4.5 Article

Determining whether the swirling jet is applicable in bottom-hole cleaning: A CFD study

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109317

Keywords

Bit nozzle; Swirling jet; Hole cleaning; Cuttings transport; CFD method

Funding

  1. Open Research Fund Program of Key Laboratory of Metallogenic Prediction of Nonferrous Metals and Geological Environment Monitoring (Central South University), Ministry of Education [2020YSJS17]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province [2020JJ5751]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [2020YFC1807203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study focused on the bottom-hole cleaning performance of swirling jet induced by a drill bit nozzle. Computational fluid dynamics simulations were conducted to compare swirling jet with straight jet, showing that swirling jet had poorer cleaning performance than straight jet in removing drilled cuttings.
Borehole cleaning is a major concern in well drilling which significantly relevant to the drilling cost and safety. In this work, the bottom-hole cleaning performance of swirling jet induced by a drill bit nozzle was discussed. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of cuttings transport have been conducted in a full three-dimensional, unsteady multiple-Euler framework by means of the commercial software ANSYS-FLUENT. A detailed comparison, including velocity and pressure fields, Reynolds numbers, cuttings trajectory and volume fraction variation has been made based on the simulation results. The results indicate that swirling jet showed bad bottom-hole cleaning performance compared with straight jet with conventional drilling control parameters. That is, the peculiar properties of swirling jet such as higher turbulent level and entrainment did not cause more efficient removal of drilled cuttings. Relevant conclusions are helpful to promote thorough understanding of the use of swirling jets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available