Dynamics of Rock·Chip Removal

by Turbulent Jetting
M.R. Wells, SPE, Amoco Production Co.

Summary. The efficiency of the drilling process is largely governed by the efficiency with which the available hydraulics removes
rock chips created by the mechanical action of the bit. To date, a physical understanding of the process associated with the hydraulic
removal of the chips remains unknown. Rock chips mechanically freed from the parent rock by the drilling action of the bit are generally
held in place by overbearing pressures. These pressures must be overcome either by hydraulic action or by mechanical regrinding before
the chip may be removed. This work presents the experimental results of a study designed to examine the effects of dynamic forces
brought about by jet turbulence on the removal of loose rock chips. Synthetic chips of known shape and size, embedded in a simulated
hole bottom and held in place by hydrostatic pressure, were removed solely by the jetting action of a vertically impinging jet. The synthet-
ic chips were flush-mounted into the plate, rendering the shear forces on the surface of the chips at least two orders of magnitude less
than the hold-down forces. Measurements of the static jet-impingement pressure and the dynamic fluctuating pressure caused by the jet
turbulence were related to turbulent time-scale measurements made using a laser Doppler anemometer, producing an analytical tool to
predict the necessary conditions for chip removal. Tests were conducted in both water and an optically clear synthetic clay mixture having
non-Newtonian viscosity characteristics similar to a bentonitic fluid. The results indicate that chip hold-down forces can be overcome
by the turbulent action of the jet nozzle. Correlations are given indicating the conditions necessary (i.e., jet standoff, radial chip location,
chip size, and viscosity) to permit chip removal. These results can be used to place and size jets optimally to maximize chip remov2.l
and bottomhole cleaning.

Introduction
A major factor controlling the efficiency of rotary drilling opera-
tions is the rate at which loose rock chips are removed from the
bottom of the hole. Ideally, rock chips would be hydraulically re-
moved as rapidly as they were created by the mechanical action
of the bit. Strong evidence suggests, however, that chips mechani-
cally loosened from the parent formation are frequently held to the
hole bottom by large differential pressures, a phenomenon histori-
cally termed the "chip hold-down effect." Chips held to the hole
bottom in this manner are then reground until they are either
mechanically dislodged or ground small enough to render the hold-
down forces ineffective against the available hydraulic forces. If
the chip hold-down effects are minimized, higher drilling rates may
be realized by reduction of the amount of energy wasted on regrind-
ing loose rock chips.
Hydraulics at the bit traditionally has been optimized by max-
imizing either bit hydraulic horsepower or impact force. The total
discharge through the bit, however, is restricted to an envelope of
velocity (maximum or JIlinimum) in the well annulus to ensure ef-
fective cuttings transport. Any further enhancements to the hydraulic
efficiency require alterations to the contours, orientation, or loca-
tion of the nozzles. To make adjustments to these parameters ef-
fectively, a knowledge of the physical phenomenon responsible for
hole cleaning is essential. In particular, an understanding of the
hydraulic forces available beneath the bit to lift chips from the bot-
tom of the wellbore is required.
One force available to overcome chip hold-down effects is the
positive fluctuating pressure (dynamic pressure) resulting from the
turbulent flow conditions adjacent to the bottom of the hole. This
study examines the conditions that promote lifting, by turbulent pres-
sure fluctuations, of particles held to the hole bottom by differen-
tial pressure. Experiments were conducted with a single jet
impinging on a flat permeable plate. Synthetic rock "chips" of
known size and shape were flush-mounted in the plate. Measure-
ments were made of the hold-down forces (chip weight, differen-
tial pressure, and jet-impingement pressure) and available lifting
forces (shear stress and pressure fluctuations along the hole bot-
tom) on the individual chips to evaluate quantitatively the condi-
tions necessary for their removal. Two working fluids, water and
an optically clear non-Newtonian solution, were used to evaluate
the effects of non-Newtonian viscosity on the chip-removal rate.
Background
The task of investigating the phenomena associated with bit hydraul-
ics, specifically the chip hold-down problem, historically has taken
several diverse approaches. Early investigators focused on such
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
areas as the bottornhole shear forces, 1 scour rates of packed chip
beds, 2 and visualization of the crossflow beneath bits. 3 The fol-
lowing approach concentrates on the random fluctuating lift forces,
generated by the turbulent flow around the bit, that are available
to assist in lifting loose rock chips from the bottom of the borehole.
The basic concepts of the chip hold-down phenomenon are illus-
trated in Fig. 1. In this ideal case, a rock chip, fractured in the
formation by the mechanical bit action, is held in place by a differ-
ential pressure across the chip caused by the hydrostatic pressure
of the fluid column in the wellbore. These pressures typically ex-
ceed the formation pore pressure by as much as 500 psi [34.5 MPa].
Clay particles in the drilling fluid tend to fIll the small cracks around
the loose chip, preventing the differential pressure across the chip
from being equalized. The forces acting on the chip may be divid-
ed into hold-down forces (differential and jet-impingement pres-
sures and chip weight) and chip-lifting forces (shear-stress-moment
forces and positive fluctuating pressure forces resulting from the
turbulent flow field adjacent to the chip). This last lifting force is
the object of the present investigation.
Classic studies of the resuspension of particles into a turbulent
fluid stemmed from the force-balance approach just described. 4,5
This approach, however, implies that particles are suspended in-
stantaneously from the surface once the forces holding the particle
to the surface are equalized, neglecting any particle inertia effects.
On the other hand, studies of the removal of small particles from
flat surfaces exposed to turbulent flow indicate that suspension and
removal of particles from a surface is a function of time. 6 These
observations suggest that suspension of particles from a surface is
of statistical origin, intimately associated with the random turbu-
lent motion of the fluid close to the surface. Particles to be removed
from a surface must necessarily be subject to a sufficient lift force
over some period of time. Fluctuating pressure forces resulting from
adjacent turbulent flow contain both positive (lifting) and negative
(hold-down) components. To provide a mechanism of chip removal,
the positive forces must persist long enough for the particle to be-
gin moving from the boundary.
To evaluate adequately the effects of the random lift forces on
the chip-removal rate, it is necessary to obtain a measure of the
length of time such lifting forces persist. The smaller the duration
of the lifting force, the less chance the particle has of being lifted
from the surface. The following study investigates the effects of
the magnitude and duration of the fluctuating lift forces on the rate
at which rock chips would be removed from the borehole. Although
the fluctuating-lift-force components are generally inadequate to
overcome most hold-down forces during drilling, it is evident that
optimization of these forces can make a significant improvement
in drilling rate.

