You are on page 1of 6

Mehmet Sorgun

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Inonu Bulvari Ankara, 06531 Turkey e-mail: mehmetsorgun@gmail.com

Modeling and Experimental Study of Newtonian Fluid Flow in Annulus


A major concern in drilling operations is the proper determination of frictional pressure loss in order to select a mud pump and avoid any serious problems. In this study, a mechanistic model is proposed for predicting the frictional pressure losses of light drilling uid, which can be used for concentric annuli. The experimental data that were available in the literature and conducted at the Middle East Technical UniversityPetroleum Engineering (METU-PETE) ow loop as well as computational uid dynamics (CFD) software are used to verify the results from the proposed mechanistic model. The results showed that the proposed model can estimate frictional pressure losses within a 10% error interval when compared with the experimental data. Additionally, the effect of the pipe eccentricity on frictional pressure loss and tangential velocity using CFD for laminar and turbulent ow is also examined. It has been observed that pipe eccentricity drastically increases the tangential velocity inside the annulus; especially, the ow regime is turbulent and frictional pressure loss decreases as the pipe eccentricity increases. DOI: 10.1115/1.4002243 Keywords: light drilling uid, frictional pressure loss, concentric, eccentric, CFD, annulus, nite difference approximation

M. Evren Ozbayoglu
Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Tulsa, 800 South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104

Ismail Aydin
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Inonu Bulvari Ankara, 06531 Turkey

Introduction

In drilling engineering, an accurate estimation of the frictional pressure losses of drilling uids in an annulus is a major challenge in developing a hydraulic program design. The most important parameters affecting the frictional pressure loss of drilling uids are uid properties uid velocity, uid density, uid viscosity, and uid rheology , ow regime, pipe rotation, and pipe eccentricity. Since pipe eccentricity drastically decreases the frictional pressure loss, if it is not considered, frictional pressure loss can be overestimated. A number of studies have been carried out in order to estimate pressure loss in concentric and eccentric annuli for light drilling uids. Nevertheless, there are a few experimental data on pressure drop and velocity proles for light drilling uids owing through concentric and eccentric annuli 13 . Hansen et al. 1 and McCann et al. 2 are among the very few investigators to provide experimental data for Newtonian ow in concentric and eccentric annuli. Singhal et al. 3 developed new correlations to make accurate predictions of friction pressure losses in a turbulent regime for Newtonian and non-Newtonian uids in concentric annuli. Azouz et al. 4 numerically simulated fully developed turbulent ow in concentric and eccentric annuli. They concluded that mixing-length and k- models perform equally well for concentric annuli, and the k- model carries out slightly better than the mixing-length model for the eccentric annulus. Reed and Pilehvari 5 presented the effective diameter concept providing the link between Newtonian and non-Newtonian ows through a concentric annulus, and the method is valid for any ow regime. Siginer and Bakhtiyarov 6 analytically and experimentally investigated the pipe eccentricity effect on the ow of drilling uids in an annulus. Analytical predictions showed a good agreement with measured velocity proles in eccentric annuli. Silva et al. 7 proposed new friction pressure correlations for Newtonian and nonContributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 11, 2009; nal manuscript received July 19, 2010; published online September 29, 2010. Assoc. Editor: Jonggeun Choe.

Newtonian uids through concentric and eccentric annuli. Pina and Carvalho 8 described the three dimensional ow of Newtonian uid in an annulus with axially varying eccentricity using lubrication approximation. They showed the effect of the variation in the eccentricity along the length of an annular space on the ow pattern and pressure drop. Ahmed et al. 9 developed a mathematical model for predicting friction pressure losses in the laminar ow of the yield power-law uid in concentric annuli, and this model is also veried by experiments with polymeric uids. Ozbayoglu and Sorgun 10 introduced correction factors for determining the frictional pressure losses accurately in an eccentric annulus for non-Newtonian uids, including the effect of pipe rotation. This study aims to estimate the frictional pressure loss of light drilling uids in a concentric annulus. The NavierStokes equation is numerically solved using the nite difference technique to obtain velocity, velocity proles, and frictional pressure losses. The performance of the proposed model is analyzed by comparing the pressure loss estimations of the model with the experimental data as well as a computational uid dynamics CFD software program based on the nite element model and, nally, McCann et al.s 2 experimental results.

Mathematical Model

Annular geometry is represented as a narrow slot; i.e., ow takes place between two parallel plates, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The assumptions used in the analysis are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fluid is incompressible. Steady-state and fully developed ow. The parallel plate axis is parallel to the x-coordinate. The main ow is the +x direction ux = u , uy = , uz = w . H = Do Di / 4 for concentric annulus. Isothermal system physical properties are constant .

