Circulation Sub Series—4: Case Study Part II of II

3. Effect of Flow Rate

To study the sensitivity of flow rate on a circulation sub’s performance, 3 cases were chosen: one is without a circulation sub, and the other two have 1 (in2) and 2 (in2) of TFA, respectively. As we increase the flow rate from 1 to 10 (bpm), bypass ratios for both cases decrease. One might wonder why the bypass ratio decreases as flow rate increases. Does not the circulation sub play a bigger role in tougher conditions such as a high flow rate situation? Here is the reason behind the reverse change: the pressure drop across circulation sub nozzles (Path B) is proportional to the square of the flow rate, regardless of the rheological model. The frictional pressure loss along Path A is proportional to the flow rate to the power of 1.75 for Newtonian fluids in turbulent flow conditions. When the flow rate increases, it is relatively easier for fluid to flow along Path A than Path B. Therefore, at higher flow rates, the bypass ratio is smaller.

Figure 10: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Flow Rate

Figure 10: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Flow Rate

However, even with the slightly decreased bypass ratio at higher flow rate, the presence of a circulation sub greatly reduces pump pressure and bottom hole ECDs, as illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12. The benefits become more pronounced at higher flow rates. As noted before, the inclusion of a circulating sub makes a dramatic impact up to a certain TFA, in this case 1 square inch.

Figure11: Pump Pressure vs Flow Rate

Figure 11: Pump Pressure vs Flow Rate

Figure12: Bottom Hole ECD vs Flow Rate

Figure 12: Bottom Hole ECD vs Flow Rate

4. Effect of Viscosity

Since viscosity has a small impact on the analysis, the circulation sub’s nozzles have been changed to 2 x 10 (1/32in) for this portion of the analysis, which yields a TFA of 0.153 (in2) for our base case.

The flow split at a circulation sub is the result of flowing fluid seeking the path of least resistance and pressure balance. The frictional pressure loss along Path A is a function of fluid viscosity, density, flow rate and flow path geometry. If the flow is laminar, the pressure loss is proportional to the fluid viscosity for Newtonian fluid. The resistance of path B is dominated by the pressure drop across nozzles, where the viscous frictional effects are essentially negligible. As fluid viscosity increases, it is more difficult for fluid to flow through Path A. The bypass ratio will increase as illustrated by Figure 13. Both pump pressure and bottom hole ECD increase as fluid viscosity becomes higher. However, they would be much higher if no circulation sub is present.

Figure 13: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Fluid Viscosity

Figure 13: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Fluid Viscosity

Figure 14: Pump Pressure vs Fluid Viscosity

Figure 14: Pump Pressure vs Fluid Viscosity

Figure 15: Bottom Hole ECD vs Fluid Viscosity

Figure 15: Bottom Hole ECD vs Fluid Viscosity

5. Effect of Fluid Density

If the flow is turbulent, the pressure loss along Path A is proportional to the fluid density to the power of 0.75 for a Bingham plastic fluid. On the other hand, the pressure drop across Path B is proportional to the fluid density. As the fluid density increases, it is relatively more difficult for fluid to flow through Path B. The bypass ratio will decrease when fluid density increases as illustrated by Figure 16. The pump pressure increases as fluid density increases. The bottom hole ECD increases because both hydrostatic pressures and frictional pressure loses increase with greater fluid density.

Figure 16: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Fluid Density

Figure 16: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Fluid Density

Figure 17: Pump Pressure vs Fluid Density

Figure 17: Pump Pressure vs Fluid Density

Figure 18: Bottom Hole ECD vs Fluid Density

Figure 18: Bottom Hole ECD vs Fluid Density

The above case study is performed for a particular wellbore cleanup scenario. In order to have a better understanding of your particular case, it is recommended to use engineering software to take into account of well configurations and fluid properties to optimize circulation sub performance.

Circulation Sub Series—3: Case Study Part I of II

Case Study

Engineers may have some basic ideas on how to optimize the design parameters of a circulation sub to achieve their goals. For example, increasing the total flow area of a circulation sub will increase the bypass flow rate, reduce pump pressure, etc. This case study will quantify the impacts of various circulation sub parameters and fluid properties on pump pressure and ECD for a wellbore cleanup operation. We used a wellbore cleanup hydraulics software to perform this case study. Numerical methods are employed to obtain the correct flow split percentage at the location of the circulation sub. The flow split is obtained such that the summation of the frictional pressure losses inside the pipe below the circulation sub and in the annulus below the circulation sub should be equal to the pressure loss through the circulation sub nozzles.