144 SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989

 OYERBURDEN AND
JET IKPINCEHENT
PRESSURE

I
P'LUCTUATINC
TURBULENT
PRESSURE

PO",
PRESSURE

Fig. 1-Rock-chlp force balance.

TABLE 1-EXPERIMENTAL TEST MATRIX

do i)
Run" (in.) Ud o (psi)
1 0/32 4 to 24 110 to 350
2 0/32 3.56 to 21.3 170 to 300
3 '1j32 2.9 to 17.5 170 to 300
4 10/32 2.67 to 16 250 to 300
5 18/32 2 to 12 250 to 300
• All lests wilh bolh waler and SHe.

Experimental Procedure
The experimental test matrix is given in Table 1. The experiments
were carried out in a cylindrical test cell with a single jet imping-
ing on a flat permeable surface (Fig. 2). Flow proceeded from a
Moyno progressive cavity pump through a standard TriconeTM bit
nozzle onto the porous stainless-steel plate. Return flow could be
directed either through the porous impingement plate or back
through the top of the test section. The measuring apparatus is shown
schematically in Fig. 3. Analog data from the pressure transducers
was digitized by an analog/digital converter and reduced on a lab-
oratory minicomputer.
In the first phase of the experiment, the mean and dynamic (fluc-
tuating turbulent) pressures were measured along the cell bottom. Fig. 2-Test cell.
The mean impingement pressures were measured with Validyne

D
PDP 11/23

300 Gal. Storage

Tank

Peek
Meter

oooooc::::J
PCB Transducer PS
Validyne PS

Pump
500 psi
"-_ _...< lololo~D
000 0
"000

260 Gal/min

Fig. 3-Experlmental apparatus.

SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1989 145

 4
1
7/32 "
1
I
0.065"
-.L.- '\}- CHIP
51
0.109"
-+ POROUS
IMPINGEMENT
( ~/16" PLATE
Fig. 4-Chlp geometry.
15~--~----~--~--~----~--~---- __--,
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Shear Rate (Vsec)
Fig. 5-SHC rheology.
pressure transducers and were computed from batches of 2,000 in-
dividual samples obtained at 50 samples/sec. The dynamic pres-
sure fluctuations were measured with miniature piezoelectric
pressure transducers having frequency responses of 250,000 cy-
cles/sec [250 kHz]. The peak pressure fluctuations are of primary
interest because these maximum fluctuations are believed to be
responsible for the removal of the loose chips. An average peak
dynamic pressure is defined as a local pressure maximum that per-
sists over some predetermined, minimum time period. For the pres-
ent case, this minimum time was set at 0.1 msec, corresponding
to a typical value of the average time scale of the turbulence in the
boundary layer. A total of 1,000 peak pressures measured in this
manner were numerically averaged to obtain an individual, aver-
age peak fluctuating pressure. Twenty of these individually aver-
aged pressures finally were assembled, providing an estimate of
the average peak dynamic pressure.
In the second phase, synthetic rock chips, held to the bottom of
the impingement plate by differential pressure, were removed by
hydraulic jetting action. The geometry of the chips used and the
machined chip insert in the porous impingement plate are shown
in Fig. 4. The top surfaces of the chips were flat, allowing them
to be flush-mounted in the impingement plate, thus minimizing the
effects of wall shear. Measurements of the wall shear stress made
in an earlier investigation 7 indicated that the shear force experi-
enced by a typical chip was some three orders of magnitude less
than the hold-down force. In this manner, it was possible to exam-
ine the individual effects of pressure lift forces on the chip without
the further complications of shear forces.
The experiments were performed with a single synthetic rock chip
of chosen size flush-mounted in the porous plate at a known radial
146
I
( FLOW
ESTABLISHMENT
POTENTIAL
ZONE
CORE
\ FREE
JET
RECION
IMPINGEMENT
ZONE
WALL
JET
STAGNATION iW
RECION
~~~~~~~ro~I~NT~~~~=¢~==~____~~~__~r
Fig. 6-Characterlstlcs of Impinging Jet flows.
location from the jet axis. The chip was then held in place by dif-
ferential pressure, and the desired flow conditions were set. The
pressure on the chip was gradually released until the dynamic pres-
sure forces exceeded the hold-down forces, causing the chip to be
suspended into the adjacent flow. Pressure drops across the jet noz-
zle, tJ.po, and the chip bed, Apb, were continuously monitored by
the Validyne pressure transducers and recorded on the computer.
Pressures were sampled at 400 samples/sec to ensure that the con-
ditions prevalent at the time of chip suspension were instantane-
ously monitored. The differential pressure at the instant the chip
was removed (critical hold-down or critical differential pressure,
1600
Ap c) was then compared with the distribution of turbulent fluctu-
ating pressures measured for similar conditions.
The dynamic pressures along the hole bottom are distributed
statistically owing to the stochastic nature of the turbulent bounda-
ry layer. The critical hold-down forces, tJ.pc, a function of the in-
cipient dynamic pressures, would also be stochastic. To determine
a mean tJ.pc, several tests were conducted at each flow condition.
Assuming the critical differential pressure to be normally distrib-
uted, the Ape data were fit to Gaussian curves by nonlinear regres-
sion techniques to find the statistical mean value. These mean values
for the critical differential pressures were then used in the subse-
quent analysis.
A synthetic hectorite clay material (SHC) was selected to ana-
lyze the influence of non-Newtonian viscosities on the chip-removal
process. SHC, which is optically clear, was used rather than a ben-
tonitic drilling mud to allow visual monitoring of chip suspension.
Preliminary tests comparing the turbulent flow characteristics of
SHC with a typical low-solids bentonite drilling mud were per-
formed to ensure the compatibility of the two fluids. The results
indicated virtually no distinguishable differences in their turbulent
flow characteristics. The viscosity characteristics ofSHC are shown
in Fig. 5. The plastic viscosity and yield point values were 8 cp
and 5.3 Ibf/IOO ft2 [8 mPa's and 2.5 Pal, respectively. During the
experiments, the viscosity of the SHC was monitored periodically
with a six-speed Fann viscometer to prevent fluid viscosity varia-
tions of more than 5 %.
Results and Discussion
Phase I-Pressure Measurements. The flow generated by the ver-
tical impingement of an axisymmetric jet may be characterized by
four distinct regions (Fig. 6). Region I, the flow-establishment zone,
