Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations
2018-12-21
Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

Modelling to Improve Drilling Efficiency
Rahman, Kazi Mahmudur
Rahman, K. M. (2018). Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop Modelling to Improve
Drilling Efficiency (Unpublished master's degree). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/109403
master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop Modelling to Improve
Drilling Efficiency
by
Kazi Mahmudur Rahman
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
CALGARY, ALBERTA
DECEMBER, 2018
© Kazi Mahmudur Rahman 2018

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
The undersigned certify that they have read and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate
Studies for acceptance, a Thesis entitled “Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure
Drop Modelling to Improve Drilling Efficiency " submitted by Kazi Mahmudur Rahman
in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Engineering.
Supervisor, Dr. Robert Martinuzzi, Department of

Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Dr. Les Jozef Sudak., Department of Mechanical and

Manufacturing Engineering
Dr. David Wood., Department of Mechanical and

Manufacturing Engineering
Dr. Hassan Hassanzadeh., Department of Chemical &

Petrochemical Engineering
August 14, 2008

Date
ii
Abstract
The major drilling problems such as fluid loss, wellbore strengthening, well control,
carrying capacity, torque & drag, stuck pipe, etc. can result from the improper matching of
drilling fluid properties. These problems occur due to variations in pressure, and
temperature which has a great impact on the rheological properties. Drilling fluid
properties can be modified for the successful drilling operation. Research continues the
development of drilling fluid in shale inhibition, rheology modification, wellbore
strengthening, high-temperature, high-pressure (HTHP) drilling fluids, etc. The main goal
of this project is to develop a rheology-based pressure drop calculation incorporating the
effects of temperature, pressure and gel strength of drilling fluid using experimental results
for the better understanding of undesirable viscosity fluctuation and pressure losses. This
study is based on the hypothesis that the rheology model for pressure loss prediction can
be investigated to the desired level in an experimental laboratory facility, which can be
applied to solve/reduce drilling problems in wells. This study presents a simplified
procedure for selecting the rheological model which best fits the properties of a given
hydraulic fluid to represent the shear-stress, shear-rate relationship for a given fluid. The
project assumes that the model which gives the lowest absolute average percent error
(EAAP) between the measured and calculated shear stresses is the best one for given
drilling fluid. The results are of great importance for achieving the correct pressure drop
and hydraulics calculations. It is found that the API rheological model provides, in general,
the best prediction of rheological behaviour for the mud samples considered (EAAP=
5.84%). API hydraulics calculation gives a good approximation to measured pump pressure
within 14% of measured field data.
iii
Acknowledgements
I have had the good fortune to have enormous guidance from my supervisor, Dr. Robert
Martinuzzi where his enormous support, ideas, motivation and helpful instructions gave
me to make the successful completion of my thesis work. I am very happy to have the
members of examining committee, Dr. Hassan Hassanzadeh, Dr. Les Jozef Sudak, and Dr.
David Wood, in my thesis defence and would like to thank them for their valuable time
and the discerning input to my thesis work. I would like to acknowledge the different
financial supports of: (i) Dr. Robert Martinuzzi’s various research grants, (ii) Teaching
Assistantships. I also want to thank to my beloved family members for their encouragement
and greatly appreciated and pleased to my dear wife, Musa. Shammi Akther for her
enormous help and inspiration during the program to make it achievable.
iv
Dedication
To the loving memory
of
My Parents
v
Table of Contents
Approval Page……………………………………………………………………........... ii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………. iii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………........... iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………. v
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………….. vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………… viii
List of Figures and Illustrations………………………………………………………… ix
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature…………………………………….. x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Background.....……………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Problem statement....………………………………………………………………. 5
1.3 Research objectives.....……………………………………………………….......... 7
1.4 Thesis structure........………………………………………………………………. 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….......... 9

2.1 Drilling fluid rheology……………………………………..........………………… 9
2.2 Pressure and temperature effect in the rheology of drilling fluid.........………....... 10
2.3 Rheology parameters……………………………………….................................... 11
2.4.2 Concentration...............................................................…..…….................. 13
2.4.3 Gel strength...............................................................…..……....................... 13
2.4.4 Pressure loss...............................................................…..……...................... 13
2.4.5 Friction reduction........................................................…..……..................... 13
2.4 Drilling Operation……………………....………………………………………… 14
2.5 Hydraulics………………………………………………………………………… 15
2.6 Frictional Pressure Loss…………………………………………………………... 16
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………..….…………………………….. 19
3.1 Fluid Preparation………...………………………………...…………........................ 21
3.2 Experiment Procedure……………………………………………………………….. 22
3.3 Rheological Model Selection……………...………………………………………… 24
3.2.1 Correlations analysis…………………………….………………….………. 24
3.2.2 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis ……..………………. 25
3.3.3 Determining parameters for the Rheology Models..………………………… 25
3.3.3.1 Newtonian Model…………………………………………………… 25
3.3.3.2 Bingham Plastic Model ...………………….………………….…….. 26
3.3.3.3 Power Law Model ……..……………………………………………. 26
3.3.3.4 API Model..………………………………………………………….. 26
3.3.3.5 Herschel-Bulkley Model ..…………………………………………… 27
3.4 Hydraulics………………………………………….. …….................................... 28
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…...……..………………………………

4.1 Fann Viscometer Reading ..…………………………….….…………………........... 31
vi
4.2 Error Analysis …………………………………………...…....................................... 32
4.3 Shear stress measured…………………….….....…………...………………………. 32
4.4 Rheological Model Selection………………………………………………………… 33
4.4.1 Newtonian Model and Experiment data………………………………………. 33
4.4.1.1 Shear stress calculation ………………………………………………. 33
4.4.1.2 Correlations Analysis……...……….…................................................. 34
4.4.1.3 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis….…………... 35
4.4.2 Bingham Plastic Model and Experiment data..……………………………….. 35
4.4.2.1 Shear stress calculation ……………………………………………… 35
4.4.2.3 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis.......................... 38
4.4.3 Power Law Model and Experiment data..…………………………………….. 38
4.4.3.3 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis........................ 40
4.4.4 API Model and Experiment data………………………………………………. 40
4.4.5 Herschel-Bulkley Model and Experiment data……………………………….. 42
4.5 Summary of rheological model selection….................................................................. 44
4.6 Hydraulics Simulation................................................................................................... 45
4.7 Data used to validate the approach…………………………………………………. 48
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK………………………… 50

5.1 Summary...…….………………………………………………………………… 50
5.2 Further considerations…..…………………………………………………......... 50
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………... 52
vii
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Composition of the Fluid-1 .............................................................................. 21
Table 3.2: Composition of the Fluid-2 .............................................................................. 21
Table 4.1: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-1 .................................................................. 31
Table 4.2: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-2… ............................................................. 31
Table 4.3: Shear stress measured in field units (lb/ft2) for Fluid-1. ................................. 33
Table 4.4: Shear stress measured in field units (lb/ft2) for Fluid-2 .................................. 33
Table 4.5: Comparison analysis between measured and calculated shear stresses........... 34
Table 4.6: Comparison analysis between measured and calculated shear stresses........... 36
Table 4.7: The measured and calculated shear stresses .................................................... 38
Table 4.8 The measured and calculated shear stresses ..................................................... 40
Table 4.9 The measured and calculated shear stresses ..................................................... 42
Table 4.10: Summary of best regression equation ……….for Fluid-1 ............................ 44
Table 4. 11: Summary of best regression equation ………for Fluid-2 ............................ 45
Table 4.12: Average % of reduction error difference between field and modeled SPP ... 48
viii
List of Figures and Illustrations
Figure 1.1: Schematic comparison of the four rheological models ................................... 4
Figure 2.1: Rheograms at various temperatures and pressures (Davison et al. 1999). ... 11
Figure 2.2: Figure 2.2: Rheogram showing rheological types (Awele 2014) ................... 12
Figure 2.3: Diagram of the drilling fluid circulating system ............................................ 18
F Figure 3.1: Flow chart for overall analysis and assessment of hydraulic performance
in well applications .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.2: Schematic diagram of the Fann Model 35 viscometer ................................... 23
Figure 4.1: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Newtonian
model......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4.2: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and modeled data using
Newtonian model. ..................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4.3: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Bingham Plastic
model......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.4: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and Modeled data ................ 37
Figure 4.5: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Power Law …... 39
Figure 4.6: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and calculated data .............. 39
Figure 4.7: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for API model. ........ 41
Figure: 4.8: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and calculated data. ........... 41
Figure 4.9: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Herschel-
Bulkley ..................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.10: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress …data for Herschel-Bulkley model. ...... 43
Figure 4.11: Average % of reduction error difference between field SPP and modeled
SPP ........................................................................................................................... 49
ix
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature
List of Symbols
Greek symbols Definition

