# A Novel Efficient Borehole Cleaning Model for Optimizing Drilling Performance in Real Time
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Effects of Parameters of the Drilling Fluids on the Novel Model TI\({}_{m}\)  
The performance of the novel TI\({}_{m}\) as an automated real-time indicator during drilling was evaluated based on various drilling fluid parameters. The drilling fluid properties play a crucial role in effective drilling operations and can greatly impact the performance of the TI\({}_{m}\)[50; 51; 52]. Thus, the performance of TI\({}_{m}\) was comprehensively evaluated by analysing a diverse range of drilling fluid types and well profiles. The results in Figure 8a clearly show that the performance of TI\({}_{m}\) is enhanced as M\({}_{\text{Weff}}\) increases, indicating that drilling fluids with a higher density can improve the borehole cleaning capability and enhance the performance of TI\({}_{m}\). A drilling fluid with a higher density enhances the borehole cleaning due to its ability to carry more solids and cuttings out of the wellbore. On the other hand, Figure 8b shows that the higher the ECD, the lower the TI\({}_{m}\) performance. This indicates that the TI\({}_{m}\) model can be effectively used to evaluate borehole cleaning during drilling in real time. Figure 8c shows that the performance of TI\({}_{m}\) increases with increasing LC\({}_{m}\). This \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Main Parameters** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Average** \\ \hline \(\alpha\) & 22.9 & 90 & 75.5 \\ \(\beta\) & 88 & 120 & 110 \\ MW & 88 & 88 & 88 \\ PV & 19 & 29 & 24.5 \\ YP & 20 & 24 & 20.7 \\ R3 & 7 & 9 & 8.5 \\ R6 & 9 & 11 & 9.8 \\ WOB & 0 & 38 & 27 \\ RPM & 42 & 103 & 78.5 \\ GPM & 272 & 778 & 565 \\ SPP & 1060 & 4420 & 3934 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The parameters determined for Well-C. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Main Parameters** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Average** \\ \hline \(\alpha\) & 30 & 90 & 60 \\ \(\beta\) & 69 & 110 & 90 \\ MW & 80 & 80 & 80 \\ PV & 31 & 32 & 31.5 \\ YP & 23 & 24 & 23.5 \\ R3 & 12 & 13 & 13.5 \\ R6 & 13 & 14 & 13.5 \\ WOB & 10 & 40 & 24.5 \\ RPM & 49 & 177 & 153.6 \\ GPM & 590 & 1033 & 958 \\ SPP & 898 & 2729 & 2411 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The parameters determined for Well-A. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Main Parameters** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Average** \\ \hline \(\alpha\) & 30 & 90 & 60 \\ \(\beta\) & 55 & 145 & 98.3 \\ MW & 80 & 80 & 80 \\ PV & 30 & 30 & 30 \\ YP & 23 & 23 & 23 \\ R3 & 11 & 11 & 11 \\ R6 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ WOB & 22 & 40 & 30 \\ RPM & 50 & 190 & 170 \\ GPM & 642.2 & 688.78 & 686 \\ SPP & 1500 & 3004 & 2740 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The parameters determined for Well-B. indicates that the \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) model can be used to accurately evaluate the performance of drilling operations in terms of the amount of cuttings being removed from the wellbore [54]. The results in Figure 9a clearly show that the performance of \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) increases as LSYP increases, indicating that a higher LSYP is associated with better borehole cleaning and improved \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) performance [49; 50; 51; 52]. LSYP is a critical parameter for evaluating borehole cleaning, as it is directly related to the velocity profile and ROP. Furthermore, Figure 9b shows that the performance of \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) is directly proportional to both LSYP and YP. This highlights the importance of carefully monitoring and controlling these parameters during drilling operations to optimize wellbore cleaning and improve \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) performance. The novel \(\text{n}_{\text{em}}\) was utilized in this study to evaluate the performance of \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\), as shown in Figure 9c. The results demonstrate that the performance of \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) decreases as nm decreases. This shows once again that the novel \(\text{TI}_{\text{m}}\) model is effective in evaluating borehole cleaning during drilling.