contains the jet's potential core, which, in this case, extends ap-
proximately six nozzle diameters from the nozzle exit. Region 2,
the free-jet region, exhibits a flow nearly identical to that of a free
jet, following the classic exponential centerline-velocity decay.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989
 Eq. 5
Newtonian

N 0
0.8

0.6
.. .
,
\
'I]

,, I]
lJ.

o d.
I]

... d.
d. = 8/32 in.
= 9/32 in•
d. = 11/32 in.
Non-Newtonian
= 8/32 in.
>
Q.. ''$
-IN
........... \1 • d. = 9/32 in.
lei • d. = 11/32 in.
0.4

0.2

04-------~--------~------~--------~------~
o 5 10 15 20 25

Fig. 7-Mean stagnation Impingement pressure distribution.

0.8

Newtonian
lJ. L/d. = 32
0.6 o Lid. = 24
o Lid." 20
I] Lid. = 16
v L/d. = 12
0.4
Non-Newtonian
... L/d... 32
• L/d. = 24
0.2 • L/d. = 20
• L/d... 16
• Lid." 12

04-------~----~--~~~&-~~~----~+_--.-~
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
~r/L
Fig. 8-Radlal Impingement pressure distribution.

Region 3 is the impingement region, characterized by the diver-
sion of the jet momentum flux to a direction parallel to the wall.
Region 4, the wall-jet region, develops from the edge of the im-
pingement zone into a flow field physically similar to that of a wall
jet. The following discussion is concerned primarily with Regions
3 and 4, where the flow interacts with the surface. In some of the
tests, however, the jet standoff distance, L, was less than the length
of the potential core, ultimately altering the characteristics of the
wall-region flow regime.
The pressure exerted by the impingement of turbulent jets can
be functionally described by
Pw=fl(uo,L,!J.r,do), ................................ (1)

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989 147

 0.6

Newtonian
0.5 b d. = .250
~ d. = .288
v d. = .347

0.4 0 d. = .375
c d. = .496
N 0
Non-Newtonian
>
Q..
~0.3 ·
•
d. = .250
d. = .288
ro:' ... d. = .347

0.2 • d. = .375

• d. = .496

0.1

0.04-------~----~------_r------~------~----~
o 5 10 20 25 30

Fig. 9-Dynamlc stagnation pressure distribution.

0.8 ...---~--_---~---~----, distance was less than the potential core length were best fit by an
exponential function, giving
PA'hpv~)=0.97 exp{[-(Lldo)/9.6]4} , Lldo~6.7 . ..... (5)
0.6 Fig. 7 shows the mean stagnation impingement pressure varia-
tion with standoffdistance for both water and SHe. In both cases,
the dimensionless curves are found to be similar and are well de-
N>O
Q. scribed by Eqs. 4 and 5, with no significant effect from the non-
"'~ 0.4 Newtonian fluid viscosity.
The radial variation of the mean impingement pressure, made
-'"
1-0:' dimensionless with the mean pressure measured at the stagnation
point, is shown in Fig. 8. The distribution has the usual Gaussian
0.2 shape and is given by
Pwlps =exp[ -50(ArIL) 1.8]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
Again, no distinguishable non-Newtonian fluid-viscosity effects
are apparent. The dimensionless data, however, were found to be
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 similar for every nozzle size and to collapse reasonably well to the
single curve given by Eq. 6.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of the dynamic stagnation pressures
Rg. 10-Dlstributlon of dynamic stagnation pressure maxima. with standoff for various nozzle sizes. The dynamic impingement
pressures were found to increase with nozzle diameter over the en-
tire range of impingement heights tested (2 ~ Lido ~ 24). These
where uo=pv~/2 is the nozzle exit momentum flux. By use of di- values also increased with standoff distance to approximately
mensional analysis, Eq. 1 can be reduced to Lldo =9, where, in every case, the curves passed through a maxi-
mum. As shown in Fig. 10, these maximum values were found to
Pw/('hp~)=fI [Lldo,ArIL] . .......................... (2)
increase linearly with nozzle diameter. Effects from the non-
On the jet axis, or at the stagnation point, this has the form Newtonian fluid viscosity are again not evident.
Fig. 11 shows the radial variation of the dynamic impingement
[P/('hPvb)](Lldo)n=c1 . ........ : .................. (3)
pressures. Following arguments similar to those used in analyzing
Studies 8 •9 of the impingement of circular jets on semi-infinite the mean impingement pressures, an appropriate description of the
flat plates give values for C 1 ranging from 25 to 30, where n=2. dynamic pressures can be given by
In the present experiments, the best fit for the stagnation pressure
data was obtained with C 1 =10.97 and n=1.4, giving P'w=f2(uo,L,Ar,do) . ............................... (7)

Psf('hp~»)(Lldo)1.4= 10.97, LIdo> 6.7 ................ (4)
The marked difference in the value of C 1 and n in the present
case is attributed to wall effects from the closed cavity on the mean
flow. The stagnation pressure data for the cases in which the standoff
Accounting for the nozzle-diameter effects with the dynamic wall
pressure at the stagnation point, the dimensionless dynamic wall
