Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E. KURU
University of Alberta
S. MISKA, N. TAKACH
The University of Tulsa
Abstract
Compared to conventional (incompressible) drilling fluids,
relatively little is known about the hydraulic and rheological
properties of foamed drilling fluids. The complex flow mechanisms involved in compressible drilling fluid circulation make
determination of the optimum combination of liquid and gas
injection rates very difficult. Modelling of foam rheology is the
key issue in hydraulic design, in order to predict the bottom-hole
pressure accurately, and to optimize the different controllable
variables for effective cutting transport performance.
The University of Tulsas low-pressure ambient temperature
flow loop has been recently modified to accommodate foam
flow. The flow loop permits foam flow through 0.0508 m (2 in.),
0.0762 m (3 in.), 0.1016 m (4 in.) diameter pipes, and a 0.2032
m (8 in.) by 0.1143 m (41/2 in.) annular section. Preliminary
experiments have been conducted, in which pressure losses were
measured for different foam qualities. Measured parameters
were gas/liquid flow rates, pressure, differential pressure loss,
and temperature.
Statistical analysis was carried out to see the degree of fit provided by Bingham plastic, power law, and yield power law models for the generalized foam flow curve data.
A comparative study was conducted to investigate the predictive ability of the available foam hydraulic models. Models presented by Beyer et al. (1972), Blauer et al. (1974), Reidenbach
et al. (1986), Sanghani and Ikoku (1983), Gardiner et al. (1988)
and Valko and Economides (1992) were used to estimate the
frictional pressure losses during the flow of foam in horizontal
pipes. Comparison of the model predictions with experimental
pressure loss values show that model predictions of frictional
pressure losses can be different from the actual values by 2 to
250 %.
Introduction
In the 1970s, high quality foams were developed into a viable
fracturing stimulation tool for oil and gas wells(1). Since then,
foam rheology has been the subject of numerous investigations, in
an effort to design better proppant transport medium. Lord(2) presented one of the first comprehensive mathematical treatments of
foam flow behaviour. He used the real gas law and mass balance
considerations to develop an equation of state for foam with
solids. Later, Spoerker et al.(3) modified Lords solution and presented a new two-phase flow equation. They used a virial equation(4) instead of the real gas equation of state. They also solved
the differential mechanical energy equation to obtain an explicit
expresion for pressure loss prediction during foam flow.
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
52
Q=
D3 w gc 4 y 1 y
1
+
32 p 3 w 3 w
vT = vS + v F ...........................................................................................(5)
The slip velocities calculated from the pilot-scale data were
correlated with the liquid volume fraction (LVF) and wall shear
stress (w).
For w 16.5 kg/m2 (0.0024 psi)
vS = 25.8LVF
vS = (1.1 + 14.8LVF )
w
0.0024
.................................(6)
......................(7)
vS = 1.1 + 14.8LVF
...............(8)
v=
.................................................(1)
w
0.0024
144 D w 4 y 1 y
1 +
8 o 3 w 3 w
...............................................(10)
By neglecting the fourth order term in Equation (10), the fluidity of foam is expressed as follows:
For w < (4/3)y
P D
L 4 ...........................................................................................(2)
v F = 0 ..................................................................................................(11)
w =
Sanghani Model
The main difference between Sanghanis(26) model and Blauer
et. al.s(25) work is that Sanghani assumed that the foam behaves
as a pseudoplastic fluid. He provided experimental data for
pseudoplastic model parameters, K and n, as a function of foam
quality. The density of foam differs from Blauers work by
including the effect of gas phase.
