SPE

Society of Petrolelm Engineers of AIME

SPE 13380

Simplified Approach to Air Drilling Operations

by P.S. Puon and S. Ameri, West Virginia U.
SPE Members

Copyright 1984, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, October 31-November 2, 1984. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson,
Texas 75083-3836, Telex: 730989 SPE DAL.

ABSTPACT
Traditionally, air requirements during an air
drilling operation involve the utilization of the
Angel's chart(s). The values from the mentioned
chart(s) are generally 20-25% below the acutal field's
requirements/needs. Recent studies in this area have
provided more reliable results, however, the tedious
calculations, the lack of proper charts, and the
absence of the user-friendly programs have prevented
their practical applications. The authors of this
paper have developed a simplified model that takes
into account both the material balance and momentum
balance for the annulus. Air and cuttings have been
treated independently in these balances. Multiphase momentum balance equation is adopted. This
model will also accommodate the air lifting capacity
in the annulus to be the dominant factor in deciding
the air requirements.
INTRODUCTION
Hany researchers have investigated and developed
models to determine the air requirements during air
drilling operations. The following summarizes the
major developments.

the effects of air flow and the cuttings were treated

separately in the derivations. Furthermore, they
established friction factor for different air-cutting
mixtures (sandstone, limestone, and shale). ore
recently, a model based on multi-phase momentum
balance to estimate the air requirements in drilling
geothermal wells was attempted by Mitchel1 7
Host of the mentioned models involve tedious
calculations. Consequently, a simplified model is
developed which reduces the calculation steps by
employing a program for a micro-computer. The input
data includes hole diameter, the outside diameter of
drilling string, the total depth, and other pertaining parameters as discussed in the text. The minimum
air requirement volume is determined as a part of the
output data. In addition to air, with some modifications, the program may also be used for foam
drilling operations. This simplified model assists
the field engineer to properly select the air volume
requirement, at the same time, the model can be
modified to extend further applications for foam
drilling.
MATHEMATICAL FORHULATION

Angel 1 ,2, with the aid of Weymouth equation and

momentum balance over the annulus region, derived
the air volume requirements. However, the following
assumptions were made: (a) air velocity to be 3000
feet per minute in the annulus, and (b) an ideal gas
behavior for the air-cutting mixture. It should be
mentioned that the latter assumption results in
values below the actual field requirements. HcCray
and Cole 3 formulated a model to determine air volume
from energy balance where the ratio of the slip
velocity of cuttings to that or air velocity were
taken into account. Later, Hason and Hoolley4,5
investigated the effects of temperature and pressure
on the output of compressor, and described the detail
transportation of cuttings to the blooey line. Based
upon the system pressure losses, they also established a relationship between depth and air volume
requirements. Recently, }fuchado and Ikoku 6 developed
a similar model for air volume requirements. However,
References and illustrations at end of paper.
197

The mathematical derivation of the model for air

volume requirement is briefly discussed in this
section, while the .detailed derivations are presented
in the appendix. The proposed model considers the
annular region of a vertical hole. The dimensions
for hole diameter and of drilling string are considered to be a constant while dimension for drill
collar is omitted in the model. It is assumed that
air and cuttings flow at velocities of v and Vs in
the annulus, respectively. An overall momentum
balance that takes into account the effects of air
and cuttings is expressed as:
dP

+ dPf + dP g

(1)

dPf is the friction pressure loss while dP g is the

pressure loss due to gravity and dP represents the
overall pressure change. By using the concept
developed by Hitchel1 7 , dPf and dPg are stated in the
following equations:

SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO AIR DRILLING OPERATIONS

2g(D~-DP)

dPf

(Gv + Gsvs)dh

dP g

and

(2)

By combining equations 11 and 14, the flow rate, Q,

may be evaluated by iteration.