pressures in the impingement region, (ArIL ~0.9), is described by
p'wlps =exp[ -14(ArIL)I.4] .......................... (8)

148 SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1989

 Newtonian
1:> Lid. '" 3.48
A Lid. '" 6.97
0.8 --Eq.8 <> Lid. '" 10.45
v Lid. '" 17.42
o Lid. '" 20.91
c Lid. '" 27.87
0.6 Non-Newtonian
1- II
,. Lid ... 3.48
~
rd it 1:> Eq.9 · Lid. - 6.97
• L/d. - 10.45
0.4 ~,. ... L/d... 17.42
~ • Lid... 20.91
<>~-l ~ • Lid. - 27.87
°1~ •
0.2 ,,~~
"., . ~

0
0 0.2 0.4
"".'
0.6
6r/L
'"
--- ----
0.8
It

1.2

Fig. 11-Dynamlc wall-pressure distribution.

0.6,--------------------.., O.15.--___-~--.,.--....,._-.....,.--.,._-....,._-__,

--.' ' • LId = 2.67

0.5 . . . . . /,1',',,\ ... 'H': ~~ :;~ ,

-/~PV2
p. 2 0
• U/~\~\ ..........•... Lid = 19.£..
"'/1\/ \''\~ •. ~= 13.33 .
0

c:

. . ·•
0.10
0.4

0.3

0.2
~ ~/>q~~fJ;j: I ' ," . ", " • ~~,
...... :/' . . . . . . . . . .~''-to-=-.:. '" "" ~'
Ii,' ~
~¥
0.1
o.oo+---"':.......----r--~--;-----r--~-_f
o 8

o 2 6 B
Fig. 13-Dynamlc wall-pressure potential.

Fig. 12-Mean and fluctuating wall-pressure components.

and in the wall jet region (IlrIL>0.9) by
P;.,IPs =exp[ - 3.3(llrIL)o.8]. . ........................ (9)
For Lido> 6, the dimensionless dynamic pressure profiles were
found to collapse to a single curve. For standoff distances less than
the length of the potential core, Lido < 6, the dimensionless fluc-
tuating pressure profiles depart from similarity and persist for longer
radial distances. In particular, the dimensionless pressures for
Lido =3.48 (Fig. 11) are some 30 times greater than those resulting
from standoff distances greater than six nozzle diameters. Although
only the data for one nozzle diameter are shown, the results from
all other nozzle sizes tested show similar trends. Consistent with
the other pressure data, no distinguishable non-Newtonian
fluid-viscosity effects were seen in the dynamic pressure measure-
ments along the test-cell wall.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989
To examine further the influence of non-Newtonian fluid viscosity
on the turbulent pressure field, a highly viscous SHC mixture with
a plastic viscosity and yield point more than an order of magnitude
higher than the typical values exhibited by the test fluid was run.
In this extreme case, the dynamic pressure distributions still showed
no appreciable difference from those measured with water. In ac-
cordance with classic turbulence theory, this result is expected be-
cause it is generally thought that the prominent large-scale features
in typical turbulent flows are inviscid phenomena. Other investi-
gations,7-10 however, show that the levels of turbulence and aver-
age duration time of typical large eddies (turbulent time scale) in
similar jet flows are generally less for the non-Newtonian fluid.
Although there is no "direct" link between the dynamic pressure
distribution and the turbulent velocity distribution, the two are close-
ly related, It was originally believed that the dynamic wall pres-
sures of the non-Newtonian fluid would exhibit characteristics
similar to those seen in the measured velocity data, where turbu-
lent velocity levels in the non-Newtonian flow were significantly
less.
149
 0.25
0.25
• Lid = 16.0
• Lid, = 16.0
a ~=13.~
a ~=13.~ 0.20 • bid..:: 1~6
0.20
• bid...= 1QJ o Lid = 8~Q.
o Lid = 8)2_
• ~=-?,~
.~=:.?,~ 0.15 x bi~.::.1:~
0.15 bi~.::.1:z... c::
/~ \
x
c::
<l
'"
~
<l
"-
0:
"-
c::
<l
)-,
t('
V~\ \
'\.\
<l
0.10
0.10
\/" ~-
"
~
\~:::-..
\ , 0.05
0.05
--
----- -----..
><---'-,.........
~---
-- ...
----....:::::
....
"' ... _
~
-..,c

0.00
0 2 4 6 8
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 lIr/d.
Mid.
Fig. 15-Crltlcal-pressure ratios (non-Newtonian, do ='%2
Fig. 14-Crltlcal-pressure ratios (Newtonian, do ='%2 In,), In.).

Of particular interest is the flow region along the hole bottom,
where the dynamic pressure is greater than the mean impingement
pressure. Within this region, an excess lifting force is available to
aid in chip removal. The mean and dynamic pressure profIles for
a typical set of conditions are plotted in Fig. 12. The area between
the two curves, denoted by crosshatching, illustrates the condition
in which the dynamic pressures exceed the mean impingement pres-
sures, providing a net lifting force to overcome chip hold-down.
For convenience, a "wall-pressure potential," ell, can be defined
as the magnitude of the randomly fluctuating pressure above the
local impingement pressure that is potentially available for the
removal of rock chips. Thus,
eIl=ji'w-jiw' ..................................... (10)
This pressure potential affords a convenient measure of the avail-
able lift force caused by the turbulent pressure fluctuations. Keep
in mind that the fluctuating pressures of interest are both positive
(lifting) and negative (hold-down) and that it is not sufficient that
the pressure potential is large enough to overcome the hold-down