Sanghani(26) suggested that the pressure loss for laminar flow of
foam in pipes could be calculated by using the following equation:
Pf
L
4 K 8(3n + 1)Q
D nD3
vF =
144 D
4
w y
8 o
3 .....................................................................(12)
1
7200 LVF + 267
o =
1
2533LVF + 733
.................................(13)
...................................................................(3)
.................................(14)
Equations (4) to (14) were combined to obtain an explicit function for which then can be used to estimate frictional pressure
drop as a function of total velocity (vT), liquid volume fraction
(LVF), and pipe diameter (D) as follows:
dP
4
= w = vT (T,P) ,LVF (T,P) ,D
D
dL f
]
..................................(15)
For < 60 %,
y = C1
.............................................................................................(16)
For > 60 %,
y = C2eC3
.........................................................................................(17)
= K liquid eC1+C2
................................................................(18)
'YP (
8v
( d)
+ K ' 8v
2 2
3
2 2
2 2
dp
1 2 f f b c Dg p + 4 f f abc p + 2 f f a c p
=
3
2
2
2 2
dx
D
bp + ap abc p a c
................................(23)
RT
Mg
a = wg
b=
c=
..........................................................................................(24)
wg RTB'
Mg
+ 1 wg
4 m g + ml
wg =
D2
) 1
................................................................(25)
)
...................................................................................(26)
mg
m g + ml
....................................................................................(27)
n' 1
................................................(19)
1 RT 1
+ B'
=
Mg p
...............................................................................(28)
L
F ..............................................................................................(20)
where s is the specific volume expansion ratio, L is the base liquid density, and F is the foam density. All density-dependent
parameters are normalized with respect to liquid density by using
this variable. The principle states that if we plot volume-equalized
shear stress vs. volume-equalized shear rate, points obtained at
different qualities and different geometries lie on one curve in
isothermal conditions.
By using the specific volume expansion ratio concept, the
authors defined the volume-equalized Reynolds number as follows:
N Re VE =
1 n 2n n1
D u
K
...................................................................(21)
N Re VE 8 n ................................................................(22)
n
ff =
Gardiner et al.
The method of Gardiner et al.(29) also uses the volume equalization principle proposed by Valko and Economides(28). The authors
assumed that the flow is isothermal, and the effect of changing
axial velocity on radial velocity is negligible. They also assumed
that foam is a pseudoplastic fluid.
By using the volume-equalized power law model [Equation
(29)]
du
dr
= k1n
n1
du
dr ...........................................................................(29 )
Q = 2
n dp Rn+1 n1 n
urdr = R uslip +
3n + 1 dx 2k
.........(30)
Experimental Setup
Foam flow experiments were conducted by using the
University of Tulsa low pressure-ambient temperature flow loop.
A schematic view of the experimental facility is shown in Figure
1. Figure 2 shows a general view of the flow loop.
A 75 HP centrifugal pump (maximum capacity 0.041 m3/s (650
gpm) and 345,000 kg/m2 (50 psi)) is used with two different
Fisher control valves (one has a 0 0.003 m3/s (0 50 gpm)
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
range, and the other has a 0.003 0.041 m3/s (50 650 gpm)
range) to provide a controlled circulation of liquid through the
loop. A compressor (with a working capacity of 0 862,000
kg/m2 (0 125 psi), 0 0.755 m3/s (0 1,600 scfm)) is used to
supply compressed air. The gas is introduced to the system
through a regulator, allowing the pressure of the inlet gas to be
reduced and equalized to the pressure of liquid. The flow rates of
both the gas and liquid phases are measured by mass flow metres.
Surfactant and water are pre-mixed in two different tanks, each
with 4.16 m3 (1,100 gal.) capacity. The water-surfactant solution
and compressed air are mixed by a static mixer to generate foam
just before the pipe section. The pipe section consists of acrylic
transparent pipes with a total length of 15.24 m (50 ft.) and diameters of 0.05 m (2 in.), 0.07 m (3 in.) and 0.10 m (4 in.). The pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the pipe section is
measured by a differential pressure transducer. Also, the pressure
June 2002, Volume 41, No. 6
at the inlet of the pipe section is measured by a pressure transmitter, allowing determination of the foam quality. After the pipe section, foam enters the annular section, where cuttings can also be
introduced.
The annular section is approximately 27.4 m (90 ft.) long, and
it consists of a 0.20 m (8 in.) ID transparent casing with a 0.11 m
(4.5 in.) OD drillpipe. The drillpipe can be rotated up to 200 rpm.
One end of the flow loop is attached to a movable platform, while
the other is connected to a pulley, which enables the user to
incline the loop to any angle between 15 and 90 from vertical.