γ Shear rate, s-1
 Mud weight
τ Shear stress, lb/100ft2
τ0 Yield point, lb/100ft2
ϴ3 Dial reading at 3rpm
p Plastic viscosity
y yield point
0 yield stress
μ Viscosity
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
NP Nanoparticles
API American Petroleum Institute
PV Plastic viscosity
OBM Oil Based Mud
SBM Synthetic mud
Δpa Pressure loss in annulus, psi
Δpb Pressure loss in bit, psi
Δpds Pressure loss in drill string, psi
Δpp Pump pressure, psi
HTHP High-pressure
ECD Equivalent circulating density
EAAP Absolute average percent error
YP/PV Ratio of yield point over plastic viscosity
EMW Equivalent mud weight
MWD Measurement-while-drilling
YP Yield points
K Consistency index
n Fluid behavior index
Δp Pump pressure
PVT Pressure/volume/temperature
Q Flow rate of the drilling fluid, gpm
N Rotational velocity, rpm
cp Bingham Yield Point, lb/100ft2
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Drilling operations are required to achieve a well safely within shortest possible time and
lowest possible operational cost, including the necessary additional sampling and evaluation
constraints of the particular application to reduce drilling problems (Proehl and Sabins 2006,
Taugbol et al. 2005). Drilling problems include fluid loss, wellbore stability, well control, poor
carrying capacity, poor torque performance increased drag and stuck pipe. These can result from
poorly defined drilling fluid and often result in high drilling cost. Around one fifth (15 to 18%) of
the total cost (about $1 million) of well petroleum drilling are related to the drilling fluid (Khodja
et al. 2010a). Problems occur due to variations in pressure, temperature, which affect the fluid
rheological properties (viscosity) during drilling operations. The fluids should generally meet
some important specified requirements: i) fluid rheological characteristics that are easily
controlled, ii) not too expensive and iii) environmentally friendly (Khodja et al. 2010b). Drilling
fluids should reduce the cleaning cost and time, maximize recycling to reduce the environmental
footprint. Consequently, environmentally compatible successful completion of drilling operation
depends on the properties of the drilling fluid to a great extent. Therefore, the choice of the right
fluid (right properties) is very important in fluid design and drilling waste management during
drilling operation which influences the total well operations costs and improved drilling efficiency.
Rheological properties provide assistance in characterizing fluid flow. When determining the
flow characteristics, the rheology is important for predicting friction coefficients and frictional
pressure losses. Rheological parameters such as viscosity, consistency index, and yield stress
control the fluid system under consideration, together with volumetric parameters such as density
(Demirdal et al 2009). All these parameters are subject to change under extreme conditions such
1
as high pressure-high temperature or low pressure-low temperature conditions (Friedheim et al
2012). The pressure and temperature have direct effects on drilling fluid rheology through the
shear stress and shear rate of the fluid (Garvin et al 1970, DE Wolfe et al 1983, Minton & Bern
1988, American Petroleum Institute 1995). Drilling fluids used in drilling operations have
rheological properties and density which are more sensitive to pressure and temperature conditions
(Hemphill 1996, Growcock 1994, Growcock & Frederick 1994). For this reason, it is important to
determine the response of the rheological model to wellbore conditions and to fully understand the
fluid performance under downhole conditions.
As the well goes deeper, it becomes increasingly important to predict and control the
rheology of drilling fluids and hydraulics of the well. Rheological models are adopted for
prediction and calculation of the shear stress and frictional pressure losses. The most used
rheological models for the past half-century are Newtonian, Bingham and Power-law models. With
the development of drilling fluid technology and drilling hydraulics theory, the limitations of the
Bingham and Power Law models have been identified by researchers. The main disadvantage is
the two models are not able to describe the rheological properties of drilling fluid under high shear
rates. The Herschel-Bulkley model is a newer rheological model that accurately describes the
rheological properties of drilling fluid under a wider range of shear rates (Power, 2003). It is
characterized by a nonlinearity relationship between shear stress and shear rate and comprises the
yield point（Power & Zamora, 2003). API (American Petroleum Institute) recommended
predicting fluid behaviour with a two-part power law model. One part predicts the fluid behaviour
at low shear rates, and another part modelled the high shear properties (Rehm et al, 2012). So, this
model endorses using the modified power-law model to calculate pressure losses in pipes and
annuli. Generally, the drilling fluid apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate. The
2
power law matches shear rates from the viscometer with shear rates experienced inside the drill
pipe and annulus. Inside the drill pipe, 600 RPM and 300 RPM viscometer readings are used for
rheology and pressure loss calculations (API 1995).
This study presents the comparison of several major rheological models to select the best one
for representing the relationship between shear stress and a shear rate of fluid. The models
considered are the Newtonian, Bingham, Power-law, API Power law and Herschel-Bulkley
models. The shear stress versus shear rate data is used to determine which rheological model best
fits the behaviour of the fluid system.
Drilling fluids are classified into two major groups: Newtonian fluids where viscosity, μ, is
independent of shear rate and the non-Newtonian fluids where viscosity is a function of shear rate,
μ = μ(γ). Viscosity measures the resistance to flow. Excessive viscosity is undesirable because of
the pressures that can be generated by a higher viscosity in the borehole when pumping
horizontally. For each fluid, there is a constitutive relation between the shear rate (γ) and shear
stress (τ). To model the shear stress-shear rate behaviour of fluids, mathematical relations known
as rheological models are used.
A general graphical representation of the four discussed rheological models is presented in
Figure 1.1. The best fitted rheological model will be more tuned with variation of
temperature/pressure, and flow rate. The good model will predict the performance of fluid
behaviour and thus allow reducing the pump requirements and reduce drilling unstableness/
problems (i.e.; fluid loss, carrying capacity, formation damage, etc. among others.).
3
Figure 1.1: Schematic comparison of the four rheological models
Fluid rheological properties change with additives and can be matched to fulfill the specific
requirements for the hydrodynamic properties and interaction potential with the formation
(Amanullah et al 2011, Abdo & Haneef 2010, Srivista 2010). Increases in viscosity reduce the
penetration rate, increase frictional pressure loss in the drill pipe and annulus, and increase the
horsepower requirement of the pump (Cranford et al 1999, Mohammed & Mohammed 2009).
Thixotropic shear thinning fluids with a yield stress occurs with the apparent viscosity decreases
with increasing shear rate, are often used to avoid high-pressure drop when the mud is circulated
upward the annular, and the presence of a yield stress avoids the sedimentation of solids cuttings
and barite when the circulation is stopped for a certain amount of time (Herzhaft et al 2006).
The drilling process can be improved by controlling the drilling fluid properties using a
macro/micro size chemical particles/additive (Zakaria et al 2012, Nwaoji et al 2013). These
4
particles are smaller than microparticles, have a high surface to volume ratio and may provide
superior fluid properties at low concentration of the additives (Amanullah & Al-Abdullahtif 2010).
Additives like nanoparticles, which have smaller size, surface area and higher surface energy, can
control the rheology of fluid properties to a larger extent when compared to micron-sized particles
(El-Diasty et al 2013, Amanullah et al 2011). Due to the strong particle-particle interaction, many
additives can act as viscosifiers. For a drilling fluid, the desired rheological effect from an additive
varies widely depending on the ultimate goal of hole cleaning (high low-shear rate), the reduction
of equivalent circulating densities (ECD) with lower plastic viscosities (PV) and yield points (YP),
or the minimization of the effect that temperature has on viscosity (Demirdal et al 2009). The
rheological effects can be measured through the physical fluid properties like density, viscosity,
gel strength, etc. characterize the drilling fluid. Among different drilling fluids, nanoparticles-
based drilling fluids result in higher performance compared to non-nano-based drilling fluid
(Zakaria et al 2012, Nwaoji et al 2013). Nanoparticles-based drilling fluid application is an
enhanced drilling fluid technology for the successful drilling operation (El-Diasty et al 2013,
Amanullah et al 2011). Research continues the development of nanoparticles-based fluid in shale
inhibition, rheology modification, wellbore strengthening, high-temperature, high-pressure
(HTHP) drilling fluids, etc. (Zakaria et al 2012, Nwaoji et al 2013, Hoelscher et al 2013, Friedheim
et al 2012). Variations in pressure, and temperature, which affect the fluid rheology and phase
volume ratio in drilling fluids are important considerations for drilling operational problems
(Gusler et al 2007, Lee et al 2012).
1.2 Problem statement
Rheological properties are important for assessing the drilling fluid behaviour in solving
5
problems of hole cleaning, hole erosion, suspension of cuttings, drilling fluid treatment, and
hydraulics calculations. Hydraulics calculations with the best-fitted rheology models are the focus
of this project. The viscosity of the drilling fluid must be known because it determines the
hydraulics in the well. The rheological properties vary depending on the type of fluid. The
rheological model used for the evaluation of the fluid parameters is thus important. The rheology
of the most common drilling fluids today, is complex because they usually exhibit non-Newtonian
behaviour. This study examines five major rheological models (Newtonian, Bingham, Power law,
API Power Law, Herschel-Bulkley) to identify alternatives for selecting the model that represents
most accurately the shear stress / shear-rate relationship for a given fluid. This approach assumes
that the model that gives the lowest absolute average percent error (EAAP) between the measured
and calculated shear stresses is the best one for a given non-Newtonian fluid. In the present
industry practice, calculated and actual pump pressures, for example, pressure drop, Δp
calculations using API with a synthetic based mud (SBM) can be off by as much as 35% (API,
1995). The possible reasons could be that friction pressure losses calculations are not well
represented by the rheological model (Zamora & Power, 2002). As a result, drill string pressure
losses are underestimated (Thivolle, 2004).
Many experimental studies deal with the flow of fluids through pipes and annuli for friction
pressure loss calculations. Most of these studies have concentrated on rheological models, pipe
roughness, and geometrical parameters. However, the selection of the best rheological model to
obtain correct results for pressure drop and hydraulics is not considered in the API models. This
study of five rheological models is expected to serve as a guide for selecting a rheological model
for the drilling fluid, for hydraulics calculation. This study could also be used in an educational
engineering and for training purposes; it would help inform and educate the industry about
6
rheology in drilling fluid and hydraulics calculation considering different rheological models.
1.3 Research Objectives
In the thesis, the overall goal was to improve drilling efficiency and reduce drilling
operational cost. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on:
a) Determining fluid rheological behaviour, based on characteristics from the laboratory
experiments;
b) Investigating the best fitted rheology model for a drilling fluid;
c) Calculating the hydraulics using best fitted rheology modelling for the fluid in terms of
pressure drop calculation;
d) Assessing the rheology/ pressure drop model incorporating the effects of drilling fluid with
the help of experimental results for better understanding of undesirable viscosity
fluctuation and pressure losses during drilling operation;
e) Predicting bit wear and fluid degradation due to variation on total pressure losses;
f) Increasing drilling efficiency via hydraulics optimization on drilling bit related to
rheological properties.
1.4 Thesis Structure
The first part of this study presents a simplified and accurate procedure for selecting the
rheological model which best fits the rheological properties of a given fluid. The outcomes are
methods to select the best rheological model and to estimate frictional pressure loss from
expansion and contraction of the fluid flowing through pipe and annuli. These methods are of great
importance in achieving correct results for pressure drop and hydraulics calculations. Experimental
7
results were analyzed for Newtonian, Bingham, Power law, API Power Law, and Herschel-
Bulkley models for conditions where, API hydraulics calculation gives a good approximation of
measured pump pressure.
This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter one describes the background of the research,
problem statement, and objectives of the research. Chapter two provides the literature review with
a brief description of different rheology models. Chapter three illustrates the methodology of the
study. Chapter four provides the results of this research and includes a brief discussion on the
findings. Chapter five summarizes the key findings of the research along with the scientific
contribution of the research, and the future works.
8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Drilling Fluid Rheology
In drilling operations, rheological properties indicate the character of deformation and flow
of drilling fluid. The drilling fluid behavior can be evaluated in solving problems of hole cleaning,
mud treatment, and hydraulics calculations. The character is usually described by the parameters:
Apparent Viscosity (μa), Plastic Viscosity (μp) and Yield Point (τy). Viscosity is a property that
indicates the resistance of drilling fluid to flow, defined as the ratio of shear stress to shear rate.
Apparent viscosity is the viscosity measured at a given shear rate at a fixed temperature. Most
drilling fluids exhibit plastic behavior, which can be described through τy.
Plastic fluids require a certain value of shear stress for initiating flow, which is
characterized by the yield point. Plastic viscosity is the slope of the shear stress/shear rate curve
above the yield point. It represents the viscosity of a mud based on the Bingham model when
extrapolated to an infinite shear rate. The ratio of the yield point to the plastic viscosity (YP/PV