forces. A given pressure fluctuation must persist for a sufficient
period of time to allow the chip to move out of its bed. The wall-
pressure potential, derived from the mean and fluctuating pressure
distributions, is then a function of nozzle diameter, standoff dis-
tance, and radial location. A typical example of the distributions
of ell for various standoff distances and radial locations is shown
in Fig. 13 for the 17S2-in. [1.O-cm] nozzle. These curves show that
the region of maximum influence, where the potential for chip
removal is highest, is confined to a small ring surrounding the nozzle
and extending from 1:J.rldo= 1.75 to 2.5. Rock chips located direct-
ly beneath the nozzle exit would never experience a positive lift
force. This behavior is consistent with the experimental results of
Poreh and Hefez, 11 showing that the initial scour beneath imping-
ing jets removes debris only from a small ring area around the jet
axis. For short impingement heights, Lido < 6, the region of in-
fluence and the magnitude of the pressure potential are drastically
reduced. Conversely, as the standoff distance increases, the range
of potential influence also increases, but with a corresponding
decrease in the magnitude of the pressure potential. At the opti-
mum standoff, Lido == 9, the pressure potential is maximum and the
radial range of influence is also nearly maximum. These observa-
tions imply that extended nozzle bits, having nozzle standoff dis-
tances typically in the range 2.5 ~ Lido ~ 4.5, would generate a

2,-----~------~----~~----~------~----~
Newtonian
.. Lid, = 16.00
Q L/d, = 13.33
1.5 ..... . . .... ~ ...... .
o Lid, = 10.67

o Lid, = 8.00
v Lid, = 5.33

" L/d, = 2.66

Non-Newtonian

·········1·· .
• L/d, = 16.00
• L/d, = 13.33

0.5 • Lid, = 10.67

• L/d, = 8.00
• L d, = 5.33
• L/d, = 2.67
O~----~------~----~------~----~~----~
o 2 3 4 5 6
Mid o

Fig, 16-Normallzed critical-pressure ratios,

150 SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989

 O.lO.-----~----~--------___,
-~.
~~-
0.25
0.20 .
~
1. 0.15 .
<
0.10
Non-Newtonian
0.05
• d. = 9/32
o.oo-t------t------t-----t-------i
o 4
L'.r/d.
Fig. 17-Wall region Integral time scales.
very limited range of pressure potential, severely restricting the
range in which the bit may remove chips through the turbulent ac-
tion of the fluid. Typical three-cone bits, on the other hand, gener-
ally range in standoff dislfiIlce from LIdo = 12 to 24, much larger
than the optimum. Although these larger standoff distances may
increase the area of influence of the potential pressure, the magni-
tude of the fluctuating pressures decreases rapidly past Lido == 13.
In addition, the nozzles in typical Tricone bits are directed toward
the edge of the hole bottom. When three nozzles are run, the return
flow from beneath the bit tends to cross the jet flow, diverting the
jet axis even farther up the side of the borehole. This conceivably
could remove the pressure potential range of influence completely
away from the hole bottom. Therefore, optimally designed bits with
nozzle diameters and standoff distances sized such that Lido == 9
and with jets aimed directly at the hole bottom, would produce the
highest levels of pressure fluctuation over the largest percentage
of the hole bottom.
Phase 2-Chip Hold-Down Experiments. The chip hold-down
tests were conducted by positioning the test chip at various radial
locations beneath the jet and then measuring the critical hold-down
pressure the instant the chip was hydraulically removed. The tests
were designed to determine the extent to which the distribution of
the wall-pressure potential influenced the probability of chip
removal. In addition, the tests were to determine the influence of
the time scale (duration) of the turbulence adjacent to the wall on
the chip-removal phenomenon.
Figs. 14 and 15 show examples of the radial distribution of the
critical pressure ratios for the 1%2-in. [1.0-cm] nozzle when New-
tonian and non-Newtonian fluids, respectively, were used. The
curves have several qualitative similarities with the wall-pressure
potential curves (Fig. 13). First, the highest critical-pressure ra-
tios (i.e., the highest hold-down forces that were overcome by the
dynamic pressures along the wall) occurred for standoff distances
near the predicted optimum, Lido =9. Second, the maximum
critical-pressure ratios occurred between Ar/do =2 to 2.75 for
those cases in which the potential core did not impinge on the plate
(LIdo> 6). Third, the distribution of the critical hold-down pres-
sures vs. standoff distance closely resembles the distributions given
by the corresponding pressure potential curves. This close corre-
spondence between the predicted pressure potentials and the meas-
ured critical-pressure ratios lends validity to the notion of using
the potential pressures as a prediction tool to determine chip-removal
characteristics beneath drill bits.
The influence of the non-Newtonian fluid viscosity can be seen
