You are on page 1of 8

AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13

Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified Rheological Model
Mario Zamora and David Power, M-I L.L.C.

Copyright 2002 AADE Technical Conference

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.

Abstract The second part introduces a new rheological model


This paper has two objectives. The first is to make a in support of this argument. Models are used during
case for an AADE initiative to help improve or create an planning and drilling operations to evaluate numerous
AADE alternative to the API RP13D recommended hydrodynamic issues, such as equivalent circulating
practice on drilling fluid rheology and hydraulics. The density (ECD) and hole cleaning. Model parameters also
second objective is to introduce a new Unified are essential to help formulate, diagnose, and run muds,
rheological model in support of this argument. so synchronization clearly is very important.
Industry practice has deviated from RP13D in recent The Unified rheological model is a new empirical
years, driven primarily by extraordinary demands from simplification based on the Herschel-Bulkley flow
today’s critical wells. The evolution of new hydraulics equation. Herschel-Bulkley has become the model of
technologies, mostly built around newfound computer choice in recent years; but its exact solution,
power, is creating problems with uniformity and widening unfortunately, is very complex and mostly restricted to
the gap between theoretical and practical solutions. sophisticated computer programs. The “unified”
The Unified rheological model is so-called because it reference demonstrates its resolve to be sufficiently
seeks to “unify” the wide range of industry personnel accurate for use in high-end hydraulics software, yet
concerned with hydraulics and rheology. The empirically practical enough for field use by front-line drilling and
derived flow equation is expressed in a form easily mud engineers.
recognized by field engineers and is sufficiently accurate The rheological model is only one of many
for most high-end software applications. Attention also is controversial issues that would have to be addressed.
given in this paper to determination of rheological The intent is to show that opportunities exist even for the
parameters and complexities involved in hydraulics and most controversial issues. Also discussed are
rheological modeling. techniques to determine key rheological parameters as
well as complexities involved in rheological modeling.
Introduction
Deepwater, HTHP and extended-reach projects, The Case for an AADE Hydraulics Initiative
particularly when drilled with synthetic-based muds A successful argument for AADE hydraulics should
(SBMs), have forced the industry to rethink hydraulics establish that (a) an improved recommended-practice
1
and rheology. Improved techniques, mostly included in standard is needed, and (b) the AADE is properly
new high-end software applications, have helped positioned and inclined to undertake such a task. Firstly,
significantly; however, there have been consequences. RP13D was a significant achievement when first
Foremost among these are an expanding technology released in 1985. Despite several obligatory revisions,
gap between theory and practice, and a growing lack of however, it has not kept pace with current industry
uniformity for design, analysis, and training. practice and inadequately addresses today’s critical
This paper is divided into two parts. The first part wells. Secondly, the AADE is well suited for this project
presents an argument for the development of AADE based on its charter and membership diversity. This
guidelines for drilling fluid rheology and hydraulics. clearly would be an opportunity for the AADE, albeit one
Alternatively, the AADE could work in partnership with of great challenge and without guarantee of success.
the American Petroleum Institute (API) to update The issue at hand is not whether the industry benefits
2
RP13D, currently the only standard for this important from published or defacto standards, nor if tools exist to
subject area. In either case, the aim would be to provide mitigate hydraulics-related problems. Instead, timing is
guidelines that (a) more closely match current industry the concern. Updated guidelines are needed now, and
practices, (b) are understandable and usable by field technology is advancing at such a rate that soon it may
and staff personnel, and (c) apply to conventional and be impossible to meet those needs in a single document
critical wells. with the original intent and scope of RP13D.
2 M. ZAMORA AND D. POWER AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13

