Quantitative Evaluation of Critical Conditions Required for Effective Hole Cleaning in Coiled-Tubing Drilling of Horizontal Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The problem of solids cleanout in horizontal wellbores was studied experimentally. The special case of drilling-fluid circulation with no inner-pipe rotation was considered. This case is similar to coiled tubing (CT) drilling in which frequent hole cleanout must be performed. Sand-sized cuttings (ranging from 260 to 1240 µm) were used. Critical velocity and wall shear stress required for starting bed erosion were measured. Water and viscous-polymer base fluids with three different polymer concentrations were used. Results have shown that water always starts cuttings movement at lower flow rates than polymer solutions. Fluids with higher polymer concentration (and higher viscosity) required higher flow rates to start eroding the bed. Critical wall shear stress was also determined from pressure-loss measurements. Analyzing the data revealed that water starts cuttings removal at lower pressure loss than more-viscous fluids. Higher-viscosity fluids always showed higher pressure loss at the start of bed erosion. For the range of cuttings size studied, results show that an intermediate cuttings size was slightly easier to remove. However, the impact of cuttings size was far less than that of fluid rheology. Overall cuttings size was found to have a small impact on hole cleaning. Dimensionless analysis of parameters relevant to the process of cuttings movement was performed. It was shown that dimensionless wall shear stress (in the forms of Shields’ stress and also ratio of shear velocity to settling velocity) at the onset of bed erosion correlated well with particle Reynolds number. On the basis of this finding, two correlations were developed to predict critical wall shear stress. A procedure was developed to calculate critical flow rate as well. Friction-factor data for the flow through the annulus with a stationary cuttings bed are also reported.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".