by comparing Figs. 14 and 15. A general trend toward lower critical-
pressure ratios is evident with the non-Newtonian fluid. This im-
plies that although the pressure potential distributions for both fluids
are the same, the chips (subject to a given hold-down force) are
less likely to be removed with SHC than with water. An overall
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989
20,----~---~-------~--__,
~ ~-.~-. ~-~-···-···-t-t
" ••. -1-1
; 10
"~cL
5
o Newtonian
• Non-Newtonian
4 6
Fig. 18-Time-compensated critical-pressure ratios.
decrease in the critical-pressure ratios of 10% were r~alized with
SHC, compared with similar runs with water, for all three nozzles
tested.
To emphasize the similarity between the critical chip hold-down
pressure and the wall-pressure potential, a normalized critical-
pressure ratio was computed from a ratio of the two (Fig. 16). The
normalization procedure accounts for most of the variability in the
data seen in Figs. 14 and 15 (within a realistic range of scatter),
with the exception of that resulting from non-Newtonian fluid-
viscosity effects. The effects of non-Newtonian fluid viscosity are
more distinct, particularly in the region of highest pressure poten-
tial, 4>, or, correspondingly, in the region of highest critical chip
hold-down pressure (i.e., 1.5 ~ Ar/do ~ 2.5).
The chip-removal process is governed not only by the balance
of forces across the chip, but also by the duration or persistence
of such forces. A measure of the persistence of the fluctuating pres-
sure forces is the local turbulence time scale. This "integral" time
scale (the area beneath the autocorrelation function of the fluctuat-
ing turbulent velocity12) is a measure of the length oftime the tur-
bulent fluctuations at any point remain correlated. Larger integral
time scales imply larger packets of correlated fluid or larger tur-
bulent eddies in the flow, which, in turn, indicate the production
of higher fluctuating pressures. In a previous study, 7 measure-
ments were made of the integral scales along the wall jet region
for various standoff distances and nozzle sizes. Fig. 17 shows the
results of these measurements. The integral time scale in the wall
region of the flow was found to vary roughly as the square root
of the nozzle diameter. To account for the differences in the meas-
ured turbulent time scales arising from Newtonian and non-
Newtonian fluid viscosities, a dimensionless time scale was defined.
to = (d/vo)/A, .................................... (11)
where d/vo is a rough measure of the residence time of the fluid
in the test cell.
The rheological effects of the turbulence time scales on the critical-
pressure ratios are then compensated for by multiplying the critical-
pressure ratios in Fig. 16 by to. The results are shown in Fig. 18.
Most of the variability in the data resulting from non-Newtonian
viscosity effects appear to be accounted for. Longer integral time
scales result in the ability of the chips to overcome higher critical
hold-down pressures. In particular, under the conditions tested, a
10% decrease ill the integral time scale caused a corresponding 10%
decrease in the critical hold-down pressure.
Conclusions
1. The mean impingement and dynamic fluctuating pressures have
similar distributions at standoff distances greater than the length
of the potential core. For standoff distances less than the potential
core length, the dimensionless dynamic pressures tend to maintain
151
high~r magnitudes over longer radialdistances. Note, however, that
the dimensionless pressures are obtained by determining the ratios
of the pressures by their local maximum, the value at the stagna-
tion point. The magnitude of the dynamic pressures at the stagna-
tion point for small standoff distances, Lido < 6, is small.
Therefore, although the dynamic pressures under these conditions
tend to spread radially, their magnitude is too small to affect chip
removal significantly.
2. The mean and dynamic pressure distributions of the Newtoni-
an and non-Newtonian fluids are, for all practical purposes, iden-
tical. This remained true even for cases in which extremely viscous
mixtures of SHe were tested. The implication is that the wall-
pressure-potential curves developed with water would be applica-
ble to drilling fluids with no apparent loss of accuracy.
3. With the wall-pressure-potential analysis, an optimum stand-
off distance for hole cleaning, namely Lido =9, and an optimum
radial distance to promote chip removal and hole cleaning,
Arldo =2, can be identified.
4. The maximum dimensionless dynamic pressure beneath typi-
cal drill-bit nozzles is a linear function of the nozzle diameter. The
actual dynamic pressure (the product of Apo and the dimension-
less pressure) can be optimized by considering the interaction be-
tween Apo and do and by maximizing the bottomhole turbulence.
This information will greatly assist in optimizing hydraulics to en-