The equation of continuity is written as SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 033102-1

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright 2010 by ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Center Line N

2H O Di/2 D0/2
H y z

i+1 i+1/2 i i-1/2 i-1 x 1

Fig. 2 Discrete domain by using nite difference technique

w w w p w +v +w = +u + x y z t z

xz

yz

z w y

zz

2H
x

+ gz w
2

uw x

Fig. 1 Slot equivalent of concentric annuli 11

u, , and w are the axial, radial, and tangential velocity components. Figure 2 shows discrete domain by using nite difference technique. Using assumptions 2 and 4, the components of the equation of motion simplify as 1 p = x y
yx

=0

For the incompressible uid, density is constant; therefore, Eq. 1 reduces to =0 which can expanded in rectangular coordinates, u w + + =0 x y z The equation of motion in terms of stresses is expressed as D = p Dt 2

u y

+ gx

The constitutive equation of Newtonian uids is expressed as


xy

yx

u y u y

The total shear stress Tyx can be written as Tyx = 3


e

10

The effective viscosity can be expressed as = +


t

11

According to the mixing-length model, turbulent viscosity can be expressed as + g 4


t 2 = lm

where is the velocity vector, g is the gravity vector, is the stress tensor, p is the uid pressure vector, and means the gradient of. As an open form, the equation of motion for Cartesian coordinates x,y,z and turbulent ow is 15 : u u u u p = +u +v +w + x y z t x + gx uw z p + y

u y
2

12

The mixing length and damping function are presented as lm = H 0.14 0.08 1 y H 0.06 1 y+ A+ p H, x y H
4

13

f = 1 exp x
xx

14

yx

+ u x
2

zx

where y+ = 5 yu , u =
w

u y

A+ = 26

15

3
t +u x +v y +w z = x
xy

Explicit Solution of Governing Equation

yy

+
2

zy

BC1 = 0: boundary condition at the wall, u = 0. BC2 = 0: boundary condition at the centerline, du/ dy= 0. Using the assumptions, Eq. 5 can be written as y 6 Tyx = p x 16

+ gy w z

u x

By using the nite difference approximation, Eq. 16 can be expressed as Transactions of the ASME

033102-2 / Vol. 132, SEPTEMBER 2010

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Pipe rotation system

Annular test section

Cuttings injection system

Differential pressure transducer

Flow meter Control valve

Liquid pump Liquid tank Solid-liquid separation

Cuttings collection system

Return line

Fig. 3 Middle East Technical University, Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, ow loop

i+1/2

ui+1 ui y

i1/2

ui ui1 p = y i+1/2 y i1/2 y x

SI Metric Conversion Factors

17

ft 0.3048 inch 25.4 psi 6.8948

E + 00= m E 03= m E 03= MPa

Experimental Work 5 CFD


CFD software numerically solves the equations of continuity, momentum, and mass based on nite element methods. In this study, CFD and the proposed model have been used to nd out the frictional pressure losses and tangential velocity of Newtonian uid in both concentric and eccentric annuli in laminar and turbulent regimes. 5.1 Create Geometry. Two geometries were created, i.e., 2.9 1.8 in. and 1.5 1.25 in. The pipe length, L, is required to eliminate the end effects and to obtain a fully developed ow, selected for simulation greater than the maximum entrance length, Le 13 ,

4.1 Flow Loop. Experimental data were obtained from the Middle East Technical University-Petroleum Engineering METU-PETE ow loop as well as from McCann et al. 2 . Figure 3 shows a schematic view of the METU-PETE ow loop used in conducting the experimental study. The ow loop consists of a 2.9 1.8 in. annular test section with a length of 12 ft annular section. A centrifugal pump is mounted with a ow capacity of 250 gpm, and the ow rate is controlled and measured using a magnetic ow meter and a pneumatic ow controller, respectively. During the ow tests, pressure drop is also measured at a fully developed section on the test section using a digital pressure transducer.

Fig. 4 Tetrahedral meshing sample fully eccentric annulus

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 033102-3

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

0.08 0.07 0.06 dP/dL (psi/ft) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 axial velocity, u(ft/s)
exp proposed model CFD simulation

Fig. 5 Comparison of METU experimental and calculated pressure gradient values for low ow rates

0.31 0.28 0.25


dP/dL (psi/ft)

0.22 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.1 0.07 6 7 8 9 axial velocity, u(ft/s)


exp proposed model CFD simulation

10

11

12

Fig. 6 Comparison of METU experimental and calculated pressure gradient values for high ow rates

Le = 0.06 Do Di NRe Le = 4.4 Do Di NRe


1/6

laminar flow turbulent flow

18 19

approximately 2.8 106 tetrahedral mesh. Figure 4 shows a tetrahedral meshing sample for fully eccentric annuli. 5.3 Solution Process. After the meshed geometry is imported to CFD, the boundary conditions and initial values have to be described. The inlet was dened as an inlet velocity that depends on the average velocity at the inlet. The outlet was specied as the atmospheric pressure, and the ow was assumed to be a steady,

