio S 0.5 –
738 S. AKHSHIK ET AL.

Figure 2. The effect of sliding/rolling friction between particles–drill pipe; (a) ls, c d ¼ 0.1, lr, c d ¼ 0.02, (b) ls, c d ¼ 0.3, lr, c d ¼ 0.04.

coefficients may have simultaneous effects on the particle

transport mechanism; but focusing on the special cases of
problem, their effects may be isolated from each other.
Consider the observable fact reported by Tomren, Iyoho,
and Azar (1986) that noticed about the backward motion of
bed layer (the deposited particles on the bottom of the well)
for special case of inclination angle 60° and fluid inlet velocity
of 0.58 m/s. Considering the physics behind that special
motion, it is realistic to attributes the occurrence of the back-
ward motion of the bed layer to the sliding and rolling friction
between the particles and the well. Therefore, by simulating
the problem for different values of sliding and rolling friction
coefficients of particle–well contact (i.e., ls,p w ¼ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5,
0.7, 0.9 and lr,p w ¼ 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1), it is found
that the described backward motion is occurred at inclination
angle of 60° for approximately ls,p w ¼ 0.5 and lr,p w ¼ 0.04.
The other values may lead to backward sliding back for other
inclination angles of well.
Another special phenomenon can be focused in which the
effects of rolling and sliding coefficient between the particles
and the drill pipe are dominant: The swaying phenomenon.
It is clear that this phenomenon is generated due to the
rotation of drill pipe and is primarily affected by the contact
properties between the particles and the drill pipe. The practi-
cal range of swaying angles between 20–30° is anticipated for
drill pipe rotation speed of 50 rpm and fluid inlet velocity of
0.58 m/s Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar 1986. As similar as the
approximate approach taken above, the selected values of
ls,p d ¼ 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 and lr,p d ¼ 0.02, 0.04, 0.06,
Figure 3. Particles transport simulation for inlet fluid velocity of 0.58 m/s and
0.08, 0.1 are examined and the values of ls,p d ¼ 0.3 and lr,p d sliding friction coefficient of ls ¼ 0.3 with different rolling friction coefficients:
¼ 0.04 are obtained for which the swaying angle of 24° is (a) lr ¼ 0.02; (b) lr ¼ 0.04; (c) lr ¼ 0.06; (d) lr ¼ 0.08; (e) lr ¼ 0.1.
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 739

the particle–particle contact effects on the macroscopic

properties of the hole cleaning process. To do this, the
particle volume concentration and the particle transport
velocity (i.e., the average velocity of the bed moving layer,
Akhshik et al. (2015a)) as the two main macroscopic para-
meters which may characterize the quality of transportation
are calculated via CFD–DEM simulations for selected values
of ls, p p ¼ 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 and lr, p p ¼ 0.02, 0.04, 0.06,
0.08, 0.1, for different inlet fluid flow velocities of 0.58,
0.72, and 1.165 m/s and for a near horizontal configuration
of the well (i.e., 80° inclination angle) as experimented by
Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986).
Some of the simulations are depicted in Figures 3(a)–(e)
and 4(a)–(d) which demonstrate the particle transportation
for 80° well inclination angle, fluid flow inlet velocity of
0.58 m/s, pipe rotation speed of 50 rpm, and selected values
for ls, p p, and lr, p p. As shown in Figure 3(a)–(e), greater
rolling friction coefficients give higher particles bed height.
Figure 4. Particles transport simulation for inlet fluid velocity of 0.58 m/s and
rolling friction coefficient of lr ¼ 0.06 with different sliding friction coefficients: This is because greater resistance forces to the rotational
(a) ls ¼ 0.3; (b) ls ¼ 0.5; (c) ls ¼ 0.7; (d) ls ¼ 0.9. motion of particles which provide dissipation mechanisms to
consume the kinetic energy and stop the rotational motion
of particles, leading to the formation of higher bed
created. For example, Figure 2(a) and (b) illustrates the heights. Similarly, the same result is observable by increasing
volume fraction distribution of particles and the occurred the values of the sliding friction coefficients as is depicted in
swaying angles for two sets of (a) ls,c d ¼ 0.1, lr,c d ¼ 0.02, Figure 4(a)–(d).
(b) ls,c d ¼ 0.3, lr,c d ¼ 0.04. The evaluated particle volume concentrations and the
At this point, considering the obtained approximate values particle transport velocities are given in Figures 5(a)–(d) and
for sliding and rolling coefficients for particle–well and 6(a)–(d), respectively, and compared with the experimental
particle–drill pipe contacts, the model is ready to focus on data reported by Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986).

Figure 5. Comparison of the particles volume concentrations predicted by CFD–DEM model with the measured ones by Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986) for different
rolling/sliding friction coefficient.
740 S. AKHSHIK ET AL.

and 8(a)–(d). As it is seen in these figures, both of the particle

volume concentration and the particle transport velocities are
influenced by the sliding and rolling friction coefficients of the
particle–particle contacts; while the former is more sensitive
than the latter. Greater values of both friction coefficients lead
to greater values of particle volume concentrations and the
particle transportation velocities. This is due to this simple fact
that as the motion of particles is obstructed via higher collision
and pile up of particles, the height of bed layer increases which
clearly yields to higher particle packing (volume
concentration). Moreover, for higher heights of bed layer,
the effective cross-section of the free flow decreases and the
average fluid flow velocity increases which yields to higher
bed moving layer velocities.
In addition, it is seen that the accuracy of the model is
primarily affected by sliding friction coefficient with respect
to the rolling one which is a sign of domination of the sliding
mechanism of particle–particle contacts in comparison with
the rolling mode. Furthermore, the normalized errors have
not a monotonic dependency to the variations of the sliding
or rolling friction coefficients and it seems that optimum
Figure 6. Comparison of the particles transport velocities predicted by CFD– values for friction coefficients may be found to get the mini-
DEM model with the measured data reported by Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar mum deviations in comparison with the experimental data.
(1986) for different rolling/sliding friction coefficients. For the examined values of the friction coefficients, the value
of ls, p p ¼ 0.5 leads to higher accuracy of the model and
For better illustration and comparison between the the value of lr, p p ¼ 0.06 leads to higher precisions. Therefore,
experimental data of Tomren, Iyoho, and Azar (1986) and it seems that the developed CFD–DEM model may be cali-
the computational results, the normalized errors (i.e., brated using the updated values of particle–particle friction
Normalized Error (%) ¼ |Experimental Value Computational coefficients. Obviously, more exact calibration may be
Value|/Experimental Value × 100) are given in Figures 7(a)–(d) achieved if smaller increments are used to cover the examined

Figure 7. Normalized error between the particles volume concentrations obtained by CFD–DEM simulations and the experimental data, for different rolling/sliding
friction coefficients.
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 741

Figure 8. Normalized error between the particles transport velocities obtained by CFD–DEM simulations and the experimental data, for different rolling/sliding
friction coefficients.

ranges for friction coefficients; but due to very long times of 0.5, 0.7, 0.9) and five selected values for rolling one (i.e.,
computations (please see the computations framework of lr,p p ¼ 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1).
Akhshik et al. (2015a)), the analysis is confined to four It is considerable that the calibration process of CFD–DEM
selected values for sliding friction coefficient (i.e., ls, p p ¼ 0.3, model is achieved for a specific configuration of well

Figure 9. Particles volume concentration vs. annulus inclination for different and fluid inlet velocity using calibrated CFD–DEM model.
742 S. AKHSHIK ET AL.

(i.e., inclination angle of 80° or near horizontal well). Now, Nomenclature

this question comes in mind that is the calibrated model
Cc particle concentration in specified region, m 3
reliable for other configurations or not? To answer this ques-
CD drag coefficient
tion, some simulations are done for some selected inclination
CDR rotational drag coefficient
angles of deviated well of 0° (completely vertical well) 20°, 40°,
dp particle diameter, m
and 60°, in order to calculate the particles volume concentra-
Dp drill pipe diameter, m
tions for different inlet fluid flow velocities of 0.58, 0.72, and
Dh hole diameter, m
1.165 m/s. Figure 9(a)–(c) compare the computational results
Drp dimensionless ROP
for developed CFD–DEM model of Akhshik et al. (2015a)
e coefficient of restitution
and the calibrated one with the experimental data of Tomren,
E Young’s modulus, Pa
Iyoho, and Azar (1986). As it is seen, the calibrated model
E� equivalent Young’s modulus, Pa
follows the experimental results more precise than the
FD drag force upon pth particle, N
tradition CFD–DEM model, for all selected inclination angles
FM rotational lift force (Magnus) exerted on pth
and inlet fluid flow velocities and the normalized error
particle, N
between the model and the experiments reduces up to 12%,
Fn, pq normal contact force between particles p and q, N
particularly for lower inlet velocities.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the calibration process Fdn;pq normal damping force between particles p and q, N
according to the minimizing the macroscopic properties of Ff, i force exerting on the fluid in a CFD mesh cell, N
the particle transportation mechanism via searching for Ft, pq tangential contact force between particles p and q, N
optimum microscopic properties of the possible contacts is a Fdt;pq tangential damping force between particles p and
reliable tool, based on the physics of the problem, in order q, N
to improve the accuracy of the computational models. Fr Froude number
Moreover, it has been shown that the performance of the hole G shear modulus, Pa
cleaning process is strongly dependent to the microscopic G* equivalent shear modulus, Pa
properties of the particle–particle contacts. g acceleration of gravity, N · kg 1
k consistency index, Pa.sn
mp mass of particle p, kg
Conclusion m� equivalent particle mass, kg
In the presented work, a coupled CFD–DEM approach has N number of particles in computational cell
been used to investigate the particle–particle contact micro- n fluid behavior index
scopic properties (i.e., modeled as sliding and rolling friction p pressure, Pa
coefficients), on the macroscopic properties of the hole clean- rpq vector from the center of mass of particle p to the
ing process such as particle volume concentration (i.e., the contact point, m
index of particle deposition) and the particle transportation R� equivalent radius, m
velocity (i.e., the index of free fluid flow, in a deviated well ReHB particle Reynolds number
consisting of a rotating drill pipe. Res Reynolds number for shear flow
The unknown contact mechanism between the particles and Rgen generalized Reynolds number
the well is estimated according to experimentally observed ROP rate of penetration, m/h
backward motion of stationary bed layer along the deviated rpm revolutions per minute
well. In addition, the contact properties between the particles s eccentricity ratio
and the drill pipe are approximated via examining the swaying Sf source term in the momentum equation, N · m 3
angles of particles deposit. In order to investigate the effects of Sn,pq normal stiffness between particles p and q, N · m 1
sliding and rolling friction coefficients of particle–particle St,pq tangential stiffness between particles p and q, N · m 1
p
contacts, some realistic values are selected to evaluate the Tt;q torque between particles p and q generated by
macroscopic properties of the hole cleaning process. Comparing tangential forces, N · m
with the experimental results, it has been exposed that the Tpr;q torque between particles p and q generated by radial
sliding friction coefficient (sliding mode of contact) has the pri- forces, N · m
p
mary role while the rolling friction coefficient (rolling mode of TDT drag torques acting on particle p due to the fluid
contact) is the secondary one. Furthermore, the accuracy and velocity
precision of the computational model may be improved for t time, s
individual values of sliding/rolling coefficients. Examining the Ta Taylor number
other configurations of the problem (i.e., different inclinations u velocity vector, m · s 1
of the deviated well), it has been shown that the calibrated uf,inlet fluid inlet velocity
CFD–DEM model leads to more accuracy and precision for Vcell volume of CFD mesh cell, m3
prediction of the realistic behavior of the problem in compari- Vp volume of the pth particle, m3
son with the experimental data. Therefore, it may be inferred vt,pq tangential component of the relative velocity between
that the calibration of the CFD–DEM model via the micro- two contacted particles, m · s 1
scopic properties of the contact is a physic-based and reliable vn,pq normal component of the relative velocity between
procedure to improve the accuracy of the modeling. two contacted particles, m · s 1
 PARTICULATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 743

Greek Espinosa-Paredes, G., R. Salazar-Mendozab, and O. Cazarez-Candia.

α volume fraction of fluid phase 2007. Averaging model for cuttings transport in horizontal wellbores.
δn, pq normal overlap between particles p and q, m Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 55 (3–4):301–16.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.03.027.
δt, pq tangential overlap between particles p and q, m Feng, Y. Q., and A. B. Yu. 2007. Microdynamic modelling and analysis
θ angle of inclination of the fluidisation and segregation of binary mixtures of particles.
l fluid viscosity, Pa · s Chemical Engineering Science 62:256–68. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2006.08.015.
lr coefficient of rolling friction Ford, J. T., M. B. Oyeneyin, J. M. Peden, M. B. Larrucia, and D. Parker.
ls sliding friction coefficient 1996. A new MTV computer package for hole-cleaning design and
analysis. SPE Drilling & Completion 11 (3):168–72. doi:10.2118/
ρf density of fluid phase, kg · m 3 26217-pa.
ρp particle density, kg · m 3 Kamp, A. M., and M. Rivero. 1999. Layer modeling for cuttings transport
υ Poisons ratio in highly inclined wellbores, SPE 53942. Latin American and Carribean
ωdrillpipe drill pipe rotation speed Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezulea, April 21–23.
ωp angular velocity of particle p, rad · s 1 Kelessidis, V. C., and G. E. Bandelis. 2004. Flow patterns and minimum
suspension velocity for efficient cuttings transport in horizontal and
ωpq relative angular velocity of particle p to particle q, deviated wells in coiled-tubing drilling. SPE Drilling & Completion
rad · s 1 19 (4):213–27. doi:10.2118/81746-pa.
ωf curl of the fluid velocity, rad · s 1 Larsen, T. I., A. A. Pilehvari, and J. J. Azar. 1997. Development of a new
Ω relative angular velocity of the particle to the fluid, cutting transport model for high angle wellbores including horizontal
rad · s 1 wells. SPE Drilling & Completion 12 (2):129–36. doi:10.2118/25872-pa.
Li, J., and S. Walker. 2001. Sensitivity analysis of hole cleaning parameters
Subscripts in directional wells. SPEJ 6 (4):356–63. doi:10.2118/74710-pa.
Martins, A. L., M. L. Santana, and E. F. Gaspari. 1999. Evaluating the
D drag transport of solids generated by shale instabilities in ERW drilling.
p particle p SPE Drilling & Completion 14 (4):254–59. doi:10.2118/59729-pa.
q particle q Masuda, Y., S. Naganawa, Q. Doan, T. Yonezawa, A. Kobayashi, and A.
f fluid Kamp. 2000. Experimental study to determine critical flow rate of cut-
HB Herschel–Bulkley tings transport during underbalanced drilling, IADC/SPE 62737. Asia
Pacific Drilling Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 11–13.
M Magnus Nguyen, D., and S. S. Rahman. 1996. A three-layer hydraulic program for
n normal effective cuttings transport and hole cleaning in highly deviated and
R Rayleigh horizontal wells. IADC/SPE 36383. Presented at the Asia Pacific
r rolling Drilling Technology Kuala Lumpur-Malaysia, September 9–11.
s sliding Ozbayoglu, M. E., Z. S. Miska, T. Reed, and N. Takach. 2005. Using foam
in horizontal well drilling: A cuttings transport approach. Journal of
t tangential Petroleum Science and Engineering 46 (4):267–82. doi:10.1016/j.
z axial petrol.2005.01.006.
l viscosity Ozbayoglu, M. E., A. Saasen, M. Sorgun, and K. Svanes. 2010. Critical
fluid velocities for removing cuttings bed inside horizontal and
deviated wells. Petroleum Science and Technology 28:594–602.
References doi:10.1080/10916460903070181.
Ramadan, A., P. Skalle, S. T. Johansen, J. Svein, and A. Saasen. 2001.
Ai, J., J. F. Chen, J. M. Rotter, and J. Y. Ooi. 2011. Assessment of rolling Mechanistic model for cuttings removal from solid bed in inclined
resistance models in discrete element simulations. Powder Technology channels. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 30 (3–4):
206 (3):269–82. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.09.030. 129–41. doi:10.1016/s0920-4105(01)00108-5.
Akhshik, S., M. Behzad, and M. Rajabi. 2015a. CFD–DEM approach Sorgun, M., I. Aydin, and M. E. Ozbayoglu. 2011. Friction factors for
to investigate the effect of drill pipe rotation on cuttings transport hydraulic calculations considering presence of cuttings and pipe
behavior. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 127 (1): rotation in horizontal/highly-inclined wellbores. Journal of Petroleum
229–44. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2015.01.017. Science and Engineering 78 (2):407–14. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.
Akhshik, S., M. Behzad, and M. Rajabi. 2015b. CFD-DEM model 06.013.
for simulation of non-spherical particles in hole cleaning process. Tomren, P. H., A. W. Iyoho, and J. J. Azar. 1986. Experimental study of
Particulate Science and Technology 33 (5):472–81. doi:10.1080/02726351. cuttings transport in directional well. SPE Drilling Engineering 1
2015.1010760. (1):43–56. doi:10.2118/12123-pa.
Akhshik, S., M. Behzad, and M. Rajabi. 2015c. Simulation of the interac- Wensrich, C. M., and A. Katterfeld. 2012. Rolling friction as a technique
tion between non-spherical particles within the CFD-DEM framework for modelling particle shape in DEM. Powder Technology 217 (1):
via multi-sphere approximation and rolling resistance method. 409–17. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2011.10.057.
Particulate Science and Technology 1–11. doi:10.1080/02726351.2015. Wensrich, C. M., A. Katterfeld, and D. Sugo. 2014. Characterisation of the
1089348. effects of particle shape using a normalised contact eccentricity.
Capo, J., M. Yu, S. Miska, N. E. Takach, and R. Ahmed. 2006. Cuttings Granular Matter 16 (1):327–37. doi:10.1007/s10035-013-0465-1.
transport with aqueous foam at intermediate inclined wells. SPE Zhao, J., and T. Shan. 2013. Coupled CFD–DEM simulation of fluid–
Drilling & Completion 21 (2):99–107. doi:10.2118/89534-pa. particle interaction in geomechanics. Powder Technology 239 (1):
Chen, Z., R. M. Ahmed, S. Miska, N. E. Takach, M. Yu, M. B. Pickell, 248–58. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2013.02.003.
and J. Hallman. 2007. Experimental study on cuttings transport Zhou, Y. C., B. H. Xu, A. B. Yu, and P. Zulli. 2001. Numerical investi-
with foam under simulated horizontal downhole conditions. SPE gation of the angle of repose of monosized spheres. Physical Review
Drilling & Completion 22 (4):304–12. doi:10.2118/99201-pa. E 64 (2). doi:10.1103/physreve.64.021301.
Copyright of Particulate Science & Technology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.