(3)

RESl~TS

G and Gs are the mass flow rate of air and cuttings,

respectively. For a given drill pipe OD and hole
size, G and Gs are considered constants and are
expressed by:

W/A

(5)

pv

where p and Ps' as defined by Hitchell 7 , are inmixture densities of air and cuttings. If the
concentration of cutting is low 5%), p is equal
to P, the density of air. By letting:

and

(6)

13

(7)

AND DISCUSSION

The solutions of equations 11 and 14 derived in

the previous section require the knowledge of wellbore diameter (Dh) , drill pipe diameter (Dp), cutting
size (dc), drilling rate (K) and specific gravity of
cuttings (Ps). Assuming the value of 2.70 as the
specific gravity of cuttings and 3/8 inch as the
cutting's size, families of curves that correlate air
volume flow rates versus depth can be obtained for
any given Dh, Dp and K. These families of curves are
most useful for field applications. Figures 1 and 2
are the examples which illustrate the outcome for a
given range of values. Since it is difficult to
estimate the exact particle size in the annulus
region, the value of 3/8 inch is selected since it
is widely used by other researchers 5 ,7. However, a
smaller particle size used in the calculations will
result in a lower air volume requirement. It should
be mentioned that, if the particle size approaches
zero, the results of the proposed model would be
identical to that of Angel's model.

(4)
G

SPE 13380

The overall momentum balance can be rewritten as:

COMPARISON OF THE SI.PLIFIED MODEL TO ANCEL'S MODEL

fv 2
pr13 [-1- dh
1-13
2g(Dh-Dp)
dP

p(l

+ r)

[1 + (~!r]

(r=13]]dh +

p (1

fv2
2 g (Dh-Dp)

[1 + l+rJ

r )-~'----:-

r13 ldh

Angel 3 derived his well-known model based on the

assumption that air-cutting mixture acts as ideal gas.
This is an approximation which results in low values
for air volume requirements as mentioned earlier. It
has been estimated that air volume calculated by
Angel's model is at least 20-25% below the actual
requirements. The simplified model has taken into
account the slip velocity of cuttings and, thus,
simulates a near real condition. A comparison of the
two models is represented by Figure 3. The results
of the calculations are also provided in Table 1. It
is shown that the proposed simplified model produces
20-40% higher air volume requirements than Angel's
model. The particle's slip velocity, Vt, as appeared
in the equations, is inversely proportional to the
square root of pressure, thus, it would have a lower
effect at a greater depth where air compressibility
is greater. This has also been illustrated in Table
1.

(8)

(9)

Before equation 9 can be integrated, it is

necessary to examine the effect of 13 on the integration. 13, as explained in equation 7, is the
ratio of cutting's slip velocity to that of air
velocity. Equation of slip velocity derived by
Gray8 is used in the proposed model in the following
fashion:
1.62(d c x Ps x T/P)~

(10)

In order to simplify the integration of equation 9,

the pressure term in equation 10 is taken as Pav ,
or the average pressure. Therefore, 13 becomes a
constant and equation 9 becomes:

COHPARISON OF THE SH1PLIFIED MODEL TO THE MITCHELL

CUTTING HODEL
The Cutting Model has made use of the changing
air-cutting mixture velocity for calculating the air
volume requirements. Although the changes in
velocity was not considered in the simplified model,
results obtained by the two models are quite close.
Figure 4 illustrates the comparison of the simplified
and Cutting Hodel under similar conditions. The
difference of the two models, as calculated in Table
2, varies from 9% to 26%.

p2

where C

and

(13)

Cm1PARISON OF THE SINPLIFIED PCDEL TO HACHADO-IKOKl'

HODEL

Equation 11 is similar to the formula obtained by

Angell and, therefore, the air volume requirement
may be determined by a similar method. However,
the minimum air velocity in the annular region was
assumed to be 3000 feet per minute. Pb is related
to air flow rate by equation 14:
6.61 (Ts + Yh) x Q2
(Dh 2 - Dp2)2 x v~

Hachado and Ikoku 6 established the air flow

rates from an overall momentum balance. This model
considered the effect of cuttings in the annulus
region and the friction factors of different cuttings
(limestone, sandstone, shale) were determined
experimentally.