ratio) is a measure of flattening of the flow profile. Higher YP/PV ratios provide better cuttings
transport in laminar flow. Most drilling fluid muds are non-Newtonian fluids, and are shear
thinning with viscosity decreasing as shear rate increases (Thivolle, 2004). Herzhaft et al. 2002,
showed that plastic viscosity is the parameter most affected by temperature changes. In Deepwater
wells, the cooling effect of the riser will result in higher plastic viscosity in the drilling fluid.
Additionally, the length of the riser enhances the cooling effect during circulation and during trips,
creating major changes in rheology if oil-based or synthetic mud is used. Changes in mud viscosity
may also lead to problems with surge and swab, transmission of measurement-while-drilling
(MWD) pulses, increased equivalent circulating density and variations in hole-cleaning efficiency.
Zamora and Power, 2002; detailed in their paper a new unified rheological model. The
9
rheological parameters for this model are the plastic viscosity (p), yield point (y) and yield stress
(0). A fourth parameter, y, is a useful tool to help characterize fluids rheologically, although it is
not necessary for solving the model. However, API RP 13D elements are still valid and in use, but
some need to be updated. Mud rheology needs adjustment for downhole conditions, especially in
ultradeep water wells drilled with oil or synthetic mud. Power and Zamora, 2003; showed that the
ratio 0/y is a useful parameter to characterize fluids rheologically. The acceptable range of 0/y
values is 0 to 1 for rheological models used in drilling.
2.2 Pressure and Temperature Effect in the Rheology of Drilling Fluid
Physically: An increase in temperature decreases the viscosity of the fluid and an increase in
pressure increases the density, and viscosity of the fluid.
Chemically: Temperature has effects on alkalinity of the fluid which causes the thinner properties
of the fluid and has effects on flocculation/deflocculating/aggregation process in the fluid.
Politte 1985; concluded from his analysis of rheological data for emulsion that drilling fluid yield
point is not a strong function of pressure and becomes progressively less so as temperature
increases. The effects of temperature on the yield point, however, are difficult to predict as they
require chemical particle effects. Davison et al. 1999; concluded from their study of rheological
data obtained from a viscosity meter that the effect of low temperature on both oil-based mud
(OBM) and synthetic mud (SBM) viscosity is pronounced. On the other hand, when pressure was
increased at various temperatures, viscosity of both oil based and SBMs increased, especially at
higher shear rates (Figure 2.1). The pressure effects do not appear to be dependent on the
temperature (Figure 2.1).
10
Figure 2.1: Rheograms at various temperatures and pressures for unweighted oil-based mud,
80:20 oil/water ratio (Davison et al. 1999).
Figure 2.1 also shows some results where; the prediction of hydrostatic pressure requires
pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) data for the mud in addition to an accurate simulation of the
downhole temperature profile. The compressibility of a drilling fluid depends on its base fluid.
Zamora and Power, 2002; evaluated the inability of API equations from RP 13D to match field
data in critical drilling, because these equations must incorporate the effects of temperature and
pressure on density and rheological properties.
2.3 Rheological Parameters
The rheological characteristics of drilling fluids with yield point, gel strength and the
rheological properties are tested throughout the drilling operations to characterize the behaviour
of drilling fluids. These properties are often dependent on the relevant shear rates and timescales
as well as sample size and viscosity in the laboratory experiment using the rheometer for
measuring. Rheological properties most often defined by the rheogram and rheological parameters.
11
The parameters refer to the Bingham plastic fluid parameters: PV (Plastic viscosity) and YP (yield
point), the power-law fluid model parameters: power law index (n) and consistency (K). There are
four basic flow types: Newtonian fluid, Plastic fluid, Pseudoplastic fluid and Dilatant fluid, shown
inn the below figure 2.2.
In this figure 2.2, the four basic rheological fluid types are shown: 1) plastic fluids, which
are characterized by a yield point (YP = τy) and a constant plastic viscosity (PV) relating the shear
stress, τ , to the shear rate, γ; 2) pseudoplastic fluids for which τy = 0 ;3) Newtonian fluids, for
which PV is constant and τy = 0 ;4) Dilatant fluids or shear thickening fluids.
Figure 2.2: Rheogram showing rheological types (Awele 2014)
1-Plastic fluid; 2- Pseudoplastic fluid; 3- Newtonian fluid; 4-Dilatant fluid; τ- Shear stress,
lb/100ft2 or Pa; γ- Shear rate, s-1; τₒ -YP = Yield point, lb/100ft2 or Pa; PV-Plastic viscosity, cp or
mPa.s
12
In the drilling process, good shear thinning behavior to drilling fluid is required, which means
in low shear rate, the mud has high internal force, while in high shear rate, the mud has low internal
force. It also means that the apparent viscosity (AV) decreases with the increasing shear rate.
Normally the shear thinning behavior is characterized by the ratio of yield point over plastic
viscosity (YP/PV) ratio. The higher YP/PV the better the shear thinning behavior.
From the shear stress and shear rate diagram (figure 2.2), it will be noticed that PV and YP
are important properties of the drilling fluid. If additions of nanoparticles (NP’s) change PV or
YP, there will be an effect on the during drilling use. If NPs addition increase PV: 1) Equivalent
circulating density will be increased and 2) Pump Pressure will be increased. A decrease will
affect on carrying capacity of drilled cuttings. Again, if addition of NPs increases YP, similar affect
can happen but moderate increase YP is good in terms of carrying capacity of drilled cuttings. YP
is the stress required to initial flow of fluid after circulation is stopped. Due to flow of fluid friction
coefficient need to measure as it can predict the wear rate of mechanical parts of the known fluid
system and simulates the rotational velocity of drilled pipe.
2.3.1 Concentration
Fluids additives change/addition has influence of concentration based on viscosity and density.
2.3.2 Gel strength
Characterize the gel limit by relating the yield stress as a function of additive concentration.
2.3.3 Pressure loss
Pressure losses affect the Fanning friction factor, which is a function of the Reynolds number and
the roughness of the pipe wall.
2.3.4 Friction reduction
13
For reducing the friction loss, shear thinning is a result from a reduction in structural
viscosity and the mechanism of friction reduction is a result from the elastic properties of the long-
chain polymers, which enable them to store the kinetic energy of turbulent flow.
Electrochemically: An increase in temperature increases the ionic activity of the electrolyte and
solubility of salts that may be present in the mud. The magnitude and direction of these changes
and their effects on rheology of the mud varies with the electrochemistry of the particular mud.
Thixotropic condition: It is a function of shear stress, shear rate, torque, and time. The viscosity
of a thixotropic fluid depends on time of shearing, as well as rate of shear, because the structural
component changes with time according to the past shear trend of the fluid.
2.4 Drilling Operation
The standard operation is that the drilling fluid supplied by a pump from the surface area
through a drilling string to the drill bit in the wellbore (figure 2.3). The operation consists in
adjusting fluid pressure drop across the drill bit and in the annulus. The drilling fluid hydraulics
are to be optimized for the given drilling mud condition. In the drilling operation process, it is
expected to lose a proportion of power due to friction. The drilling fluids are easy to use due to
their stability at high temperatures and having high tolerance to solids to make them ideal for high
pressure and high temperature (HPHT) wells (Maghrabi et al. 2011, Sushant et al. 2011). Its
lubricity reduces the torque and drag and helps minimizing the potential for differential sticking
where the rheology of the fluid flow characteristics is important (Mohamed et al. 2005). The
functions of drilling fluids are to: (i) carry cuttings and clean the wellbore; (ii) cool and lubricate
the bit and pipe in the wellbore; (iii) made good filtration and maintain the stability of the uncased
formation; (iv) to stabilize and offset the formation pressure; and (v) balance the hydraulic
horsepower.
14
During drilling operation there are several contaminants including solids and additives
affecting the fluid hydraulics and in mud properties coming from the formation fractures and
makes the fluid operation unstable. This contamination problem affects in fluid rheological
properties and fluid hydraulics directly. Two concerns in determining the rheological properties of
emulsions (Lee et al. 2012), are: (i) their effects on emulsion stability; and (ii) the effects of
deterioration of the emulsion on its rheological properties. The flow properties of fluids are
influenced by the principle factors which are: dispersed phase, continuous phase and emulsifying
agent. The rheological properties of fluids affect the change in one or more of these factors. The
factors that related to the dispersed phase are: (i) concentration (i.e. phase volume ratio); (ii)
viscosity; and (iii) size of the particles (Gusler et al. 2007, Darley and Gary 1988).
The flow of fluid in porous media is also affected by the rheological properties. These control
the loss of drilling fluid to high-permeability formations and within natural or induced fractures in
the rock (Tehrani 2007). High concentrations of solids reduce drilling rates because they increase
fluid density and viscosity (Kassab et al. 2011). Therefore, the drill bit hydraulic characteristics
are the major parameter influencing drilling performances.
2.5 Hydraulics
Hydraulic power is one of the most important hydraulic parameters having a major impact
on the rate of penetration. In drilling operation, the conventional calculations of downhole
pressure, which assume constant drilling fluid properties, are both practical and accurate enough
for drilling well applications. Downhole static pressures are easy to calculate from mud weight
measured at the surface, while additional pressures caused by circulation can be calculated using
established relationships between pump rate and drilling fluid rheological properties (Merlo et al.
1995). Errors that result from ignoring variations in mud properties are small in relatively shallow
15
wells. In these settings, mud engineers can concentrate on formulating drilling fluid properties for
maximum rates of penetration and optimal hole conditions. Formations can commonly withstand
moderate overpressure before being fractured, which permits mud engineers to add a safety margin
when weighting the mud (Merlo et al. 1995). In contract, in high pressure and high temperature
(HPHT), extended reach, and deep-water wells, mud properties vary significantly with downhole
pressure and temperature, affecting the accuracy of both surface measurements and downhole
estimations of mud weight and viscosity. In these wells these variations can be significant because
of the limited safety margins available (Merlo et al. 1995).
The ability to predict the effects of rheological changes are critical to the successful drilling
of HPHT, extended reach, and deep-water wells. Small but serious errors in computing the drilling
fluid pressure at the reservoir may result from ignoring uncertainties in either temperature or fluid
properties. Simulation of downhole temperature profiles at all phases of the drilling operation is
therefore the key to understanding the behavior of drilling fluids (Zamora et al. 2005). Equivalent
circulating density (ECD) is often much higher than equivalent mud weight (EMW) in HPHT,
extended reach, and deep-water wells due to the small annular clearances between the drill pipe
and hole wall. ECD is computed from the dimensions of the annulus and, fluid viscosity, and pump
rate. The calculation becomes increasingly complicated when changes of viscosity with
temperature are considered (Merlo et al. 1995).
2.6 Frictional Pressure Loss
Frictional pressure loss is a function of several factors such as rheology of the drilling fluid
(Newtonian or non-Newtonian), flow regime (laminar, turbulent, or intermediate flow), flow rate,
drill string configuration and wellbore geometry.
16
During circulations of the drilling fluid through the well fluid circulating system (Figure 2.3),
friction between the drilling fluid and the wall of the drill pipe and annulus cause pressure loss.
The pump pressure, ΔPp, is affected by:
1. Frictional pressure losses (ΔPs) in the surface equipment such as Kelly, swivel, and standpipe.
2. Frictional pressure losses (ΔPds) inside the drill string (drill pipe, ΔPdp and drill collar, ΔPdc).
3. Frictional pressure losses across the bit, ΔPb.
4. Frictional pressure losses in the annulus around the drill string, ΔPa.
Mathematically the total pump pressure normally calculates by summation of all the above
frictional pressure losses (ΔPp = ΔPs + ΔPds + ΔPb + ΔPa). It is also known as stand pipe pressure
(SPP): Error in ΔPp is a combination of errors in the four elements. In general, frictional pressure
losses across the bit, ΔPb, and the surface pipe system can be evaluated accurately. Error in ΔPp
consists primarily of errors from friction pressure losses in the drill string and annulus. The drill
string pressure losses represent the largest component of error in the pump pressure.
17
Figure 2.3: Diagram of the drilling fluid circulating system.
The diagram of the drilling fluid circulating system (figure 2.3) shows that the fluid flows
throughout the drill pipe, drill collar, drill bit. Thereby the pressure drop occurs through each
section in the wellbore and surface to be reduced to increase the drilling efficiency.
18
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the methodology of determining the fluid viscosity and selection of rheological
model is described. The procedure for predicting the hydraulic pressure loss, based on the
rheological properties and models, is summarized. Considers for the error analysis are given.
Figure 3.1 provides a flow chart for the overall procedure, states with the determination of
rheological properties, simulation of hydraulic pressure loss and comparison to experimental or
field data for assessment leading to recommendation.
19
Figure 3.1: Flow chart for overall analysis and assessment of hydraulic performance in well
applications
20
3.1 Fluid Preparation
Fluid samples, containing water and additives includes: clay, salts, caustic soda, polymer,
starch, (See Table 3.1) were prepared by adding together and mixed well. This fluid sample was
named “Fluid-1”. The composition ratio was maintained constant for all subsequent fluid samples
used in the lab work. The rheological properties of these fluids were measured and recorded. All
rheological properties were measured at ambient conditions (at 200C).
Table 3.1: Composition of the Fluid-1
Chemicals for Concentration unit Metric unit 1000 ml