Changing Hydraulics Technology required, but this information is becoming more


The evolution of hydraulics standards in our company widely available in the literature. Perhaps the most
is illustrative of industry changes in recent years. Soon challenging aspect will be determining reasonable
after the merger of Magcobar and IMCO Services in late downhole mud-temperature profiles.
1986, the new company adopted RP13D to “unify” two 2. Effects of directional profiles on hole cleaning and
different approaches to drilling fluid hydraulics. This barite sag. Hole inclination creates several critical
continued until 1995, when a Gulf of Mexico operator concerns attributable to gravity forces and pipe
initiated a project to measure dynamic pressure and eccentricity. RP13D assumes vertical wells for hole
3
temperature distributions in an offshore well. The cleaning and does not address sag. Nearly all
concern was the potential for major losses of expensive aspects of hole cleaning and sag relationships are
SBM while drilling, complicated by the inability of API highly controversial; however, it is encouraging that
equations to match field data. A month later, a North Sea suitable curves already are available for hole
7
operator requested an upgrade in our hydraulics cleaning. Perhaps these can be extended and the
programs to incorporate the effects of temperature and approach applied to sag.
pressure on SBM density and rheological properties. 3. Pressure-loss correlations for downhole tools.
The two operator-driven requests were instrumental Standpipe pressure calculations would benefit from
in the development of one of the first advanced better non-Newtonian correlations provided by
4
hydraulics programs. Finally, the same Gulf of Mexico equipment suppliers. Currently, data of any type are
operator “commissioned” development of a system to somewhat limited on certain tools, and very little
minimize SBM losses while running casing, a deepwater information based on real muds is available.
drilling problem they considered the most challenging of 4. Surge/swab pressures while tripping pipe and
5
that time. The result was a real-time hydraulics system running casing. Traditional equations are adequate
proven successful for minimizing losses, accurately for planning, if used with temperature and pressure-
5
predicting downhole density and ECD profiles, and filling adjusted mud properties.
technology gaps related to annular-pressure-while- 5. Hydraulics optimization. Conventional bit-hydraulic
drilling measurements. optimization would be useful, but an optimization
It is noteworthy that both previously mentioned scheme based on pump horsepower, ECD, hole
advanced software packages use a flow equation based cleaning, and hydraulic power at the bit would be
on the Herschel-Bulkley model for pressure-loss especially valuable.
calculations. The model recommended in RP13D is
offered as an option in the software, but primarily for Many RP13D elements are still valid and in use, but
comparison purposes. some need to be updated, including the following:

Additions/Improvements to Recommended Practice 1. Temperature and pressure effects on downhole


Most of the necessary basic issues already are rheological properties. Mud rheology needs
addressed in RP13D. However, some issues should be adjustment for downhole conditions, especially in
added and a few others require updates. A working list deepwater, HTHP, and extended-reach wells drilled
of changes to recommended practices can almost single with oil or synthetic-based mud. Fig. 2 shows
1
handedly be provided by ultra-deepwater wells. They are calculated PV and YP profiles for a deepwater well.
characterized by very low temperatures, low fracture 2. Measurement and treatment of viscometer data
gradients, moderate-to-high formation pressures, narrow taken under temperature and pressure.
operating windows, tight casing/hole clearances, and Considerable data now are available from Fann
6
chemically unstable wellbores. These can translate into 70/75 units, currently the most commonly used
serious problems inadequately covered by RP13D, oilfield HTHP viscometers. Temperature-effect
including major losses of temperature-sensitive synthetic trends can be established on field viscometers by
and oil-based muds, mechanically unstable wellbores, measuring rheology at three temperatures. Data
poor hole cleaning, and barite sag. generated at very low temperature are of particular
New issues that should be addressed in an improved value for deepwater drilling.
hydraulics bulletin along with very brief comments 3. Rheological modeling to include a yield-stress term.
include the following: Mud yield stress and low-shear-rate viscosity are
now key parameters for hole cleaning, barite sag,
1. Temperature and pressure effects on downhole and pressure-loss analyses. The Herschel-Bulkley
equivalent static density (ESD). This clearly is the model has become the defacto standard.
1,6
most pressing concern, especially for extreme- 4. Transitional and turbulent-flow correlations and
temperature wells (deepwater and HTHP) as pressure losses. Additional laboratory and analytical
illustrated in Fig. 1. Generalized mud P-V-T work will be required first, as most available
(pressure-volume-temperature) properties will be techniques do not consistently match field data.
AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13 Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified Rheological Model 3