(14)

198

SPE 13380

P. Puon, S. AIDeri

The simplified model, on the other hand,

requires a minimal mathematical manipulation, however, the differences in results between the two
models are only 6% as shown in Table 3.
COMPARISON OF THE

SI}~LIFIED

MODEL TO OTHER MODELS

In addition to the three models discussed previously, there are other models such as those proposed by McCray; and by Mason and Woolley. McCray's
model made use of an overall energy balance over the
annulus region. The results of McCray's model are
close to the simplified model as shown in Table 4.
Mason-Woolley's model produces much higher values
than any of the other models, and no comparison is
made between the two models.
CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.

3.

A simplified model has been developed to determine the air requirements during air drilling
operations. This simplified model takes into
account the lifting capacity of the flow medium
and simulate the real condition.
The results of the simplified model are similar
to those of Mitchell's and Machado-Ikoku's
models. Yet, its simplicity makes it more
adaptable in field applications for a microcomputer.
The model can be modified to extend further
applications for foam drilling.

REFERENCES
1.

Angel, R.R., "Volume Requirements for Air or Gas

Drilling", AIME (1957) 210, 325-330.

2.

Angel, R.R., "Volume Requirements for Air and

Gas Drilling", Culf Publishing Company (1958).

3.

McCray, A.W. and Cole, F.W., "Oil Well Drilling

Technology", University of Oklahoma Press (1959)
271-279.

4.

Mason, K.L. and Woolley, S.T., "Part 1 - How to

Air Drill from Compressor to Blooey Line",
Petroleum Engineer International (Harch 15, 1981)
40-53.

5.

Mason, K.L. and Woolley, S.T., "Part 2 - How to

Air Drill from Compressor to Blooey Line",
Petroleum Engineer International (April 1981)
120-136.

6.

Machado, C.J. and Ikoku, C.V., "Experimental

Determination of Solids Fraction and Minimum
Volumetric Requirements in Air and Gas Drilling",
JPT (November 1982) 2645-2655.

7.

}fitchell, R.F., "Simulation of Air and Mist

Drilling for Geothermal I-:ells", JPT (November
1983) 2120-2126.

8.

Gray, K.E., "The Cutting Carrying Capacity of

Air at Pressures above Atmospheric", AIME
(1958) 213, 180-185.

NOMENCLATURE
APPENDIX A
a
B

C
D

dc
Dh
Dp
E
f
F
g
G

Gs
h
K

Pb
Ps
Q
r
R

TAV
T

Ts
v

Vs
Vt
S
p

.s
p

Ps
y

constant
constant
constant
constant
cutting size, inches
hole diameter, feet
Drill pipe diameter, feet
constant
friction factor, dimensionless
constant
acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/sec 2
mass rate of air, lb/sec
mass rate of cuttings, lb/sec
well depth, feet
drilling rate, ft/hr
pressure of air at bottom of hole,
psia
pressure in the annulus at the surface,
psia
flow rate, SCF/min
constant
gas constant, 53.3 ft-Ib/lb-oR
average temperature, OR
temperature, oR
surface temperature, oR
air velocity, ft/sec
cutting velocity, ft/sec
slip velocity ft/sec
ratio of slip velocity to air velocity,
dimensionless
density of air, lbm/cu.ft
density of cutting, lbm/cu.ft
in-mixture density of air, lbm/cu.ft
in-mixture density of cutting, lbm/cu.ft
geothermal gradient, F/100 ft

MATHID~ATI CAL

FORMULATION

In this section, a detailed mathematical derivation of the simplified model will be presented. It
starts with the momentum balance for the annulus
region:
dP