hance hole cleaning through turbulent pressure fluctuations. Noz-
zles may be sized to maximum generation of turbulent energy at
the hole bottom while sufficient bit pressure drops and proper an-
nular flow rates for hole cleaning are maintained. Nozzle sizing
can be such that three nozzles, each a different size, would be used
to maintain adequate flow rates while maximum turbulence at the
hole bottom is generated.
5. The critical-pressure conditions for hydraulically lifting loose
rock chips from the bottom of the borehole are a function of the
pressure drop across the nozzle, nozzle diameter, jet-standoff dis-
tance, radial distance from the impingement point, and local per-
sistence time of the adjacent turbulence. The wall-pressure potential,
in conjunction with the integral time scale of the near-wall turbu-
lence, is a good predictor of the critical pressures necessary to re-
move rock chips from the bottom of the borehole.
6. The reduction in the critical hold-down pressures measured
while non-Newtonian fluids are used is reflected by a correspond- •
ing reduction in the integral time scales associated with the non-
Newtonian turbulence near the wall.
Note that all the tests were conducted with standard three-cone
bit nozzles. Ongoing studies examining new nozzle designs to
produce higher levels of turbulence or to structure the turbulence
emitting from the nozzle to produce higher pressure fluctuations
are in progress. Investigators have demonstrated the ability to
produce nozzles having pressure potentials an order of magnitude
higher than those produced by standard bit nozzles. 13 Nozzles with
this capacity for producing high wall-pressure potentials could great-
ly increase drilling rates.
Nomenclature
e1 =
constant
d = test-cell diameter, in. [cm]
do = nozzle diameter, in. [cm]
L = nozzle standoff distance, in. [cm]
N Re = Reynolds number, dimensionless
Ps = mean pressure at stagnation point, psi [kPa]
152
P; = average peak dynamic pressure at stagnation point, psi
[kPa]
Pw = mean impingement pressure, psi [kPa]
P;" = average peak dynamic pressure, psi [kPa]
Apb = pressure drop across porous impingement plate, psi [kPa]
Ape = critical hold-down pressure, psi [kPa]
Apo = pressure drop across nozzle, psi [kPa]
Ar = radial distance from jet axis, in. [cm]
to = test-cell residence time, seconds
Uo = nozzle exit momentum flux, psi [kPa]
Vo = nozzle exit velocity, ftlsec [mls]
A = turbulence integral time scale, seconds
p. = fluid viscosity, lbmlft-sec [kg/m's]
P = fluid density, Ibmlft3 [kg/m3]
Pc = chip density, Ibmlft3 [kg/m3]
T = shear stress along hole bottom, psi [kPa]
~ = wall-pressure potential Eii (p;" - Pw)lpo
Reference.
1. Sutko, A.A.: "A Study of the Forces Acting on a Chip Under a Jet
Bit, " paper SPE 3985 presented at the 1972 SPE Annual Meeting, San
Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
2. Cheatham, J.B. Jr. and Yarbrough, S.G.: "Chip Removal by a Hydraul-
ic Jet," SPEI (March 1964) 21-25; Trans., AIME, 231.
3. Glowka, D.: "Optimization of Bit Hydraulic Configurations," SPEI
(Feb. 1983) 21-32.
4. Bagnold, R.A.: The Physics of Wind Blown Sand and Desert Dunes,
Methuen, London (1941).
5. Cleaver, J.W. and Yates, B.: "A Model for Entrainment of Particles
Into a Turbulent FloW," J. Colloid Interface Sci. (1973) 4, 464-74.
6. Com, M. and Stein, F.: "Resuspension of Small Particles by a Turbu-
lent Flow," Am. Ind. Hygiene Assn. J. (1965) 26, 325-36.
7. Wells, M.R.: "Laser Doppler Anemometer Measurements of the Flow
Field Beneath Impinging Non-Newtonian Jets," Amoco i'rQduction Co.,
Tulsa (1984).
8. Beltaos, S. and Rajaratnam, N.: "Impinging Circular Turbulent Jets,"
J. Hydraulics Div. ASCE (Oct. 1974) 100, No. HYIO, 1313-28.
9. Poreh, M. and Cermak, J.E.: "Flow Characteristics ofa Circular Sub-
merged Jet Impinging Normally on a Flat Boundary, " Proc., Sixth Mid-
western Conference on Fluid Mechanics, U. of Texas, Austin (1959)
198-212.
10. Berman, N.S. and Hung, T.: "Two-Component Laser Doppler
Velocimeter Studies of Submerged Jets of Dilute Polymer Solutions, "
AIChE J. (Feb. 1985) 31, No.2, 208-15.
11. Poreh, M. and Hefez, E.: "Initial Scour and Sediment Motion Due
to an Impinging Submerged Jet," Proc., Inti. Assn. Hydraulic Res.,
Fort Collins, CO (1%7) 3, 8.
12. Hinze, J.O.: Turbulence, second edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York City (1975) 44-48.
13. Johnson, V.E. et al.: "The Development of Structured Cavitating Jets
for Deep-Hole Bits," JPT(Sept. 1986) 995-1006; Trans., AIME, 281.
SI Metric Conver.lon Factor.
gal x 3.785412 E-03
in. x 2.54* E+OO
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO
• Conversion lactor is exact. SPEDE
Original SPE manuscript received lor review Sept. 22, 1985. Paper accepted lor publica·
tion Nov. 17, 1987. Revised manuscript received Sept. 30,1988. Paper (SPE 14218)llr81
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Las Ve-
gas, Sept. 22-25.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1989