Hole Cleaning Performance of Water vs. Polymer-Based Fluids Under Turbulent Flow Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The problem of solid cleanout in horizontal wellbores is studied experimentally. The special case of drilling fluid circulation with no inner pipe rotation is considered. This case is similar to Coiled tubing drilling where often hole cleanout must be performed. Sand sized cuttings (ranging from 260 micron to 1240 micron) are used. Critical velocity and wall shear stress required for initiating bed erosion are measured. Water and viscous polymer base fluids with 3 different polymer concentrations are used. Results have shown that water always initiate cuttings movement at lower flow rates than polymer solutions. Fluids with higher polymer concentration and hence with higher viscosity required higher flow rates to start eroding the bed. Critical wall shear stress is also determined from pressure loss measurements. Analyzing the data revealed that water initiate cuttings removal at lower pressure loss than more viscous fluids. Higher viscosity fluids always showed higher pressure loss at the initiation of bed erosion. For the range of cuttings size studied, results show that intermediate cuttings size is easier to remove. Smallest and largest cuttings are more difficult to move requiring higher flow rates and higher pressure losses. Dimensionless analysis of relevant parameters to the process of cuttings movement is performed. It is shown that dimensionless wall shear stress (in the forms of Shield's stress and also ratio of shear velocity to settling velocity) correlates well with particles Reynolds number. Based on this finding two correlations are developed to predict wall shear stress required for initiating cuttings movement under different conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".