Fluid-1
NaCl 26 lb/bbl 9.12 kg/m3 9.12g
Amine 6 lb/bbl 2.11 kg/m3 2.11g
XC polymer 1.5 0.53 kg/m3 0.53g
Clarified Starch 8 lb/bbl 2.81 kg/m3 2.81g
CaCO3 35 lb/bbl 12.28 kg/m3 12.28g
Table-3.2 described for the composition analysis of another water-based mud as Fluid-2
and done the same comparison analysis.
Table 3.2: Composition of the Fluid-2
Chemicals for Concentration unit Metric unit 1000 ml

Fluid-2
Xanthan gum 3 lb/bbl 1.15 kg/m3 1.15g
PAC LV 2.5 2.53 kg/m3 2.53g
Starch 10 lb/bbl 5.20 kg/m3 5.20g
NaOH 5M 5 lb/bbl 2.28 kg/m3 2.28g
The desired concentration of fluid solutions was prepared by dissolving of the polymer in
water by stirring of the mixture with the magnetic stirrer at 1000 rpm until the polymer is fully
dissolved. The fluids solution in each concentration was incubated at temperature points ranging
21
from room temperature (200C) for about an hour at each point. Once the thermometer indicated
that the solution temperature is constant, the dial readings were performed by viscometer and
rheological parameters were calculated. The concentration (m/v) of each fluid solution, which
provided the highest ratio of yield point over plastic viscosity (YP/PV ratio), was considered as
the optimum concentration and was selected for the next analysis.
3.2 Experiment Procedure
To measure the rheological parameters of the drilling fluid a FANN Model 35 Viscometer
was used. The FANN Model 35 viscometer is a rotational instrument powered by an electric motor.
The test fluid is contained in the annular space (shear gap) between two concentric cylinders. The
outer cylinder or rotor sleeve is driven at a constant rotational velocity. The rotation of the rotor
sleeve in the fluid sample produces a torque on the inner cylinder or bob. A torsion spring restrains
the movement of the bob, and a dial attached to the bob indicates displacement of the bob.
A schematic diagram of the direct indicating viscometer is shown in Figure 3.2. The
deflection in degrees of the bob is read from the graduated scale on the dial. The viscosity of the
samples was measured at the rotational velocity of 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm. Shear rate is
proportional to rotational velocity. According to the dial reading at different rotational velocity,
the rheological parameters (PV and YP) are calculated according to:
μ𝑝 = θ600 − θ300 …………………………………………………………………………..… (3.7)
τy = θ300 − μp ……………………………………………………………………………….. (3.8)
22
Where: γ-shear rate, s-1; N-rotational velocity, rpm; θ600-dial reading of 600rpm, θ300-dial reading
of 300rpm, μp-Plastic Viscosity, cp; τy-Bingham Yield Point, lb/100ft2.
Figure 3.2: Schematic diagram of the Fann Model 35 viscometer
Three trials were done to determine the rheological parameters for fluid sample. Two fluid
samples were tested. The results are reported as the ensemble average:
𝑁
1
𝑆̅ = ∑ 𝑆𝑛
𝑁
𝑛=1
23
Where S is the property and N = 6 is the total number of samples. The variance of the experiments:
𝑁−1
1
𝛿𝑠 = √𝑆̅ 2 = ∑(𝑆𝑛 − 𝑆̅)2
𝑁−1
𝑛=1
is reported as an estimate of the measurement uncertainty.
3.3 Rheological Model Selection
This study presents a comparison of several major rheological models to select the best one which
precisely represents the relationship of shear stress and shear rate of the fluid solutions. These
models are the Newtonian, Bingham, Power-law, API dual Power-law and Herschel-Bulkley. The
shear stress versus shear rate data is plotted for determining which rheological model best fit the
behavior of the fluid system. Comparison analysis has done in two ways; (i) Correlations Analysis,
and (ii) The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis.
3.3.1 Correlations Analysis:
Correlation analysis involves identifying the relationship between a dependent variable and one or
more independent variables. A model of the relationship is assumed and estimates of the parameter
values are used to develop an estimated regression equation. The regression analysis (value of R2-
value) between the measured and calculated shear to determine he correlations of the best fitted
model. The model that gives the highest R2-squared value is the best one for a given drilling fluid.
The regression analysis was based on residual plots. A residual is the difference between
the measured value and the predicted value of a regression model. It is important to understand
residuals because they show how accurate a mathematical function, represents a set of data. In a
graph that shows the residuals on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal
24
axis. If the points in a residual plot are randomly dispersed around the horizontal axis, a linear
regression model is appropriate for the data; otherwise, a non-linear model is more appropriate.
3.3.2 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis
The absolute average percent error (EAAP) between the measured and calculated shear stresses is
the criterion for selecting the model. It is the analysis to determine the best fitted model that is
applied in pressure loss calculations. The model that gives the lowest EAAP is the best one for a
given drilling fluid.
The lowest EAAP between the measured and calculated (predicted using the model
relationship) shear stress is the criterion for selecting the model of a given drilling fluid:
E𝐴𝐴𝑃 = [(1⁄N) ∑|(𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 − 𝜏𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 )/𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 |] × 100…………………………..... (3.9)
3.3.3 Determining parameters for the Rheology Models
3.3.3.1 Newtonian Model
Newtonian fluid has linear relationship between shear stress (τ) and shear rate (γ) according to:
τ = μγ………………………………………………………………………………….……. (3.10)
Where: τ = shear stress, lb/100ft2 or Pa,
μ = viscosity, cp or mPas,
γ = shear rate, s-1
Here, the shear stresses can be estimated as function of viscosity and calculated by the following
equations:
μ = θ300 …………………………………………………………………………….………. (3.11)