Pressure difference between the two ends of the flow loop is measured by using a differential pressure transducer. A control room
located near the test section contains the data acquisition system.
The foam breaking process takes place in three stages: 1) a
foam breaker is injected into the foam just before it arrives at the
shale shaker; 2) foam is then exposed to high speed water streams
coming out of jet nozzles to enhance separation of gas and liquid
phases; and 3) final separation of liquid and gas phases is
achieved inside the collection tank by injecting additional foam
breaker.
Foam rheology experiments were conducted at 70%, 80%, and
90% foam qualities, with total flow rates varying from 0.003 m3/s
(50 gpm) to 0.0157 m 3/s (250 gpm). Results from pipe flow
experiments are discussed in the following section.
FIGURE 3: Shear stress vs. shear rate plot for 70% quality foam.
FIGURE 4: Shear stress vs. shear rate plot for 80% quality foam.
Newtonian wall shear rate, w [Equation (31)], is used to determine the presence of wall slip effect.
w =
8v
D ...............................................................................................(31)
........................................................................(32)
FIGURE 6: 1/D2 vs. shear rate plot for 70% foam quality.
56
FIGURE 7: 1/D2 vs. shear rate plot for 80% foam quality.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
FIGURE 8: 1/D2 vs. shear rate plot for 90% foam quality.
70%
80%
90%
Bingham Plastic
kg S s
f
K
m2
p ( p)
kg f
y 3
m
0.78
0.74
0.56
2.48
5.02
12.84
0.62
1.01
0.84
0.30
0.45
0.77
70%
80%
90%
w =
Power Law
Bingham
21.75
14.70
62.25
22.05
15.53
50.89
21.62
15.69
60.90
8v 3n' +1
D 4 n' ...................................................................................(33)
where
n' =
d ln( w )
8v
d ln
D ......................................................................................(34)
kg f
y 3
m
-0.93
-1.63
-708.43
n
0.74
0.40
0.00
kg S s
f
m2
3.38
49.88
69,156.57
PT
V2 = V1(1 1 ) + 1 2 (1 )
..............................................................(40)
P2T1
where subscript 1 refers to the present position, and subscript
2 refers to the next position of foam as it flows along the pipe.
Figures 11 19 show the comparison of the pressure losses,
measured vs. predicted, obtained by using different models for 70,
80, and 90% quality foams in 0.05 m (2 in.), 0.07 m (3 in.) and
0.10 m (4 in.) pipes, respectively. Comparison of the existing rheological models with experimental results showed that there is no
best model which describes the foam flow behaviour under all
flow conditions. The difference between actual pressure losses
and the model predictions can be anywhere from 2% to >250 %,
as is shown in Figures 20 22.
57
FIGURE 10: Shear stress and shear rate plot after slip and n
correction.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the experimental data and the results
of the comparative study, the following conclusions are offered:
1. Wall slip effect may not be negligible and should be considered in establishing the flow curve representing the true flow
behaviour of foam in pipes. The true shear rates are determined by using measured flow rates that are corrected for
the slip effect.
2. The Yield-Power Law model is not applicable for the foam
investigated in this study.
3. Foam rheology can be better characterized by the Power
Law model for 70% and 80% qualities, whereas the
Bingham plastic model gives better fit for 90% foam quality.
4. It is concluded that there is no best model for predicting
the pressure losses during foam flow in pipes under all circumstances. In general, it can be said that Valko and
Economides model gave the relatively more accurate prediction of pressure losses for all foam quality ranges tested
(i.e., 70, 80, and 90%). Blauer et al.s model gave comparably better predictions for the 80 and 90% foam quality
ranges. Predictions from other models were rather erratic;
predicting pressure losses closer to actual values in some
cases, and very different from the actual values in other
cases. Therefore, results from these models were considered
rather inconclusive. Some of these erratic behaviours may be
attributed to the fact that the bubble size and the texture
were not among the parameters which were controlled during these experiments.
5. Finally, it can be suggested that considering only rheological
parameters and foam quality is not enough to achieve a satisfactory model for pressure loss estimations. Therefore, bubble size and texture have to be included into the rheological
models to obtain a more general model. Further research is
required for introducing the effect of quality, bubble size,
texture and rheological parameters in pressure loss
calculations.