AADE Involvement Model Development


The AADE is well within its charter to consider this RP13D is based on a “dual power law”, the lower
task on its own or in partnership with the API. For shear-rate segment for the annulus and the upper
8
example, the AADE mission is “to provide the forum for segment for inside the drill string. This is a good choice
the dissemination of practical drilling technology to those for pressure-loss calculations, because this approach
employed or interested in the drilling industry,” and its technically is a “generalized correlation” for which explicit
8
vision is “to be a leading forum for the dissemination laminar-flow solutions are both available and
and interchange of drilling practices and technology.” straightforward. However, the Herschel-Bulkley model
8
Also, in the National Letter from the Office of the has re-emerged in the drilling industry and become the
9
2002 AADE President, Paul Hebert encourages model of choice for many applications. Also called the
members to “make a commitment to participate (by) yield-power law, yield-pseudoplastic, and modified
starting a technical study group in an area of interest to power law, it contains a yield-stress term that has
you and others in your chapter relative to our drilling become central to evaluating and optimizing hole-
related activities.” Finally, the AADE membership, by cleaning, barite sag, suspension, and other key drilling
intent, includes precisely the spectrum of drilling concerns.
personnel who would benefit from improved guidelines. Table 1 (column 2) gives the familiar constitutive
equations for four models of interest: Bingham plastic,
Unified Rheological Model power law, Herschel-Bulkley, and the proposed Unified
In a controlled environment, like a chemical or model. Similarities among the four are self-evident, and
manufacturing plant, the rheological model is the focal all appear to be fundamentally uncomplicated. However,
point of a hydraulics system. In drilling applications, the wall shear stress (τw) is needed to calculate frictional
however, fluid complexities, downhole conditions, and pressure loss, rather than the constitutive shear stress
uncertainties can be such that the model, while still (τ). The “Force-Balance” equations illustrated in Table 2
important, no longer is the defining element. For and derived in RP13D can be used for this purpose. The
example, the difference between surface and downhole constant 1.067 converts shear stress in °Fann to
2 10
mud weights in extreme-temperature wells easily can lbf/100ft . The Rabinowitsch-Mooney “Flow Equations,”
override model-related differences in annular pressure- also given in Table 2, are required to find τw. Their
loss calculations. This situation alone creates an solution requires the function f(τ), the explicit shear rate
opportunity for empirical solutions like the Unified defined by the constitutive equation. For example, f(τ)
rheological model that, while not theoretically exact, are for Bingham plastic fluids is equal to (τ - τy) / k.
still well suited for drilling applications. Resulting pipe and annular flow equations are given
It is important to note that drilling fluids are very in Table 1 (columns 3-4) for each model. The power law
diverse and can be rheologically complex. For practical equations, the only curves directly solvable for τw, are
reasons, muds are assumed to be time-independent, identical to the wall-shear-stress equations used in
purely viscous, non-Newtonian fluids. To consider RP13D. The Bingham plastic solutions are more
otherwise is beyond the scope of this paper and industry complex, but they can be solved iteratively or by one of
guidelines. Also, discussion is limited to steady state, several available specialized procedures. However, the
laminar flow in pipes and concentric annuli (parallel approximations listed in the table are almost universally
plates). accepted by the oilfield and certainly are suitable for
industry guidelines.
Practical Constraints Several iterative techniques are available to solve the
As much as possible, industry guidelines in general daunting Herschel-Bulkley flow equations. A popular
11
should be realistic and practical, and encompass procedure uses a generalized correlation technique
existing technologies and procedures. For a drilling fluid functionally equivalent to that used in RP13D for the dual
rheological model, it is useful to consider the following power law. While both use the same measured
practical constraints and targets: viscometer data, the former assumes true Herschel-
Bulkley behavior before processing. The API version
1. Rheological parameters traditionally used to run relies on the raw data and technically assumes no
mud should be preserved and extractable from the particular rheological model. A drawback to the API
model (e.g., PV and YP). method is the wide shear-rate span between data points
-1
2. Data should be generated on currently available (especially 5 to 170 s , or 3 to 100 rpm).
field and laboratory viscometers (e.g., Fann 35A, Alternatively, the Herschel-Bulkley flow equations can
Fann 70/75, and equivalents). be approximated by the Unified model, as shown in
3. Equations and processes should be programmable Table 1. Eq. 1 is provided for those who prefer to
in a spreadsheet without macros. This would make combine the pipe and annulus equations into a single
computer processing more widely available. relationship:
4 M. ZAMORA AND D. POWER AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13

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

definition, a logarithmic plot of τ - τy vs γ is a straight line Additional Complexities


(slope of n and intercept of k). The best fit for τy must be There are certain complexities related to the
determined iteratively, and all methods require computer rheological model that are worthy of mention, but beyond
9 17
processing. Standard and weighted-average the scope of this paper. These issues should be
techniques are acceptable, but the latter is preferred evaluated individually and collectively on merits and
because it favors the better-quality data at high shear practicality, along the lines of the approach taken with
rates. the Unified model. These complexities include:
If curve fitting is chosen as the means to find τy, a
slightly different method should be considered. This 1. Shear-rate correction for viscometers. Correction is
method forces the curve fit through R600, R300, and needed because viscometer data are used to find
iteratively through one other point, rather than use a pressure loss in tubes. Closed solutions are
16
least-square technique with all six data points. This available for Bingham plastics and
18
preserves values for PV and YP. The additional point can pseudoplastics, but not for Herschel-Bulkley fluids.
be R3, R6, the average of R3 and R6 (at 4.5 rpm), or even Furthermore, available numerical methods are
R100. The R3 and R6 average gives results almost identical inadequate at low shear rates for yield-stress fluids.
to the weighted-average curve fit. R100 could be the most 2. Hydraulic diameter for annulus. The traditional
interesting, because the shear rate is high enough to equation used for Dhyd is more due to simplicity than
19 11,12
remove the plug zone for fluids where YP / PV > 5.
16 theoretical accuracy. Methods are available to
adjust for annular shear rate, but their significance
Unified and Herschel-Bulkley Comparisons should be evaluated first.
Assuming that drilling fluids generally fit the Herschel- 3. Eccentricity effects on pressure loss. Explicit
Bulkley model, validation of the Unified model is best analytical methods currently do not exist and
achieved by direct comparison between the two. numerical solutions are very complex; however,
20
Comparisons are made using annular pressure loss and available empirical curves seem to work well.
parallel-plate flow curves (τw vs γ) over a broad range of 4. Drill-pipe rotation. Empirical relationships will need
data. to be established for various geometries and
Fig. 3 shows the annular pressure loss (laminar flow conditions.
only) for a 12.25-in hole with 5.5-in drill pipe, PV = 10, YP
= 10, and τy = 5. The RP13D dual power law also is Conclusions
included. Overall, apparent differences in the curves are
not significant – all three would be suitable for use in 1. An argument is made for the AADE to work with the
field situations. At low flow rates, however, it can be API to improve or create an AADE alternative to the
noted that the Unified model is slightly higher, but API RP13D recommended practice on drilling fluid
becomes asymptotic to the exact Herschel-Bulkley rheology and hydraulics.
solution at higher flow rates. The API model is 2. Realization of uniform practices will be challenging,
interesting because, as expected, calculated pressure due to the complexity of the subject (technical and
losses are lower for equivalent shear rates below 5 s
-1 practical), lack of defining relationships in key
-1
and higher between 5 and 170 s (expressed as flow areas, existing proliferation of different
rates) as seen on the graph. technologies, entrenched philosophies, and industry
Figs. 4-7 are the annular flow curves for a wide politics.
range of PV and YP pairs plotted on rectangular 3. Hydraulics guidelines should address complex
coordinates. Fig. 8 is a single example for pipe flow issues and critical wells, but still be usable on
plotted on a logarithmic scale. Each graph compares the conventional wells by the wide range of staff and
Unified model (solid lines) to the exact Herschel-Bulkley field engineers concerned with rheology and
model (markers only) for τy / YP = 0, 0.5, and 1.0. hydraulics.
4. The proposed initiative can be seeded by the
For each case, the solutions are identical for τy / YP =
Unified rheological model, a new empirical flow
0 and approach the error consistent with the Bingham
equation based on the Herschel-Bulkley model.
plastic approximation as τy / YP →1.0. Curves for τy / YP
5. The three parameters of the Unified model, PV, YP,
= 0.5 are all quite close.
and τy are also key parameters required to formu-
PV and YP pairs were chosen to highlight
late, diagnose, and treat drilling fluids. A fourth
comparisons rather than realism. The largest observable
error for the case of inverted rheology (Fig. 5) is parameter, the ratio τy / YP, is a useful tool to help
acceptable if the traditional Bingham plastic solution also characterize fluids rheologically.
is acceptable. At high PV/YP ratios (Fig. 7), all the curves 6. A measured yield-stress value using one of six
are virtually indistinguishable. In between, the Unified suitable options is generally preferred over curve-fit
model fits well with the exact solutions. extrapolation.
6 M. ZAMORA AND D. POWER AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13

Nomenclature (3 March 1997) 43-55.


∆P = pressure loss, psi 5. Zamora, M., et al.: “Major Advancements in True Real-
Time Hydraulics,” SPE 62960, Annual Tech Conf , Dallas,
γ = shear rate, s
-1
1-4 Oct 2000.
τ = shear stress, lbf /100 ft
2
6. Zamora, M., Broussard, P. N. and Stephens, M. P.: “The
τw = wall shear stress, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft2) Top 10 Mud-Related Concerns in Deepwater Drilling,”
τy = yield stress, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft2) SPE 59019, Intl Petroleum Conf , Villahermosa, Tabasco,
a = geometry factor (0=pipe, 1=annulus) Mexico, 1-3 Feb 2000.
D = pipe inside diameter, in. 7. Luo, Y. et al.: ”Simple Charts to Determine Hole Cleaning
Dh = pipe inside diameter, in. Requirements,” IADC/SPE 27486, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conf, Dallas, 15-18 Feb 1994.
Dhyd = hydraulic diameter (D or Dh - Dp ), in.
8. American Association of Drilling Engineers (AADE)
Dp = pipe outside diameter, in. Webpage, http://www.aade.org/.
= laminar consistency factor, lbf⋅s /100 ft
n 2
k 9. Hemphill, T., Campos, W. and Pilehvari, A.: “Yield-Power
L = length, ft Law Model More Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology,” Oil
LSYP= low shear yield point, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
& Gas Journal, (23 Aug 1993) 45-50.
n = laminar flow behavior index 10. Skelland, A. H. P.: Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat
PV = Bingham plastic viscosity, cP Transfer; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1967.
11. Reed, T. D. and Pilehvari, A. A.: “A New Model for
R3 = Fann reading at 3 rpm, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
Laminar, Transitional, and Turbulent Flow,” SPE 25456,
R6 = Fann reading at 6 rpm, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
R100 = Fann reading at 100 rpm, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
21-23 Mar 1993.
R300 = Fann reading at 300 rpm, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
12. Zamora, M. and Lord, D. L.: “Practical Analysis of Drilling
R600 = Fann reading at 600 rpm, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft ) Mud Flow in Pipes and Annuli,” SPE 4976, 49th Annual
2

V = velocity, ft/s Fall Meeting, Houston, 6-9 Oct 1974.


13. Zamora, M. and Bleier, R.: “Prediction of Drilling Mud
YP = Bingham yield point, ° Fann (≈ lbf /100 ft )
2
Rheology Using a Simplified Herschel-Bulkley Model,”
ASME Intl Joint Pet Mech Engr and Press Vessels and
Acknowledgements Piping Conf, Mexico City, 19-24 Sept 1976.
The authors thank M-I L.L.C. for supporting this work 14. Blair, Scott: J of Applied Physics 4:113 (1933).
and for permission to publish this paper. 15. Nguyen, Q. D. and Boger, D. V.: “Characterization of Yield
Stress Fluids with Concentric Cylinder Viscometers,”
References Rheologica Acta, Vol. 26 (1987) 508-515.
1. Zamora, M. and Roy, S.: “The Top 10 Reasons to Rethink 16. Savins, J. G. and Roper, W. F.: “A Direct-Indicating
Hydraulics and Rheology,” IADC/SPE 62731, Asia Pacific Viscometer for Drilling Fluids,” Drilling and Production
Drilling Tech Conf, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11-13 Sept Practices; API (1954) 7-22.
2000. 17. Klotz, J. A. and Brigham, W. E.: “To Determine Herschel-
2. American Petroleum Institute: “Recommended Practice on Bulkley Coefficients,” J Pet Tech (Nov 1998) 80-81.
the Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-Well Drilling Fluids,” 18. Savins, J. G.: “Generalized Newtonian (Pseudoplastic)
API Recommended Practice 13D, 3rd ed., 1 June 1995. Flow in Stationary Pipes and Annuli,” Petroleum
3. White, W. W., Zamora, M. and Svoboda, C. F.: “Downhole Transactions, AIME, Vol. 218 (1958) 325-332.
Measurements of Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluid in 19. Bourgyne, A. T., et al.: Applied Drilling Engineering; SPE,
Offshore Well Quantify Dynamic Pressure and Richardson, Texas (1991).
Temperature Distributions,” SPE 35057, SPE/IADC 20. Haciislamoglu, M. and Langlinais, J.: "Non-Newtonian
Annual Drilling Conf, New Orleans, 12-15 Mar 1996 and Flow in Eccentric Annuli," 13th Annual Energy Sources
SPE Drilling and Completion (Sept 1997) 149. Technology Conference , ASME Drilling Technology
4. Zamora, M.: “Virtual Rheology and Hydraulics Improve Symposium, New Orleans, 14-18 Jan 1990.
Use of Oil and Synthetic-Based Muds,” Oil & Gas Journal
AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13 Making a Case for AADE Hydraulics and the Unified Rheological Model 7

Model Constitutive Pipe Annulus (Parallel Plates)

Bingham
τ = τ y + kγ  4  3
144V τ w  3  τ y  1  τ y  
Plastic 96V τ w  4τy  1τy   = 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.

Flow Pipe Annulus (Parallel Plates)


Conduit

Force 1.067τ w L 1.067τ w L


Balance ∆P = ∆P =
300D 300( Dh − D p )

Flow 96V 4 τw 144V 3 τw


Equation
D
= 3 ∫ τ 2 f (τ )dτ
τw τy
=
Dh − D p τ w2 ∫τy
τ f (τ )dτ

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)

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

Wall Shear Stress (lb/100ft )


25

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

20 Ty=50, n=1.000, k= 0.020 Ty=50, n=1.000, k=0.196


50
Ty=25, n=0.363, k= 3.648 Ty=25, n=0.848, k=0.631
10
Ty= 0, n=0.222, k=14.991 Ty= 0, n=0.737, k=1.514

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 )

Wall Shear Stress (lb/100ft )


2

150

10

100

50 Ty=10, n=1.000, k=0.196


Ty=10, n=1.000, k=0.020
Ty= 5, n=0.965, k=0.255 Ty= 5, n=0.737, k=0.151
Ty= 0, n=0.933, k=0.327 Ty= 0, n=0.585, k=0.521

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.

You might also like