μ
Calculated Shear Stress, τ = 478.8 γ………………………………………………………. (3.12)
Where: ϴ300 = dial reading of viscometer at 300 rpm; and 1 lb/100ft2 = 478.8cp.
25
3.3.3.2 Bingham Plastic Model
The Bingham plastic model describes time-independent fluids. It is a two-parameter rheological
model that commonly used in the drilling industry. For the Bingham plastic fluids, initial stress is
required to initiate the flow. The modeled shear stresses can be calculated by the following
equations.
τ = μp 𝛾 + 𝜏𝑦 ………………………………………………………………………………... (3.13)
μ𝑝 = θ600 − θ300 ………………………………………………………………………...…. (3.14)
τy = θ300 − μp ………………………………………………………………………….….. (3.15)
Where: μ𝑝 = Plastic viscosity, cp; τ𝑦 = Yield point, lbs/100ft2
3.3.3.3 Power Law Model
Power law model describe the flow behavior of Pseudoplastic fluid is a two-parameter rheological
model. Here the viscosity of power law fluid decreases with increasing shear rate. No initial stress
is required for initiating the flow. The Power law relationship is defined as:
τ = kγn …………………………………………………………………………………..….. (3.16)
Where K is the consistence index, n is the flow behavior index.
𝜃
n = 3.32 log (𝜃600 )………………………………………………………………………………..….. (3.17)
300
510×𝜃300
K= 511𝑛
dyne sec 𝑛 /100𝑐𝑚2 …………………………………………………………………… (3.18)
3.3.3.4 API Model
A modified Power Law model is recommended in the API RP 13D for the calculation of frictional
pressure losses. The advantage of API power law model is it matches the shear rates from
viscometer with shear rates inside the drill pipe and annulus. Usually the viscometer readings of
θ600 and θ300 are used for rheology and pressure loss calculations. Inside the annulus, θ300 and
26
θ100 are used for rheology and pressure loss calculations. In a Power Law model, increasing shear
rate decreases apparent viscosity. The first three shear rates represent the high shear rate in the
drill pipe; the next three shear rates represent the low shear rate in the annulus. API model
parameters are calculated according to:
τ = kγn ………………………………………………………………………………..…….. (3.16)
𝜃 5.11𝜃600
For Pipe Flow: n𝑝 = 3.32 log (𝜃600 ), k𝑝 = …………………….…………………. (3.19)
300 1022n𝑝
𝜃100 5.11𝜃100
For Annulus Flow: n𝑎 = 0.657 log ( ) , k𝑎 = ……………………….…………. (3.20)
𝜃3 170.2n𝑎
3.3.3.5 Herschel-Bulkley Model
The Herschel-Bulkley model is Power law model, which accommodates the existence of a yield
point. It is a three-parameter rheological model. Herschel-Bulkley model parameters are calculated
according to:
τ = τ𝑦 + kγn ………………………………………………………………………….…….. (3.21)
τ𝑦 = 2θ3 − θ6 ………………………………………………………………………………. (3.22)
The parameter τ0 is the actual yield point of drilling fluid, which indicates the lowest shear stress
that propels the fluid to flow. It is not an extrapolated value, so it means completely different with
the Bingham yield pointτy . The value of τ0 is related to the type and concentration of the polymer
agents, besides the solid content also affects it. The shear stresses can be calculated by the
following equations and shown as follows.
𝜃 −τ
n = 3.32log(𝜃600 −τ0) …………………………………………………….………………… (3.23)
300 0
(𝜃300 −𝜏0 )
K= ……………………………………………………………………………..….. (3.24)
511𝑛
27
3.4 Hydraulics
Hydraulic power is one of the most important hydraulic parameters that have a major impact on
the rate of penetration. It is one of the principal functions of drilling fluid is transferring hydraulic
power.
3.4.1 Frictional Pressure Loss Calculation
We used the best-fit rheological model of the fluid that has been selected and the rheological
properties of fluid have been determined. The next step is to calculate the friction factor, 𝑓, which
is relevant to the fluid rheological properties and Reynolds number. Once the friction number has
been determined, the frictional pressure loss can be calculated using the API Power Law
rheological model are as follows:
 Pipe Flow
a. Pipe velocity:
0.408𝑞
V𝑝 = ....................................................................................................................(3.25)
𝐷𝑝2
b. Reynolds number:
928𝐷𝑝 𝑉𝑝 𝜌
N𝑅𝑒 = ........................................................................................................... (3.26)
𝜇𝑒
96𝑣𝑝 𝑛−1 3𝑛+1 𝑛

𝜇𝑒 = 100𝑘( ) ( 4𝑛 ) ………...…………………………………………..…. (3.27)
𝐷𝑃
𝑅
𝑛 = 3.32 log (𝑅600)………..…………………………………………………...…… (3.28)
300
5.1𝑅600
𝑘= ……………………………..……………………………………….…… (3.29)
1022𝑛
Where 𝜇𝑒 is the equivalent viscosity, cp
c. Critical Reynolds number value, 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑐 =2100
d. Fanning friction factor:
For laminar flow, 𝑁𝑅𝑒 < 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑐
𝑓 = 16/𝑁𝑅𝑒 ………...………………………………………………………………...…. (3.30)
28
For turbulent flow, 𝑁𝑅𝑒 > 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑐
𝑎
𝑓= ……………………………..…………………………………………………. (3.31)
𝑁𝑅𝑒 𝑏
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑛+3.93
𝑎= …………………………..……………………………………………..… (3.32)
50
1.75−𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑛
𝑏= …………………………..……………………………………………...… (3.33)
7
e. Frictional pressure loss calculation inside drillstring, 𝛥𝑃𝑑𝑠 :
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑣𝑝2 𝜌
( )= ……..……………………………………………………………………. (3.34)
𝑑𝐿 25.81𝐷𝑝
𝑑𝑝
𝛥𝑃𝑑𝑠 = (𝑑𝐿 ) ∆𝐿……………............................................................................................. (3.35)
Where (𝑑𝑝/𝑑𝐿) is the pressure gradient, psi/ft.
 Annulus Flow
a. Annular velocity:
0.408𝑞
V𝑎 = (𝐷2 −𝐷2 )…………………..………………………………………………….... (3.36)
2 1
b. Reynolds number:
928(𝐷2 −𝐷1 )𝑉𝑎 𝜌

N𝑅𝑒 = ………………...………………………………………………….. (3.37)
𝜇𝑒
144𝑣 𝑛−1 2𝑛+1 𝑛

𝜇𝑒 = 100𝑘(𝐷 ) ( 3𝑛 ) .......................................................................................... (3.38)
2 −𝐷1
𝑅100
𝑛 = 0.657 log ( )………………...………………………………………………….. (3.39)
𝑅3
5.10𝜃100
k= ....................................................................................................................... (3.40)
170.2n
c. Critical Reynolds number value, 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2100
Compare 𝑁𝑅𝑒 and 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑐 to determine the flow regime, use the same procedure as in pipe flow, but
the friction factor for laminar flow should be changed as: 𝑓 = 24/𝑁𝑅𝑒 .
29
e. Frictional pressure loss calculation in the annulus, 𝛥𝑃𝑎 :
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑣 2 𝜌
(𝑑𝐿 ) = 25.81(𝐷𝑎 −𝐷 )………...……………………………………………………………. (3.41)
2 1
𝑑𝑝
𝛥𝑃𝑎 = (𝑑𝐿 ) ∆𝐿…………................................................................................................... (3.42)
 Frictional pressure losses across the bit, ∆𝑃𝑏 :
156𝜌𝑞 2
∆𝑃𝑏 = (𝐷2 2 2 2 ……………………………………………..……..…………….. (3.43)
𝑁1 +𝐷𝑁2 +𝐷𝑁3 )
Where DN1, DN2, DN3 are diameters of the three nozzles.
 The pump pressure, ∆𝑃𝑝 :
∆𝑃𝑝 = ∆𝑃𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑑𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑏 + ∆𝑃𝑎 ………..………………..……………………………... (3.44)
Where ∆𝑃𝑠 is frictional pressure loss in the surface equipment.
From the above equations, the total pump pressure of an actual drilling operation can be predicted.
30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the results of the viscometer test are reported. These data are then analyzed
for model selection. A sample hydraulics calculation is calculated, and the results are discussed.
4.1 Fann Viscometer Reading
The rheological parameters of designed drilling fluid systems, a FANN Model 35 Viscometer
was used in the experiment. The viscosity of the samples has been measured at the rotational
velocity (v) of 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm. The dial reading (θ) at different rotational velocity
are reported in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. Three trials were conducted for two sample fluids (Fluid-
1 & Fluid-2).
Table 4.1: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-1
RPM (v) Reading (𝜃̅) Variance (δθ)
600 39 0.33
300 25 0.58
200 19 0.25
100 11 0.00
6 3 0.08
3 1 0.08
Table 4.2: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-2
RPM (v) Reading (𝜃̅) Variance (δθ)
600 37 0.25
300 23 0.58
200 18 0.08
100 10 0.08
6 2 0.08
3 1 0.00
31
4.2 Error Analysis
Sample fluids were tested in the temperature of 20°C (Room temperature) using the Fann
Viscometer with the speed range of 3-600 rpm (Shear rate of maximum, 1024 s-1). The deflection
in degrees of the bob was read from the graduated scale on the dial. The viscosity of the sample
was measured at the rotational velocity of 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm. The set of experimental
data or measurements were taken as deflection in degrees of the bob for three times with the speed
range of 3-600 rpm for both fluid samples (Fluid-1 & Fluid-2). The average 𝜃̅, and variance 𝛿𝜃
was calculated is reported in Table 4.1 & Table 4.2. 𝜃̅ used in the calculations with the speed
range of 3-600 rpm to calculate rheology properties. The standard deviation was found to be in an
acceptable range in both cases. In the validation process, we have compared the second set of
known fluid data as Fluid-2, and found good comparison results accordingly with the results of
Fluid-1.
4.3 Shear stress measured
The shear stresses and shear rates were estimated using equations (4.1 & 4.2) as function of
viscosity are shown in Table 4.3 & Table 4.4 for both fluids. The standard deviation was found to
be in an acceptable range for both measured shear stresses. The average measured 𝜏̅ of both fluids
were used in the calculations and compared with the modeled shear stresses for each rheological
model.
γ = 1.703𝑣 …………………………………………..…………………………………….. (4.1)
τ = 1.067𝜃 ………………………………………………………………………...………. (4.2)
32
Table 4.3: Shear stress measured in field units (lb/ft2) for Fluid-1
Shear rate, γ (s-1) Shear stress, 𝜏̅

