Investigating the Solid Transport Capability of Non-Newtonian Fluid in Annulus Bend Section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A directional drilling operation may include one or more bending sections along the drilling profile. These bend sections are the critical segments from the hole cleaning point of view. In this study, a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) method was used to investigate the hole cleaning behaviour in annulus bending section. Eulerian-Eulerian multiphase flow model was adopted in this study. The developed CFD model was validated with experimental data. Different non-Newtonian Herschel Bulkley fluids were used to simulate the drilling mud. Solid cuttings of different sizes (2 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm) were used to replicate the drill cuttings. Different fluid flow rate (0.5 m/s, 1.0 m/s, 1.5 m/s and 2.0 m/s) were investigated to observe the solid settling tendency in the horizontal and bending section. Cuttings accumulation behaviour at different bending radius (10 inch. and 20 inch.) and bending angle (15°, 30°, and 60° from horizontal) were investigated. The simulation study shows that higher viscous fluid performs better hole cleaning at low mud velocity. Furthermore, a turbulent flow regime performs better solid transport in the bending section. Finally, this study summarizes the hole cleaning behaviour of a bend section for a range of fluid velocity, cuttings size and radius of curvature and inclination.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".