+ dPf + dPg

(A-1)

dPf and dP g are pressure drops for friction and

gravity, respectively. Both of these terms consider
the effects of cuttings and air. If the concept of
Mitchel1 7 is adapted, then dPf is expressed as:
dPf
where:

f
G
Gs
v
Vs

2g(D~-DP)

x (Cv + Gsvs)dh

(A-2)

friction factor
mass rate of air
mass rate of cuttings
velocity of air
velocity of cuttings

The above equation may be simplified by the following

substitutions:
(A-3)

1 - S

1
G

pv

(A-4)
(A-5)
(A-6)

199

SIMPLIFIED APPROACH TO AIR DRILLING OPERATIONS

The equation (A-18) is further reduced to (A-19) by

assuming 2.7 for specific gravity of cuttings:

Then (A-2) is rewritten as:

fpv2
[(l+r) - rS]dh
2g(Dh-Dp)

dPf

(A-7)

2.66

Similarly, dP g is expressed by Hitchell 7 as:

After substituting (A-3) , (A-4), (A-5), and (A-6)

into (A-8) , dP g is rearranged as:
p

[(l+r) + rS ldh
I-SJ

where:
and:

(A-9)

r
f pv
[()
1 + I_Sjdh
+ 2g(Dh-Dp)
I+r - rS ] dh

(l+r) [1 +

P (l+r)

/v2 ) l dh +
2g Dh-Dp

(EJL..]
[_1_
~I+r I-S

(A-I0)

where:

l+r

a --

RTAV (l+r)

TAV

0.01876 + 0.54 Dh2K

G

(A-ll)

(A-12)

Friction factor, f, as derived by Angel from

\-!eymouth's equation is used as follows:
CA-l3)

p(I+r) 2g(Dh-Dp)

where B has been defined by Angel previously and it

is expressed as:

1
F

(~!r] (I~S)

= 1 - rS
l+r

(.A.-IS)
(A-I6)

By substituting equations (A-I2), (A-l3) , (A-I4),

(A-IS), and (A-I6) into (A-I0), it becomes:
dP

P
[ aE TAV

+aBF1'
- -AV)
- dh
P

(A-I7)

In equation (A-I7) S is an implicit term. As

earlier defined, S is the ratio of slip veloci,ty to
that of air velocity. Vt, the slip velocity has
been expressed by Gray8 as:
1. 62

l(d c ' Ps 'T) O. 5

P

(A-2I)

a x E

(A-22)

(A-23)

Q, the minimum air flow rate, is then calculated by

combining (A-20) and (A-23).

In order to simplify the integration of (A-IO),

several terms are combined or rearranged in the
following manner:
P (l+r)

B x FIE

6.61(T s + Yh)Q2
(Dh 2 _Dp2)2 x v~

fv2
l dh
2g(Dh-Dp)]

Equation (A-20) represents a form similar to the one

derived by Angel 2 and will be solved in a similar way.
By assuming 3000 feet per minute (ve) as the minimum
air velocity requirement, which achieves proper hole
cleaning, Pb, the bottom hole pressure, is calculated
as:

The overall momentum balance becomes:

p[

(A-I9)

in-mi~ure density of air

in-mixture density of cutting

Ps

dP

d T) O. 5
_c_
( P

An average pressure (PAV) is assumed during the

integration of equation (A-I9), then equation
(A-I7) will result in:

(A-8)
where:

SPE 13380

(A-I8)

200

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

A COMPARISON OF THE AIR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

SIMPLIFIED MODEL and ANGEL'S MODEL
Given Data: Dh = ?Vo", Dp = 41f2", de = Ye", K = 30 ft/hr
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)

A COMPARISON OF THE AIR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

SIMPLIFIED MODEL and CUTTING MODEL
Given Data: Dh = 8%", Dp = 5", de = Ye", K = 90 ft/hr
(1 )
(2)
(3)

Depth (ft)

Air Volume Calculated

from Simplified Model
(SCF / min)