Figure 2 shows the wellbore configuration used for the example calculation. This is the basic case, from which we will perform sensitivity studies on each of 5 parameters. Note that the flow rate is left blank because it is run at several values for all stages.

Figure2: Example Case

Figure2: Example Case

Figure3: Flow Paths

Figure3: Flow Paths

1. Effect of Total Flow Area (TFA)

Circulation sub’s adjustable nozzles enable you to define how the flow is split between the annulus and the pipe interiors. By adjusting the TFA of the circulation sub, you can control the amount of fluid that is diverted.

The flow split at a circulation sub is determined as the fluid chooses the path of least resistance. The rates of flow through the circulation sub and down the string are determined when these two flow paths reach a pressure balanced state. When fluid inside pipe travels to the circulation sub, it faces 2 choices. The first one is to flow downward through the pipe and up the annulus. Let us call this Flow Path A. The alternative path is sideways through the circulation sub’s nozzles. We will call this Flow Path B.

As illustrated by Figure 3, Flow Path A involves a long, but wide conduit, while Flow Path B is an array of short constrictions (nozzles).

The circulating fluid does not have a preference as which path to flow. When the fluid passes the circulation sub, it senses the resistances of both paths and chooses the split of fluid so that it yields an overall minimum resistance.

The frictional pressure loss, or flow resistance, along Path A is a function of fluid viscosity, density, flow rate, pipe ID, hole ID, pipe OD and flow path length. On the other hand, the resistance of Path B is dominated by the pressure drop across the nozzles, which is reversely proportional to the square of the TFA of those nozzles. As we increase the TFA of a circulation sub, it becomes much easier for fluid to flow through Path B. As a result, less fluid will flow through Path A and the frictional pressure losses in the lower pipe and annular sections will be reduced. Whatever the percentage of flow split, the pump pressure and ECD of the system are both reduced by the fluid bypass.

In our example, we increase the TFA from 0, representing a case of no circulation sub, to 2 (in2). Figure 4 shows increased fluid bypass ratios as the TFA increases for 3 flow rates, 2 (bpm), 4 (bpm) and 6 (bpm). The circulating sub bypass ratio is the percentage of flow exiting the string through the circulating sub nozzles, as opposed to the bit.

Figure4: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs TFA

Figure4: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs TFA

Accompanying these increased bypass ratios, both the pump pressure and bottom hole ECD reduce rapidly at beginning and more gradually later, as shown in Figure 5 and 6, respectively. The pump pressure is reduced by almost 80% when TFA is increased from 0 (in2) to 1 (in2) for a flow rate of 6 (bpm). Meanwhile, for the same flow rate, bottom hole ECD is reduced by 7.6%. Further increase of TFA from 1 (in2) to 2 (in2) yields only marginal reduction.

Figure5: Pump Pressure vs TFA

Figure5: Pump Pressure vs TFA

Figure6: Bottom Hole ECD vs TFA

Figure6: Bottom Hole ECD vs TFA

2. Effect of Circulation Sub Depth

The location of the circulation sub affects the overall downhole hydraulics. A circulation sub establishes a communication path between fluid inside the pipe and fluid in the annulus. The closer a circulation sub is to surface, the greater the fluid bypass ratio is, because Flow Path A is getting longer and creates a higher frictional pressure drop. Figure 7 shows the bypass ratios at various circulation sub locations along the wellbore. As expected, if we place the circulation sub at the bottom of the pipe, it would have no effect on pump pressure or bottom hole ECD.

Figure7: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Circulation Sub Depth

Figure7: Circulation Sub Bypass Ratio vs Circulation Sub Depth

To take advantage of its unique characteristic for wellbore cleanup operations, a circulation sub is often placed at the depth where the wellbore geometry changes, such as the previous casing shoe. By increasing the pump rate, the hole section below the circulation sub with a smaller annular clearance can maintain the required fluid velocity from the downward split flow. The velocity of the fluid in the larger OD annulus above the circulation sub will see both the flow rate traveling down the string and through the sub’s ports, increasing the annular velocity to closely match that in the narrow clearance hole below.

Greater reductions in both the pump pressure requirement and bottom hole ECD are achieved when a circulation sub is placed closer to surface, as seen in Figures 8 and 9. The pressure and ECD drops because less fluid is traveling through the narrower clearance section of the annulus.

Figure8: Pump Pressure vs Circulation Sub Depth

Figure8: Pump Pressure vs Circulation Sub Depth

Figure9: Bottom Hole ECD vs Circulation Sub Depth

Figure9: Bottom Hole ECD vs Circulation Sub Depth