Variance (δτ)
(lbs/100ft2)
1021.80 41.61 0.38

510.90 26.68 0.66
340.60 20.27 0.28
170.30 11.74 0.00
10.22 3.20 0.09
5.11 1.07 0.09
Table 4.4: Shear stress measured in field units (lb/ft2) for Fluid-2
Shear rate, γ (s-1) Shear stress, 𝜏̅

Variance (δτ)
(lbs/100ft2)
1021.80 39.48 0.28

510.90 24.54 0.66
340.60 19.21 0.09
170.30 10.67 0.09
10.22 2.13 0.09
5.11 1.07 0.00
4.4 Rheological Model Selection
4.4.1 Newtonian Model and Experiment data
4.4.1.1 Shear stress calculation
Table 4.5 shows the shear stress calculated using the Newtonian model as follows. According to
the dial reading of the Fluid-1 solution at 20ºC, the data will follow through this model selection
process for Newtonian model.
33
Table 4.5: Comparison analysis between measured and calculated shear stresses
Measured Shear stress Modeled Shear

Shear rate (s-1)
(lbs/100ft2) stress (lbs/100ft2)
1021.80 41.61 53.35

510.90 26.68 26.68
340.60 20.27 17.78
170.30 11.74 8.89
10.22 3.20 0.53
5.11 1.07 0.27
4.4.1.2 Correlations Analysis
In figure 4.1, residual plot shows the residuals on the vertical axis and the shear stress on the
horizontal axis. The plot pattern is U-shaped, which suggests that a better fit as a non-linear model.
5
4
3
Residuals (lbs/1002)
2
1
0
-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2
-3
-4
-5
Shear stress (lbs/1002)
Figure 4.1: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Newtonian model.
Therefore, on the basis of this residual plot analysis, we plotted the shear rate versus shear
stress of measured and calculated data for Newtonian model. Then comparing both with respect to
shear rate in the x-axis, we compared the trend for measured and calculated shear stress (Figure
34
4.2). We checked the linear relationship between measured and modeled shear stresses. From this
relationship comparison analysis, we found a regression value of R2 = 0.9713 (Table-4.10).
Measured Modelled
60
Shear stress (lbs/100ft2)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate (s-1)
Figure 4.2: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and modeled data using Newtonian
model.
4.4.1.3 The absolute average percent of error (EAAP) analysis
From this statistical method, we used to calculate the EAAP, the model that provide the lowest
EAAP is selected to be the best one.
E𝐴𝐴𝑃 = [(1⁄N) ∑|(𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 − 𝜏𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 )/𝜏𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 |] × 100………………………….… (4.3)
A comparison of measured and calculated data in the above Figure 4.2. By using the above
EAAP equation (4.3) for the Newtonian model, EAAP = 31.87%.
4.4.2 Bingham Plastic Model and Experiment data
35
Table 4.6 described the result of calculated shear stress using the Bingham Plastic model
as follows. According to the dial reading of the fluid sample at 20ºC, the data will follow through
this model selection process for Bingham Plastic model.
Table 4.6: Comparison analysis between measured and calculated shear stresses
Measured Shear Modeled Shear

Shear rate (s-1)
stress (lbs/100ft2) stress (lbs/100ft2)
1021.80 41.61 41.23

510.90 26.68 25.70
340.60 20.27 19.84
170.30 11.74 14.11
10.22 3.20 8.19
5.11 1.07 5.87
In Figure 4.5, residual plot for measured shear stress and calculated shear stress showed that
the plot pattern is not random and is U-shaped, which suggest that a better fit for a non-linear
model. So, the calculated shear stress has the exponential trend line better than linear trend line
and has highest regression value that give best correlation measurement for Bingham Plastic
model.
36
5
4
3
Residuals (lbs/1002)
2
1
0
-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-2
-3
-4
-5
Shear stress (lbs/1002)
Figure 4.3: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Bingham Plastic model
Measured Modelled
60
Shear stress(lbs/100ft2)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-1
Shear rate (s )
Figure 4.4: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and Modeled data
Therefore, based on this residual plot analysis, we plotted measured and calculated shear
stress with shear rate, then comparing the analysis, we found best correlation regression value in
exponential power regression line for measured and calculated shear stress. We also checked the
linear relationship between measured and modeled shear stresses. From this relationship of
comparison analysis, we found a regression value of R2 = 0.9898 (Table-4.10).
37
The Bingham plastic model EAAP is 90.42%. Above figure shows a comparison between
measured and calculated data, which is worse than the Newtonian model.
4.4.3 Power Law Model and Experiment data
Table 4.7: The measured and calculated shear stresses

Shear rate (s-1)
1021.80 41.61 41.32
510.90 26.68 26.52
340.60 20.27 20.46
170.30 11.74 13.13
10.22 3.20 2.17
5.11 1.07 1.39
In Figure 4.5, residual plot for measured shear stress and calculated shear stress showed that
the plot pattern is random, which suggest a better fit for a linear model. The calculated shear stress
fits within a linear trend line.
38
5
4
3
Residuals (lbs/100ft2)
2
1
0
-1 0 10 20 30 40 50
-2
-3
-4
-5
Figure 4.5: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Power Law model.
Measured Modelled
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 500 1000 1500
Shear rate (s-1)
Figure 4.6: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and calculated data
Therefore, on the basis of this residual plot analysis, the two lines between measured and
calculated shear stress with shear rate for Power Law model. Then comparing result found best
correlation regression value in linear regression line for measured and calculated shear stresses
39
(Figure 4.6). Therefore, on the basis of this linear correlation comparison analysis, we found
highest regression value of R2 = 0.9992 (Table-4.10).
The Power Law model EAAP is 10.96%. Figure 4.6 shows a comparison between measured
and calculated data, which gives the better result than the Newtonian and Bingham Plastic Model.
4.4.4 API Model and Experiment data
Table 4.8 The measured and calculated shear stresses

Shear rate (s-1) stress (lbs/100ft2)
stress (lbs/100ft2)
1021.80 41.61 41.91
510.90 26.68 27.20
340.60 20.27 19.66
170.30 11.74 11.69
10.22 3.20 2.23
5.11 1.07 1.02
Figure 4.8 shows the residual plot for measured shear stress and calculated shear stress. The plot
pattern is random, which suggest a better fit for a linear model.
40
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0 10 20 30 40 50
-2
-3
-4
-5
Figure 4.7: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for API model.
Measured Modelled
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 500 1000 1500
Shear rate (s-1)
Figure: 4.8: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and calculated data.
Therefore, on the basis of this residual plot analysis, we plotted two lines in Figure 4.8
between measured and calculated shear stress with shear rate for API Power Law model.
Therefore, on the basis of these linear correlation comparison analysis, we found a regression value
of R2 = 0.9992 (Table-4.10).
41
The API model EAAP is 5.84%. which is better result than the previous three models.
4.4.5 Herschel-Bulkley Model and Experiment data
Table 4.9 The measured and calculated shear stresses

Shear rate (s-1)
1021.80 41.61 )
39.77
510.90 26.68 24.83
340.60 20.27 18.60
170.30 11.74 11.89
10.22 3.20 2.89
5.11 1.07 1.76
In Figure 4.9, residual plot for measured shear stress and calculated shear stress showed
that the plot pattern is random, which suggest a better fit for a linear model
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2
-3
-4
-5
Figure 4.9: Residual plot for measured and calculated shear stress for Herschel-Bulkley.
42
Measured Modelled
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 500 1000 1500
Shear rate (s-1)
Figure 4.10: Plot for shear rate vs. shear stress of measured and calculated data for Herschel-
Bulkley model.
Therefore, on the basis of this residual plot analysis, we plotted two regression lines
between measured and calculated shear stress for Herschel-Bulkley model in Figure 4.10. On the
basis of this linear correlation comparison analysis, we found the regression value is R2 = 0.9984.
In the Herschel-Bulkley Model, we found EAAP is 13.65%, (Figure 4.12). which gives better
results than the first three models but compares has favorably to the API model.
43
4.5 Summary of rheological model selection
According to Table 4.10, the API Power Law model provides the lowest EAAP and highest R2 value
for Fluid-1.
Table 4.10: Summary of best regression equation for non- linear and linear models for each
rheological model selection for Fluid-1
Model Name Regression equation R2 EAAP

Newtonian y = 1.2913x - 4.5877 0.9713 31.87%
Bingham y = 0.8454x + 4.4232 0.9898 90.42%
Power Law y = 0.9945x + 0.1655 0.9973 10.96%
API Power Law y = 1.0213x - 0.5137 0.9992 5.84%
Hershel-Bulkley y = 0.9372x + 0.2903 0.9984 13.65%
The API Power Law Model can better describe the flow behavior of fluids solution in
comparing with other rheological models. Therefore, we can strongly conclude that most of the
polymer/mud solutions are Pseudoplastic fluid. Here the API Power Law Model accurately
represents the rheological properties of drilling fluid in drill pipe and annulus. We have used this
API power law model precisely to estimate the frictional pressure loss and calculate the bit
hydraulics.
It was also found that the best rheological model was fitted with API Power-law model has
the lowest EAAP of 6.64% (Table 4.11) for Fluid-2. Therefore, in the validation process, we have
compared this set of known fluid data as Fluid-2, and found good comparison results accordingly
with the results of Fluid-1.
44
Table 4. 11: Summary of best regression equation for non- linear and linear models for each
rheological model selection for Fluid-2
Model Name Regression equation R2 EAAP

Newtonian y = 1.2472x - 3.7235 0.9746 21.40%
Bingham y = 0.7582x + 6.7651 0.9743 70.22%
Power Law y = 0.9978x - 0.0324 0.9988 18.86%
API Power Law y = 1.0061x - 0.2489 0.9997 6.64%
Hershel-Bulkley y = 0.9368x - 0.0307 0.9988 24.30%
4.6 Hydraulics Simulation
A hydraulics simulation was conducted with the data from a well in 420ft of water in Block
89, south pass, Gulf of Mexico (Hareland et al. 2012). The 5-in drilling pipe run to 12349 ft
measured depth. The intermediate casing of 11 7/8-in was run to 12710 ft depth. The mud was
11.5 ppg. To simplify the hydraulics simulation, the temperature was assumed to be constant all
over the well bore and it is approximate to 68℉ (20℃). The rheological data was taken from the
test of a fluid polymer system given below (Engineering data). The specific well architecture data
was shown. The calculation procedure was listed as follows.
Engineering data from the well design:
Drillpipe-5in. 19.5 S-135 w/4.5 IF (6.75in. ×3in. connection): D1=5in, Dp =4.5in
Casing 117/8 in. × 10.711in., D2=10.711in.
Length of well = 12440ft
Rheological data = same as in table 6.1
Q = 100 GPM
Density (ρ) = 11.55lb/gal
Bit: 10 5/8 in. w/3: 28/32 in. jets
45
ΔPs = 0
 Pipe Flow
a. Pipe velocity:
0.408𝑞 0.408×100
V𝑝 = = = 2.015 𝑓𝑡/𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝐷𝑝2 (4.5)2
b.Reynolds number:
𝑅 37
𝑛 = 3.32 log (𝑅600) = 3.32 log (23) = 0.685
300
5.1𝑅600 5.1×37
𝑘= = 10220.685 = 1.632 𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑒. 𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑛 /𝑓𝑡
1022𝑛
96𝑣𝑝 𝑛−1 3𝑛 + 1 𝑛
𝜇𝑒 = 100𝑘( ) ( )
𝐷𝑃 4𝑛
96 × 2.015 0.685−1 3 × 0.685 + 1 0.685

= 100 × 1.632 × ( ) ( ) = 53.884 𝑐𝑝
4.5 4 × 0.685
928𝐷𝑝 𝑉𝑝 𝜌 928×4.5×2.015×11.55
N𝑅𝑒 = = = 1803.513
𝜇𝑒 53.884
𝑓 = 16 ⁄𝑅𝑒 = 16⁄1803.513 = 0.008872
e. Frictional pressure loss calculation inside drillstring, 𝛥𝑃𝑑𝑠 :
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑣𝑝2 𝜌 0.008872 × 2.0152 × 11.55

( )= = = 0.003581 𝑝𝑠𝑖/𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝐿 25.81𝐷𝑝 25.81 × 4.5
𝑑𝑝
𝛥𝑃𝑑𝑠 = ( ) ∆𝐿 = 0.003581 × 12440 = 44.553 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑑𝐿
Where (𝑑𝑝/𝑑𝐿)is the pressure gradient, psi/ft.
 Annulus Flow
a. Annular velocity:
46
0.408𝑞 0.408 × 100
V𝑎 = 2 2 = (10.7112 − 52 ) = 0.455 𝑓𝑡/𝑠𝑒𝑐
(𝐷2 − 𝐷1 )
b.Reynolds number:
𝑅100 10
𝑛 = 0.657 log ( ) = 0.657 log ( 1 ) = 3.32
𝑅3
5.10𝜃100 5.1×10
k= = 170.23.32 = 1.508 𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑒. 𝑠𝑒𝑐 𝑛 /𝑓𝑡
170.2n
144𝑣 𝑛−1 2𝑛+1 𝑛 144×0.455 2×3.32+1 3.32

𝜇𝑒 = 100𝑘(𝐷 ) ( 3𝑛 ) = 100 × 1.508( 10.711−5 )3.32−1 ( ) = 29.022
2 −𝐷1 3×3.32
928(𝐷2 −𝐷1 )𝑉𝑎 𝜌 928×(10.711−5)×0.455×11.55

N𝑅𝑒 = = = 959.095
𝜇𝑒 29.022
𝑓 = 24 ⁄𝑅𝑒 = 16⁄959.095 = 0.025
e. Frictional pressure loss calculation inside annulus, 𝛥𝑃𝑎 :
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑣𝑝2 𝜌 0.025 × 2.0152 × 11.55

( )= = = 0.000405 𝑝𝑠𝑖/𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝐿 25.81(𝐷2 − 𝐷1 ) 25.81 × (10.711 − 5)
𝑑𝑝
𝛥𝑃𝑎 = ( ) ∆𝐿 = 0.003581 × 12440 = 5.043 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑑𝐿
 Frictional pressure losses across the bit, ∆𝑃𝑏 :
156𝜌𝑞 2 156×11.2×1002
∆𝑃𝑏 = (𝐷2 2 2 2 = (282 +282 +282)2 = 3.257 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑁1 +𝐷𝑁2 +𝐷𝑁3 )
 The pump pressure, ∆𝑃𝑝 :
∆𝑃𝑝 = ∆𝑃𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑑𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑏 + ∆𝑃𝑎 = 0 + 44.553 + 3.257 + 5.043 = 52.853 𝑝𝑠𝑖
From the above simulation, the pump pressure of an actual drilling operation was predicted. The
estimated pump pressure refers to the power lost overcoming the friction through the drilling
fluid circulation, which is an important parameter in drilling engineering design.
47
4.7 Data used to validate the approach
Accurate downhole and surface measurements of a synthetic-based drilling fluid were taken in a
well to determine variances between actual and calculated pump pressure. A special team headed
by Marathon Oil Co. successfully instrumented and collected a very large volume of hydraulics
data on a well in the Gulf on Mexico at 12,710 ft depth. Using multiple sensor packages, accurate
measurement of downhole dynamic pressure (hydraulic data) were obtained. The well selected for
the test was in 420 ft of water in Block 89, South Pass, Gulf of Mexico. Testing was conducted
after running and cementing a single-weight intermediate string of 11 7/8-in. casing to 12,710 ft.
The mud was the same 11.5 lbm/gal polyaphaolefin (PAO)-based drilling fluid used to drill the
long, intermediate casing interval. A single mud pit was isolated to limit surface volume to about
220 bbl and to minimize circulating time for conditioning mud. This also reduces temperature
variations while the mud was on the surface. The temperature seems to be constant during the test
and it is approximate to 150°F. In addition to conventional rheological measurements, HPHT
properties were taken using a Fann Model 35 viscometer.
Table 4.12: Average % of reduction error difference between field and modeled SPP
SPP_API Model
DEPTH [m] SPP_FLD [kPa] %ERROR Avg. % Error
[kPa]
600 10656 8924 16
620 11230 9188 18
640 11291 8998 20
660 9877 8809 11
680 10852 9074 16
700 10332 8883 14 14
720 10341 9035 13
740 10133 8957 12
760 10109 8995 11
780 9937 8917 10
800 9848 8928 9
48
25
20
15
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
%ERROR Avg % Error
Figure 4.11: Average % of reduction error difference between field SPP and modeled SPP
According to the above testing facilities the field drilling data and modelled drilling data
were compared (using API model) in terms of SPP (Total pressure loss/Stand pipe pressure)
showed in the above Table 4.12. This results also described in the figure 4.11. It is clearly shown
that the difference between SPP-field and SPP-API modeled average error was 14%, which is the
acceptable average percentage of error range in the drilling industry. Therefore, API hydraulics
calculation give a good approximation to measured total pump pressure with 14% of difference
between measured and calculated data.
49
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
5.1 Summary
• The drilling fluid rheological properties were obtained from the laboratory experiments to
analyse/design drilling fluid system.
• The rheological models, Newtonian, Bingham, Power-law, API RP 13D, Herschel-
Bulkley, have been evaluated for accurate representation Among these models, API models
gave comparatively better result.
• A simple and direct approach has been presented for selecting the best rheological model
for any drilling fluid system according to the lowest EAAP error analysis criteria.
• The API model can be applied with high confidence to predict rheological properties and
hydraulics calculations in water based or oil-based mud. Also, this model can fit adequately
many real yield stress fluids, with simply two parameters.
• The proposed methods by predicting pressure losses can be applied to correcting frictional
coefficient/ bit wear/ fluid loss effects. The results were more accurate than those obtained
with standards method using other models.
• The study concluded the hydraulic effects and to increase drilling efficiency via mud
conditioning and hydraulics optimization.
5.2 Further considerations
Considering the approaches of this study and model calculations/recommendations is
important as it gives us a major range to evaluate the rheological models as well as well login
corrections. Also, it gives as a result, a better interpretation and validation the study proposed for
the future research.
50
In this study, the pump pressure of an actual drilling operation was collected from filed
data. The estimated total pump pressure refers to the power loss calculations, overcoming the
friction through the drilling fluid operation is an important parameter in drilling engineering
design. The hydraulic engineering calculations done the individual and total frictional pressure
losses in the well fluid circulating system with the rheological models. These pressure losses of
SPP can be compared to the field SPP to estimate the maximum performances of drilling
operations. The models help to prevent major problems in drilling circulations such as stuck pipe,
reducing bit wear, high cost of well-login operations by applying this study of approaches to
determining the optimum flow needed to improve drilling operation.
51
References
Abdo, J., and Haneef, D. “Nanoparticles: Promising solution to overcome stern drilling problems”.
NSTI-Nanotech 2010, www.nsti.org, ISBN 978-1-4398-3415-2, Vol. 3.
Amanullah, M. SPE, Al-Arfaj, M. K, and Al-Abdullatif, Z. “Preliminary Test Results of Nano-

based Drilling Fluids for Oil and Gas Field Application”. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and
Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–3 March 2011.
Amanullah, MD., and Al-Abdullahtif, Z. “Preliminary test results of a water based nanofluid”. The
8th International Conference & Exihibition on Chemistry in Industry, Manama, Bahrain, 18-20,
October 2010.
American Petroleum Institute. “Recommended Practice on the Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-
Well Drilling Fluids”. API RP 13D, 3rd Edition, Washington, DC, June 1995.
Awele, N. 2014. “Investigation of Additives on Drilling Mud Performance With ‘TONDER