5.2 Mesh Geometry. The annulus geometry should be properly meshed to generate the computational grids and to improve accuracy computed frictional pressure loss inside the meshed geometry. In this study, for all of the cases, the geometry is divided

0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 axial velocity, u (ft/s) McCann experimental data proposed model

Fig. 7 Comparison of the proposed model and McCann experimental pressure gradient values in concentric annuli

033102-4 / Vol. 132, SEPTEMBER 2010

dP/dL (psi/ft)

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

0.45 calculated dP/dL (psi/ft) 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 measured dP/dL (psi/ft) proposed model CFD simulation
+20% -20% +10% -10%

Fig. 8 Comparison of experimental and calculated pressure gradient values for concentric annulus

using diverse models such as nite element and nite difference approximation. Therefore, the proposed model and the CFD model could give slightly different frictional pressure loss results in concentric annuli for fully turbulent ow. Also, the model is compared with McCann et al.s 2 experimental results for concentric annuli in Fig. 7. It can be observed that the proposed model successfully estimates the frictional pressure loss values. The accuracy of the proposed model can be examined by investigating Fig. 8, where experimental results and model predictions for pressure gradients are presented. The dashed lines in Fig. 8 are 20% and 10% error margins, and the solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental frictional pressure loss and the calculated results for the proposed model and CFD simulation. As seen in Fig. 8, all the data points predicted by the proposed model fall into the 10% error margin. 6.2 Comparison of the Frictional Pressure Loss and Tangential Velocity for Concentric and Fully Eccentric Annulus Using CFD Model. In this study, the tangential velocity and frictional pressure loss distribution for concentric and eccentric annuli is also examined using CFD simulation for laminar and turbulent ow regimes. Many researchers 2,3,9,10,12 have already reported the inuence of pipe eccentricity on frictional pressure loss, such that as the pipe eccentricity is increased, a reduction on frictional pressure loss will develop if the ow rate is kept constant and these decreases are independent of the ow regime. A similar trend is observed in Figs. 9 and 10. Based on the results obtained from the CFD analysis in the concentric annulus, the tangential velocity component is neglected in the proposed model, and the total shear stress is dened as in Eq. 10 . As seen in Figs. 11 and 12, pipe eccentricity increases the averaged tangential velocity in the annulus for the same axial uid velocity. Moreover, as the Reynolds number increases, the ow regime changes into turbulent ow, and the inuence of pipe eccentricity on the averaged tangential velocity in the annulus becomes more severe.

incompressible, isothermal, and k- model used for turbulent ow. In the k- model, the local turbulent viscosity is determined from the solution of the transport equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k and , the rate of dissipation of turbulent energy. In Eq. 11 , t for the k- model is dened as
t

=C

k2

20

In Eq. 20 , k is the turbulent kinetic energy, is its dissipation rate, and C is a constant; based on the best match with experiments, its value has been specied to be 0.09 14 . Pressure drop and axial and tangential velocity proles within the annulus are obtained from CFD simulations 15 .

Results and Discussion

The frictional pressure losses are computed for numerous different uid velocities obtained from the experimental data and McCann et al.s 2 experiments. The performances of the proposed model are also compared with the experimental data as well as the CFD model. Also, the inuences of pipe eccentricity on frictional pressure loss and tangential velocity are investigated using CFD simulation and the proposed model for turbulent and laminar ow regimes. 6.1 Model Performance. The model predictions and the experimental and computational uid dynamics software simulation results for pressure gradient values are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. As seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the proposed model usually gives close results to the experimental results for almost all cases. CFD software and the proposed model used different shear stress models k- and mixing-length theory, respectively in order to calculate the turbulent eddy viscosity. Also, they computed the pressure loss
0.00032 0.00028 0.00024 dP/dL (psi/ft) 0.0002 0.00016 0.00012 0.00008 0.00004 0 0 0.05 0.1

Conclusions

A mechanistic ow model is proposed for the frictional pressure loss calculation of the Newtonian uid ow through concentric annuli in laminar and turbulent ow regimes. This is achieved by introducing a narrow slot approximation approach and a nite difference method for frictional pressure loss calculations. The frictional pressure losses calculated proposed model and CFD simulations are compared with the experimental data obtained in this study and in McCann et al. 2 . The following are concluded: A model can predict frictional pressure losses of light drilling uid accurately when compared with all experimental data.