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Obtained from ref

(f)

-0

m
l--'
'v-l
,_., .. j

ee)

Air Volume Calculated'

from Angel's Model

680
1351
1397
1455
1520
1595
1680

680
820
970
1080
1200
1310
1420

Difference %

Depth (ft)

(2)-(3)/ (2)

39.3
30.6
25.8
21.1
17.9
15.5

Air Volume Calculated

from Simplified Model
(SCF / min)

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Obtained from ref

Air Volume CalcUlated'

from Cutting Model

1600
1733
1858
1993
2137
2280

1060
1270
1470
1670
1870
2070

(7)

(2)

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

A COMPARISON OF THE AIR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

SIMPLIFIED MODEL and MACHADO-IKOKU MODEL
Given Data: Dh = ?Vo", Dp = 41f2", de = 0.2", K = 60 ft/hr

A COMPARISON OF THE AIR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS

SIMPLIFIED MODEL and McCRAY-COLE MODEL
Given Data: Dh = ?Vo", Dp = 41f2", de = Ye", K = 60 ft/hr

(1)

(2)

Depth (ft)

Air flow rate calculated

from Simplified Model
(SCF / min)

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Obtained from ref (4)

900
1000
1150
1280
1420
1560
1690

(3)
Air flow rate calculated'
from Machado-Ikoku
Model

888
888
1093
1295
1550
1660
1782

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Difference %

Depth (ft)

Air flow rate calculated

from Simplified Model
(SCF / min)

Air flow rate calculated'

from McCray-Cole
Model

Difference %

(2)-(3)/ (2)

11.2
5.0
1.1
9.1
6.4
5.4

0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Obtained from ref (3)

1310
1379
1458
1549
1645
1750
1865

700
1050
1250
1570
1780
1970
2150

(2)-(3)/ (2)

23.8
14.3
1.4
8.2
12.6
15.3

DRILLINC
RATE
90 ft/hr

2000

60 ftlhr

c:

'E

30 ft/hr

2400

60 ft/hr

u..

2200

30 ft/hr

U)

U)

1500

2000

(I)
~

a::

a::

1800

iL

iL

1600

';:

';:

(I)

90 ftlhr

c:

2600

u..

(1)-

DRILLINC
RATE

(I)

1000

'0

'0

1400

1200

>
Lei

>Lei

500

2000

4000

6000

1000

800

8000 10,000 12,000

2000

Depth, ft

2600

Simplified
Model

2400

u..

2200

2000

Angel
Model

a::

1800

1600

>Lei

2000

Cutting's
Model

a::

1800

1600

';:
~

(I)

1400

E
~
'0

'0

<Ii

Simplified
Model

2200

iL

';:

(I)

u..

iL

2400

U)

U)

(1)-

,5
E

8000 10,000 12,000

Fig. 2-Alr volumetriC flow rates calculated from the Simplified model (9-ln hole. 5-ln dnll pipe, and I'~-In cuttmg
size).

2600

6000

Depth, ft

Fig.1-Alr volumetric flow rates calculated from the slmphhed model (7~'a-ln hole,4"2-ln drill pipe. and J~'!n
cuttmg size)

c:

4000

1200

>Lei

1000

800+---~----~--~--------~----~-

2000

4000

6000

8000 10,000 12,000

Depth, ft
Fig. 3-Companson between flow rates calculated from the simplified model and Angels model (9'ln hole, 5-1n drill
pipe, 60-1f hr penetration rate, and J'wln cutting size)

1400

1200

1000
__- -____--~--~-6000 8000 10,000 12,000

800+---~----~--

2000

4000

Depth, ft
Fig. 4-Comparlsan between flow rates calculated from the Slmphfled model and Mitchell (cuttmg) model (814-m hole,
S-In drill pipe, 90ft hr penetration rale. and 3/S _m cuttmg size)

7BO
CPC13
...')
L_ ...
j