NOMENCLATURE
a
b
B
c
D
ff
gc
K,k
K
L
LVF
mg
Mg
ml
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
NReVE
P,p
Q,V
R
T
u,v
vF
vs
vT
wg
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Greek Letters
a
e
=
=
=
=
=
f
g
L
o,p
s
w
y
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
E +00 = m
E +00 = kg
E -03 = m
E -05 = m3/min
E +00 = litre
E -03 = MPa
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Tulsa University Drilling Research
Projects (TUDRP) member companies and the U.S. Department
of Energy for their support of this study. We would also like to
thank Bachman Chemicals Co. for providing the foaming-defoaming materials.
REFERENCES
1. BLAUER, R.E. and KOHLHAAS, C.A., Formation Fracturing with
Foam; paper SPE 5003, presented at the 49th Fall Meeting of SPE,
Houston, TX, Oct. 6 9, 1974.
2. LORD D.L., Mathematical Analysis of Dynamic and Static Foam
Behaviour; paper SPE 7927, presented at the SPE Symposium on
Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, CO, May 20 22, 1979.
3. SPOERKER, H.F., TREPES, P., VALKO, P., and ECONOMIDES,
M., System Design for the Measurement of Downhole Dynamic
Rheology for Fracturing Fluids; paper SPE 22840, presented at the
66th Annual and Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE,
Dallas, TX, October 6 9, 1991.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Authors Biographies
Evren Ozbayoglu is currently a Ph.D. candidate in The University of TulsaOklahoma, drilling research projects.
Before joining TU, he was a research assistant at Middle East Technical University,
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
Department, Ankara, Turkey. He received a
B.Sc. in 1996 and, in 1998, a M.Sc. from
Middle East Technical University. He is a
member of SPE.
Ergun Kuru is an associate professor of
Petroleum Engineering at University of
Alberta. He received his B.Sc. degree from
Middle East Technical University, an
M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Louisiana State
University all in Petroleum Engineering.
His research interests include drilling optimization, cuttings transport, underbalanced
drilling, and formation damage. Dr. Kuru is
currently serving in SPEs drilling engineering committee, and is an associate technical editor of the
ASME Journal of Energy Resources Technology. Dr. Kuru is a
member of SPE and the ASME.
Stefan Miska, professor and chairman of
the Department of Petroleum Engineering
at The University of Tulsa since 1992,
obtained his Ph.D. degree (1973) and his
M.S. degree (1968) from the University of
Mining and Metallurgy in Cracow, Poland,
where he began his career in academia as
an assistant professor. He has also worked
at The University of Trondheim-Norwegian
Institute of Technology, and at New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, where he became
professor and chairman of the petroleum engineering department.
In 1996 he became director of Tulsa University Drilling Research
Projects (TUDRP), a non-profit research consortium of major
oil/service companies. Dr. Miska was a member of the SPE
Production Operations Committee, is currently a reviewer for
Drilling Engineering, and is a member of the API Resource
Group on Drill Stem Design. He is a member of SPE, IADC, and
the Petroleum Society. His current research interests are in
mechanics of tubulars, drilling optimization, and cuttings
transport.
Nicholas Takach is an associate professor
of chemistry at The University of Tulsa. He
received his B.S. degree in chemistry from
California State Polytechnic University and
a Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry from the
University of Nevada. Dr. Takach joined
Tulsa University Drilling Research Projects
(TUDRP) in 1996 and became associate
director in January, 1999. Dr. Takach is
also a co-principal investigator of the
Advanced Cuttings Transport Study
(ACTS), a major new research initiative funded primarily by the
U.S. Department of Energy, and was formerly co-director of the
Tulsa University Wettability Research Projects. His research
interests include the physical and chemical properties of drilling
and completion fluids, surface and environmental chemistry
applied to the petroleum industry and thermodynamic modeling of
natural gas stability in ultradeep reservoirs. Dr. Takach has published in both chemistry and petroleum-related journals, and has
given presentations in both areas at national and international conferences. Dr. Takach is a member of the SPE and the ACS
(American Chemical Society).
61