0.15

0.2

0.25

axial velocity, u(ft/s) concentric fully eccentric

Fig. 9 Pressure gradient values in concentric and fully eccentric annuli 2.9 in. 1.8 using CFD model, laminar ow

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 033102-5

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

0.06 0.05 dP/dL (psi/ft) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 1 2 3 axial velocity, u(ft/s) concentric fully eccentric 4 5 6
tangential velocity,w (ft/s)

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 axial velocity, u(ft/s) concentric fully eccentric 4 5 6

Fig. 10 Pressure gradient values in concentric and fully eccentric annuli 2.9 in. 1.8 using CFD model, turbulent ow

Fig. 12 Averaged tangential velocity distribution for concentric and fully eccentric annuli 2.9 in. 1.8 using CFD model, turbulent ow

0.09 tangential velocity, w (ft/s) 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 axial velocity, u(ft/s) concentric fully eccentric

lbm 0.454 in. 25.4 in.3 / min 1.6387 gal US 3.785 psi 6.8948

E + 00= kg E 03= m E 05= m3 / min E + 00= l E 03= MPa

References
1 Hansen, S. H., Rommetveit, R., Sterri, N., and Aas, B., 1999, A New Hydraulics Model for Slim Hole Drilling Applications, Presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Nov. 810, Paper No. SPE/ IADC 57579. 2 McCann, R. C., Quigley, M. S., Zamora, M., and Slater, K. S., 1993, Effects of High-Speed Pipe Rotation on Pressures in Narrow Annuli, Presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Feb. 22 25, Paper No. SPE 26343. 3 Singhal, N., Shah, S. N., and Jain, S., 2005, Friction Pressure Correlations for Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids in Concentric Annuli, Presented at the 2005 SPE Conference, Oklahoma City, OK, Apr. 1719, Paper No. SPE 94280. 4 Azouz, I., Shirazi, S. A., Pilehvari, A. A., and Azar, J. J., 1993, Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flow in Concentric and Concentric Annuli, Paper presented at the AIAA 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando, FL, Jul. 69. 5 Reed, T. D., and Pilehvari, A. A., 1993, A New Model for Laminar, Transitional and Turbulent Flow of Drilling Muds, Presented at the Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, Mar. 2123, Paper No. SPE 25456. 6 Siginer, D. A., and Bakhtiyarov, S. I., 1998, Flow of Drilling Fluids in Concentric Annuli, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., 78, pp. 119132. 7 Silva, M. A., Shah, S. N., and Jain, S., 2000, Friction Pressure Correlations for Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids Through Concentric and Concentric Annuli, Presented at the 2000 SPE Conference, Houston, TX, Apr. 56, Paper No. SPE 60720. 8 Pina, E. P. F., and Carvalho, M. S., 2006, Three-Dimensional Flow of a Newtonian Liquid Through an Annular Space With Axially Varying Concentricity, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128, pp. 223231. 9 Ahmed, R., Miska, S., and Miska, W., 2006, Friction Pressure Loss Determination of Yield Power Law Fluid in Eccentric Annular Laminar Flow, Weirtnictwo Nafta Gaz, TOM 23/1. 10 Ozbayoglu, M. E., and Sorgun, M., 2009, Frictional Pressure Loss Estimation of Non-Newtonian Fluids in Realistic Annulus With Pipe Rotation, Presented at the 2009 Canadian International Petroleum Conference CIPC , Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Jun. 1618. 11 Iyoho, A. W., and Azar, J. J., 1981, An Accurate Slot-Flow Model for NonNewtonian Fluid Flow Through Concentric Annuli, SPEJ, 21, pp. 565572. 12 Haciislamoglu, M., and Langlinais, J., 1990, Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow in Concentric Annuli, ASME Energy Resources Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, pp. 115123. 13 ANSYS CFX 8.0, Tutorial, Section Laminar to Turbulent Flow. 14 Muralidhar, K., and Biswas, G., 2005, Advanced Engineering Fluid Mechanics, Alpha Science, Oxford, UK. 15 Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N., 2002, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Fig. 11 Averaged tangential velocity distribution for concentric and fully eccentric annuli 2.9 in. 1.8 using CFD model, laminar ow

The proposed model for estimating pressure loss can forecast with an error of 10% in all cases. It is important to note that pipe eccentricity drastically increases the average tangential velocity inside the annulus, especially for the turbulent regime. Furthermore, as the pipe eccentricity increases, the frictional pressure drop decreases for a constant ow rate.

Nomenclature
v,u ff p D
t

H Subscripts eq hyd i o

velocity L/t friction factor pressure m Lt2 diameter L viscosity m/ Lt turbulent viscosity m/ Lt gravitational constant L / t2 shear stress m / Lt2 density m / L3 half of the parallel plate height L equivalent hydraulic inner outer

SI Metric Conversion Factors ft 0.3048 E + 00= m

033102-6 / Vol. 132, SEPTEMBER 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 21 Sep 2011 to 203.135.190.8. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm