Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified Rheological Model
Mario Zamora and David Power, M-I L.L.C.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the AADE 2002 Technology Conference “Drilling & Completion Fluids and Waste Management”, held at the Radisson Astrodome, Houston, Texas, April 2 - 3,
2002 in Houston, Texas. This conference was hosted by the Houston Chapter of the American Association of Drilling Engineers. The information presented in this paper does not reflect any position,
claim or endorsement made or implied by the American Association of Drilling Engineers, their officers or members. Questions concerning the content of this paper should be directed to the individuals
listed as author/s of this work.
n n Yield-Stress Determination
4 − a
n
(3 − a ) n + 1 (2 + a )(96V )
τw = τ y + k …(1) Several controversial measurement and curve-fitting
3 − a ( 4 − a)n 2 Dhyd techniques currently are in use, but it remains a great
challenge to determine the yield stress (τy) for a given
The geometry factor a is 0 for pipe flow and 1 for fluid. Generally, direct measurement is preferred,
parallel-plate (annulus) flow. because τy is a material property of the fluid and
The Unified model as presented here is an enhanced independent of the rheological model. Also, τy can be
version of a simplified Herschel-Bulkley model recorded at the same time rheological data are taken
introduced to the drilling industry years ago. The
12 without computer processing or extensive calculations.
correlation has since been significantly improved without A classic definition of yield stress is “that stress below
major complications by adding the term acting on τy. which no flow can be observed under conditions of
14
12
That paper also originated the geometry-factor concept experimentation”. This hints at the difficulties that can
and included a relationship for annular (rather than be encountered, even with a wide choice of
15
parallel-plate) flow that has been improperly credited in measurement tools. Unfortunately, conventional drilling
13
several publications. Follow-up work verified that the industry Couette viscometers are not ideally suited for
original simplified approach, even with its inherent taking this measurement. For fluids with a yield stress,
limitations, yielded better results than using exact any readings taken at low shear rates are suspect
Bingham-plastic and power-law solutions, if in fact, the because of the presence of a plug flow region in the
16
muds were neither. viscometer gap. Nevertheless, the following options
are available for measuring reasonable, usable values
Rheological Parameters for τy:
Rheological parameters for the Unified model are the
plastic viscosity PV, yield point YP, and yield stress τy. A 1. Fann R3
fourth parameter, the ratio τy / YP, is a useful tool to help 2. Fann R6
characterize fluids rheologically, although it is not 3. Low-shear yield point (LSYP = 2R3 - R6)
necessary for solving the model. 4. “Zero” gel strength (no time delay)
Equation parameters n and k were not selected, 5. Initial gel strength (10-sec delay)
because they have not met with success as practical 6. 10-min gel strength (10-min delay)
mud indicators, and their connotations are complicated
by the presence of a yield-stress term. For example, Standardization on any one of the six options would
fluids with no yield stress are “more non-Newtonian” at be acceptable in updated rheology and hydraulics
lower values of n, but the same trend may not apply for guidelines. However, discussion of their individual merits
fluids with a yield stress. As such, focus on the n value is appropriate here. The first three are based on
could create unnecessary training problems. Therefore, stabilized readings; the last three on gel-strength-type
it is convenient to use n and k as equation parameters measurements. It could be argued that LSYP is the best
only and define them in terms of the three rheological choice from the first group and the initial gel strength is
parameters as shown in Eqs. 2-3: the best from the second group. Regardless,τy should
not exceed the YP.
LSYP implies a value at zero shear rate, involves both
2 PV + YP − τy
n = 3.322 log10 ( ) …(2) R6 and R3, and should best match results from a curve fit.
PV + YP − τy However, LSYP would under predict the expected “true”
and yield-stress value by the greatest amount. R6 and R3
perhaps are better approximations, but their use could
PV + YP − τy be confusing since, by definition, τy is the shear stress at
k= …(3)
511n zero shear rate.
An important advantage of gel-strength measure-
It is especially meaningful to track τy / YP in wells ments is that they also can be taken on 2-speed
12
where rheology profiles are available (like those shown viscometers. The “zero” gel concept has been used
in Fig. 2). Some fluids may exhibit more plastic behavior successfully for a long time and fundamentally would be
in one part of the well and more pseudoplastic behavior a good choice. However, the other two already are
in another. This is important for hole-cleaning and barite- reported and considerable data already exist. The 10-
sag considerations. As the ratio τy / YP approaches 1 sec gel is preferred because the 10-min gel could give
(τy→YP), fluids take on Bingham-plastic behavior. For τy / unreasonably high yield-stress values.
YP approaching 0 (τy→0), they behave more like Curve fits determine τy by extrapolation based on an
pseudoplastic (power-law) fluids. assumed model. This is not a disadvantage, since the
Herschel-Bulkley form is central to the Unified model. By
AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13 Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified Rheological Model 5
Bingham
τ = τ y + kγ 4 3
144V τ w 3 τ y 1 τ y
Plastic 96V τ w 4τy 1τy = 1 − +
= 1− +
D k 3 τ w 3 τ w D k 2 τw 2 τw
4 96V 3 144V
τ w ≈ τ y + k τ w ≈ τ y + k
3 D 2 D −D
h p
n
Power 3n + 1 96V
n n
2n + 1
n
144V
Law τ = kγ n
τw = k τ w = k
D −D
4n D 3n h p
τ y τ y τ y
1 n +1 8n 2 (n + 1) + n 1 n +1
3n 2
96V τ w n τy n
4n τ
w τ
w 144V τ w τ y 3n
n n
τ w
Herschel- τ = τ y + kγ n = 1 − 3n + 1 + (n + 1)(2n + 1)(3n + 1) D − D = k 1 − τ 2n + 1 + (n + 1)(2n + 1)
Bulkley D k τw h p w
n
τ = τ y + kγ n 4
n
3n + 1 96V
n n
3
n
2n + 1
n
144V
Unified τ w = τ y + k τ w = τ y + k
3 4n D 2 3n D −D
h p
Table 1 - Constitutive equations and flow curves for four rheological models, including the approximate Bingham plastic
solution. The Unified model flow curves are approximations of the exact Herschel-Bulkley model.
2
Table 2 - Force-balance equations for pipe and parallel plates. The constant 1.067 converts °Fann to lbf/100ft . Flow
equations are the Rabinowitsch-Mooney relations used to determine wall shear stress from constitutive equations.
0 0
SBM
15.0 lb/gal @120 °F
2 8000 ft Water
Surface Temperature 80 °F
4
5
6
YP (WBM) YP (SBM)
Depth (1000 ft)
10 10
WBM
12 WBM
8000 ft Water
HTHP Well
14
PV (WBM) PV (SBM)
15
16
SBM
18 HTHP Well
W ll
20
20
14.4 14.6 14.8 15 15.2 15.4 15.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
2
Equivalent Static Density (lb/gal) Plastic Viscosity (cP), Yield Point (lb/100 ft )
Fig. 1 - ESD comparisons for 15-lb/gal water and Fig. 2 - Comparison of downhole PV and YP profiles for
1
synthetic-based muds in 20,000-ft deepwater and HTHP water and synthetic-based muds in a deepwater well.
1
wells.
8 M ZAMORA AND D. POWER AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13
80 35
PV = 10
Unified Model
YP = 10
70 Herschel-Bulkley 30
Annular Pressure Loss for 10000 ft (psi)
API RP13D
60
2
50
20
40
PV = 10 15
30 YP = 10
Ty = 5
Dh =12.25" 10
20
Dp = 5.5"
Ty =10, n=1.000, k=0.020
5 Ty= 5, n=0.737, k=0.151
10
Ty= 0, n=0.585, k=0.521
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Flow Rate (gal/min) Annular Shear Rate (1/s)
Fig. 3 - Annular pressure-loss curves for three Fig. 4 - Annular flow curves, PV = 10, YP = 10, markers =
rheological models. exact solutions, solid lines = Unified model.
100 300
PV = 10 PV = 100
90 YP = 50 YP = 50
250
80
Wall Shear Stress (lb/100ft )
Wall Shear Stress (lb/100ft )
2
70
200
60
50 150
40
100
30
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Annular Shear Rate (1/s) Annular Shear Rate (1/s)
Fig. 5 - Annular flow curves, PV = 10, YP = 50, markers = Fig. 6 - Annular flow curves, PV = 100, YP = 50, markers =
exact solutions, solid lines = Unified model. exact solutions, solid lines = Unified model.
250 100
PV = 100 PV = 10
YP = 10 YP = 10
200
Wall Shear Stress (lb/100ft )
150
10
100
0 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1 10 100 1000
Annular Shear Rate (1/s) Pipe Shear Rate (1/s)
Fig. 7 - Annular flow curves, PV = 100, YP = 10, markers Fig. 8 - Logarithmic pipe flow curves, PV = 10, YP = 10,
= exact solutions, solid lines = Unified model. markers = exact solutions, solid lines = Unified model.