A Novel Approach to Determining Carrying Capacity Index Through Incorporation of Hole Size and Pipe Rotation

David G. Rathgeber, Erick Johnson, Peter A. Lucon, Ryan P. Anderson, B. Todd, J. Downey, Lee Richards
{"title":"A Novel Approach to Determining Carrying Capacity Index Through Incorporation of Hole Size and Pipe Rotation","authors":"David G. Rathgeber, Erick Johnson, Peter A. Lucon, Ryan P. Anderson, B. Todd, J. Downey, Lee Richards","doi":"10.2118/212985-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Current API RP13D guidelines outline 3 methods for determining hole-cleaning efficiency based on wellbore angle. Method 1, used in low-angle wellbores (<30°) compares cuttings slip velocity with annular velocity to determine a transport ratio and cuttings concentration. Method 2, also used for low-angle wellbores (<30°) derives a carrying capacity index (CCI) based on bulk annular velocity, fluid density and power-law rheology. Method 3, used in high-angle wellbores (<30°) derives a transport index (TI) based on fluid rheology, density, and flow rate. TI is then plotted on an empirically derived chart (Luo et al., 1992, 1994) to determine maximum allowable rate of penetration (ROP) that should ensure efficient hole cleaning.\n Although these methods are considered recommended practices by API, Method 3 (TI) is based on an outdated study (Luo et al., 1992) with limited scope (one flow loop, one field test). Additionally, this method neglects the importance of drill pipe rotation and pipe eccentricity in cuttings transport efficiency, which has been proven to be a factor in other studies (Akhshik et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 1997b).\n This paper highlights the shortcomings of current API standards and identifies what effects contributing factors such as pipe eccentricity and drill pipe rotation rates may have on cuttings transport efficiency. Further, this paper discusses the impact pipe-to-hole area ratio and wellbore flow area have on the effects of drill pipe rotation and flow channeling.\n Five horizontal wellbores were modeled using Siemens Star CCM+ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software, with bottom-eccentric 4 ½″ drill pipe placement, in annular diameters of 6¾″, 7 ⅞″, 8 ⅜″ 8 ½″ and 8 ⅝″. Additionally, one bottom-eccentric 5″ drill pipe in an 8 ¾\" wellbore was modeled to compare identical pipe-to-hole area ratios with different flow areas. Simulations were run with drill pipe rotation speeds increasing from 0 to 180 RPM, in 30 RPM increments. In order to determine the impact fluid rheology has on flow channel development, both medium density oil-based muds and light density water-based muds were modeled and compared. Bulk annular flow velocity was set to 100 ft/min, to maximize the observable effects of drill pipe rotation. Bulk average velocity was calculated from cross sectional area, determining both annular velocity (velocity parallel to wellbore) and absolute velocity (fluid velocity magnitude regardless of direction). The resultant velocity profiles were used as the annular velocity component in API CCI and TI calculations and compared to bulk annular velocity.\n In addition to observing fluid velocity for CCI and TI calculations, changes in effective viscosity from the onset of pipe rotation was also analyzed to determine changes in wellbore parameters that may affect cuttings transport.","PeriodicalId":158776,"journal":{"name":"Day 3 Wed, May 24, 2023","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 3 Wed, May 24, 2023","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/212985-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Current API RP13D guidelines outline 3 methods for determining hole-cleaning efficiency based on wellbore angle. Method 1, used in low-angle wellbores (<30°) compares cuttings slip velocity with annular velocity to determine a transport ratio and cuttings concentration. Method 2, also used for low-angle wellbores (<30°) derives a carrying capacity index (CCI) based on bulk annular velocity, fluid density and power-law rheology. Method 3, used in high-angle wellbores (<30°) derives a transport index (TI) based on fluid rheology, density, and flow rate. TI is then plotted on an empirically derived chart (Luo et al., 1992, 1994) to determine maximum allowable rate of penetration (ROP) that should ensure efficient hole cleaning. Although these methods are considered recommended practices by API, Method 3 (TI) is based on an outdated study (Luo et al., 1992) with limited scope (one flow loop, one field test). Additionally, this method neglects the importance of drill pipe rotation and pipe eccentricity in cuttings transport efficiency, which has been proven to be a factor in other studies (Akhshik et al., 2015; Sanchez et al., 1997b). This paper highlights the shortcomings of current API standards and identifies what effects contributing factors such as pipe eccentricity and drill pipe rotation rates may have on cuttings transport efficiency. Further, this paper discusses the impact pipe-to-hole area ratio and wellbore flow area have on the effects of drill pipe rotation and flow channeling. Five horizontal wellbores were modeled using Siemens Star CCM+ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software, with bottom-eccentric 4 ½″ drill pipe placement, in annular diameters of 6¾″, 7 ⅞″, 8 ⅜″ 8 ½″ and 8 ⅝″. Additionally, one bottom-eccentric 5″ drill pipe in an 8 ¾" wellbore was modeled to compare identical pipe-to-hole area ratios with different flow areas. Simulations were run with drill pipe rotation speeds increasing from 0 to 180 RPM, in 30 RPM increments. In order to determine the impact fluid rheology has on flow channel development, both medium density oil-based muds and light density water-based muds were modeled and compared. Bulk annular flow velocity was set to 100 ft/min, to maximize the observable effects of drill pipe rotation. Bulk average velocity was calculated from cross sectional area, determining both annular velocity (velocity parallel to wellbore) and absolute velocity (fluid velocity magnitude regardless of direction). The resultant velocity profiles were used as the annular velocity component in API CCI and TI calculations and compared to bulk annular velocity. In addition to observing fluid velocity for CCI and TI calculations, changes in effective viscosity from the onset of pipe rotation was also analyzed to determine changes in wellbore parameters that may affect cuttings transport.
一种结合孔尺寸和管道旋转确定承载力指数的新方法
目前的API RP13D指南概述了3种基于井眼角度确定井眼清洗效率的方法。方法1,用于小角度井(<30°),将岩屑滑移速度与环空速度进行比较,以确定岩屑的输运比和岩屑浓度。方法2,也用于小角度井(<30°),基于整体环空速度、流体密度和幂律流变性,推导出承载能力指数(CCI)。方法3用于大角度井眼(<30°),根据流体流变、密度和流速得出输运指数(TI)。然后将TI绘制在经验推导的图表上(Luo et al., 1992,1994),以确定应确保有效的孔清洗的最大允许穿透速率(ROP)。虽然这些方法被API认为是推荐的做法,但方法3 (TI)是基于过时的研究(Luo et al., 1992),范围有限(一个流程回路,一个现场测试)。此外,该方法忽略了钻杆旋转和钻杆偏心对岩屑输送效率的重要性,这在其他研究中已被证明是一个因素(Akhshik et al., 2015;Sanchez等人,1997b)。本文强调了当前API标准的不足,并指出了诸如钻杆偏心和钻杆旋转速率等因素可能对岩屑输送效率的影响。进一步讨论了管孔面积比和井筒流动面积对钻杆旋转和窜流效果的影响。采用西门子Star CCM+计算流体动力学(CFD)软件对5口水平井进行建模,井底偏心为4½″,环空直径分别为6¾″、7⁄″、8 8 /″8½″和8⅝″。此外,在8¾”井眼中对一根底部偏心的5″钻杆进行了建模,以比较不同流动面积下相同的管孔面积比。模拟时,钻杆转速从0到180 RPM,以30 RPM的速度递增。为了确定流体流变对流道发育的影响,对中密度油基泥浆和轻密度水基泥浆进行了建模和比较。整体环空流速设置为100英尺/分钟,以最大限度地提高钻杆旋转的观察效果。总体平均速度由横截面积计算,确定环空速度(平行于井筒的速度)和绝对速度(与方向无关的流体速度大小)。在API CCI和TI计算中,将所得速度剖面用作环空速度分量,并与整体环空速度进行比较。除了观察CCI和TI计算中的流体速度外,还分析了管柱旋转开始时有效粘度的变化,以确定可能影响岩屑运移的井筒参数的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信