GEOTHERMAL DRILLING’ As A Case Study”, Master Thesis, Aalborg University Esbjerg,
Denmark.
Cranford, P.J., Gordon, Jr., D.C., Lee, K., Armsworthy, S.L., Tremblay, G.-H. 1999. Chronic
toxicity and physical disturbance effects of water- and oil-based drilling fluids and some major
constituents on adult sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). Marine Environmental Research,
Vol. 48, Issue 3, pp. 177-262.
Darley, H. C. H. and Gary, G. R. 1988. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion
Fluids. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX, 5th Ed, 1988.
Davison, J.M., Clary, S., Saasen, A., Allouche, M., Bodin, D. 1999. “Rheology of Various Drilling
Fluid Systems Under Deepwater Drilling Conditions and the Importance of Accurate Predictions
of Downhole Fluid Hydraulics,” paper SPE 56632 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Houston, 3-6 October.
De Wolfe, R. C., Coffin, G. B. and Byrd, R. V. “Effects of Temperature and Pressure on Rheology
of Less Toxic Oil Muds”. SPE 11892 presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, UK,6-9 September
1983.
Demirdal, B., and Cunha, J.C. “Importance of Drilling Fluids ’Rheological and Volumetric
Characterization to Plan and Optimize Managed Pressure Drilling Operations”. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology. February 2009, Volume 48, No. 2.
52
El-Diasty, A. I., Ragab, A. M. S. “Applications of Nanotechnology in the Oil & Gas industry:
Latest Trends Worldwide & Future Challenges in Egypt”. North Africa Technical Conference &
Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 15–17 April 2013
Friedheim, J., Young, S., Stefano, G. D., Lee, J., and Guo, Q. “Nanotechnology for Oilfield
Applications-Hype or Reality”. SPE International Oilfield Nanotechnology Conference held in
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 12-14 June 2012.
Garvin, T. R. and Moore, P. L. “A Rheometer for Evaluating Drilling Fluids at Elevated

Temperatures”. SPE 3062 presented at the Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Houston, TX, 4-7 October 1970.
Growcock, F.B. and Frederick, T.P., Operational Limits of Synthetic Drilling Fluids; SPE Drilling
& Completion, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 132-136, September 1996.
Growcock, F.B., Andrews, S.L. and Frederick, T.P., Physicochemical Properties of Synthetic
Drilling Fluids; paper SPE 27450 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX,
15-18 February 1994.
Gusler, W., M. Pless, J. Maxey, P. Grover, J. Perez, J. Moon and T. Baaz. 2007. A new extreme
hpht viscometer for new drilling fluid challenge. SPE Drilling and Completion, 81, June 2007.
Hemphill, T., Prediction of Rheological Behavior of Ester-Based Drilling Fluids Under Downhole
Conditions; paper SPE 35330 presented at the International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition
of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 5-7 March 1996.
Herzhaft, B., Ragouillaux, A., and Coussot, P. 2006. How to unify low-shear-rate rheology and
gel properties of drilling muds: a transient rheological and structural model for complex well
applications. The IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Miami, Florida, U.S.A., 21–23 February.
Herzhaft, B., Rousseau, L., Neau, L., Moan, M. and Bossard, F. 2002. “Influence of Temperature
and Clays/Emulsion Microstructure on Oil-Based Mud Low Shear Rate Rheology,” paper SPE
86197 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 29
September-2 October.
Hoelscher, K.P., Young, S., Friedheim, J., and Stefano, G. D. “Nanotechnology Application in
Drilling Fluids”. 11th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy,
March 20-22, 2013.
53
Khodja, M., Canselier, Jean-Paul, Bergaya, Faiza, Fourar, Karim, Malika and Cohaut, Nathalie,
Benmounah, and Abdelbaki. 2010a. Shale problems and waterbased drilling fluid optimisation in
the Hassi Messaoud Algerian oil field. Applied Clay Science, vol. 49 (n° 4). pp. 383-393.
Khodja, M., Khodja-Saber, M., Canselier, J. P., Cohaut, N., and Bergaya, F. 2010b. Drilling Fluid
Technology: Performances and Environmental Considerations. Products and Services; from R&D
to Final Solutions, Igor Fuerstner (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-211-1.
Lee, J., Shadravan, A., and Young, S. 2012. Rheological Properties of Invert Emulsion Drilling
Fluid under Extreme HPHT Conditions. IADC/ SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in
San Diego, California, USA, 6-8 March 2012.
Maghrabi, S., Wagle, V., Teke, K., Kulkarni, D., and Kulkarni, K. 2011. Low Plastic Viscosity
Invert Emulsion Fluid System for HPHT Wells. AADE National Technical Conference and
Exhibition held at the Hilton Houston North Hotel, Houston, Texas, held on April 12-14.
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., and Piatti, C. 1995. “An Innovative Model for Drilling Fluid Hydraulics,”
paper SPE 29259 presented at 1995 SPE Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 20-22 March.
M-I SWACO. 2009. “M-I SWACO joins Rice University in Nanotech Research Program.” Press
Release, 28 October.
Minton, R. C. and Bern, P. A. “Field Measurement and Analysis of Circulating System Pressure
Drops with Low-Toxicity Oil-Based Drilling Fluids. SPE 17242 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 28 February-2 March 1988.
Mohammed, M. A. R., and Mohammed, S. A. A. 2009. Effect of Additives on Rheological

Properties of Invert Emulsions. Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol.10
No.3, 31-39, ISSN: 1997-4884.
Nwaoji, C. O., Hareland, G., Hussein, M., Nygaard, R., and Zakaria, M. F. “Wellbore
Strengthening Nan—Particle Drilling Fluid Experimental Design Using Hydraulic Fracture
Apparatus”. SPE/ IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
5-7 March 2013.
Politte, M.D. 1985. “Invert Oil Mud Rheology as a Function of Temperature,” paper SPE 13458
presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC, New Orleans, 6-8 March.
54
Power, D. and Zamora, M. 2003. “Drilling Fluid Yield Stress: Measurement Techniques for
Improved Understanding of Critical Drilling Fluid Parameters,” paper AADE-03-NTCE-35
presented at the 2003 AADE Technical Conference, Houston, 1-3 April.
Proehl, T. and Sabins, F. 2006. Drilling and Completion Gaps for HPHT Wells in Deep Water-
Final Report, Department of Interior.
Srivista, T. J. “An Experimental Investigation on use of nanoparticles as Fluid loss Additives in a

Surfactant-Polymer Based Drilling Fluid. Texas Tech University, M. Sc. Thesis.
Sushant, A., Phuoc T., Yee S., Donald M., and Rakesh K. G. 2011. Flow Behavior of Nanoparticle
Stabilized Drilling Fluids and Effect of High Temperature Aging. AADE-11-NTCE-3.
Taugbol, K., G. Fimreite, O. I. Prebensen, M. I. Sweco, K. Svanes, T. H. Omland, P. E. Svela and

D. H. Breivik. 2005. Development and Field Testing of a Unique High Temperature/High Pressure
Oil-Based Drilling Fluid with Minimum Rheology and Maximum Sag Stability. Journal of
Offshore Technology, 13, 46.
Tehrani, A. 2007. Behaviour of Suspensions and Emulsions in Drilling Fluids. Annual transactions
of the nordic rheology society, vol. 15.
Thivolle, S, 2004. “A New Practical Rheology Model for HPHT Fluid,” paper presented for M.
Eng. degree Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.
Zakaria, M. F., Husein, M., and Hareland, G. “Novel Nanoparticle-Based Drilling Fluid with
Improved Characteristics”. SPE International Oilfield Nanotechnology Conference held in
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 12-14 June 2012.
Zamora, M. and Power, D, 2002. “Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified
Rheological Model,” paper AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13 presented at the 2002 AADE Technical
Conference, Houston, 2-3 April.
55

Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop

Rahman, Kazi Mahmudur

Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology & Pressure Drop Modelling to Improve

Kazi Mahmudur Rahman

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

© Kazi Mahmudur Rahman 2018

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Engineering.

Supervisor, Dr. Robert Martinuzzi, Department of

Dr. Les Jozef Sudak., Department of Mechanical and

Dr. David Wood., Department of Mechanical and

Dr. Hassan Hassanzadeh., Department of Chemical &

August 14, 2008

enormous help and inspiration during the program to make it achievable.

To the loving memory

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….......... 9

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…...……..………………………………

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK………………………… 50

Table 3.1: Composition of the Fluid-1 .............................................................................. 21

Table 3.2: Composition of the Fluid-2 .............................................................................. 21

Table 4.1: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-1 .................................................................. 31

Table 4.2: Fann Viscometer Reading: Fluid-2… ............................................................. 31

Table 4.7: The measured and calculated shear stresses .................................................... 38

Table 4.8 The measured and calculated shear stresses ..................................................... 40

Table 4.9 The measured and calculated shear stresses ..................................................... 42

Table 4.10: Summary of best regression equation ……….for Fluid-1 ............................ 44

Table 4. 11: Summary of best regression equation ………for Fluid-2 ............................ 45

Figure 1.1: Schematic comparison of the four rheological models ................................... 4

Figure 2.3: Diagram of the drilling fluid circulating system ............................................ 18

Figure 3.2: Schematic diagram of the Fann Model 35 viscometer ................................... 23

Greek symbols Definition

footprint. Consequently, environmentally compatible successful completion of drilling operation

fluid performance under downhole conditions.

rheology and pressure loss calculations (API 1995).

fits the behaviour of the fluid system.

as rheological models are used.

A general graphical representation of the four discussed rheological models is presented in

macro/micro size chemical particles/additive (Zakaria et al 2012, Nwaoji et al 2013). These

(Zakaria et al 2012, Nwaoji et al 2013). Nanoparticles-based drilling fluid application is an

Amanullah et al 2011). Research continues the development of nanoparticles-based fluid in shale

inhibition, rheology modification, wellbore strengthening, high-temperature, high-pressure

(Gusler et al 2007, Lee et al 2012).

1.2 Problem statement

losses are underestimated (Thivolle, 2004).

1.3 Research Objectives

operational cost. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on:

a) Determining fluid rheological behaviour, based on characteristics from the laboratory

b) Investigating the best fitted rheology model for a drilling fluid;

pressure drop calculation;

the help of experimental results for better understanding of undesirable viscosity

fluctuation and pressure losses during drilling operation;

f) Increasing drilling efficiency via hydraulics optimization on drilling bit related to

1.4 Thesis Structure

measured pump pressure.