European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.57 No.1 (2011), pp.68-86

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2011
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields


Sadek Z. Kassab
Department of Mechanical Engineering,College of Engineering and Technology
Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt
E-mail: szkassab@yahoo.com

Ashraf S. Ismail
Corressponding Author, Department of Engineering Mathematics and Physics
Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, Egypt
E-mail: ashraf_s_ismail@yahoo.com

Marwan M. Elessawi
Professional Engineer in Petroleum Company
E-mail: marwanelessawi@yahoo.com


Abstract

In the present study, empirical relations for the rheology of non-Newtonian water-
based mud and oil-based mud are introduced using field data from the measurements of
some oil fields in the region of Belayim marine oil field. Hydraulic calculations were
performed to calculate the pressure loss in the hydraulic circuit, using the empirical
relations for the conventionally used modified power law, power law, Bingham plastic, as
well as a newly proposed polynomial model. A good agreement between the calculated
pressure losses with the reported circulating pump pressure are shown in the results.
The reported pump flow rate, and measured mud weight, used in the calculations,
are represented at different true vertical depth (TVD). The calculated equivalent circulating
density (ECD), hydraulic (jet) impact force, system and bit hydraulic power, and percent of
pressure lost at bit, are represented at different true vertical depth (TVD). The comparison
between the results in water-based mud and oil based-mud, revealed the following: The
pressure losses and hydraulic power for the hydraulic circuit of oil-based mud are greater
than the losses and hydraulic power for the water-based mud circuit due to the rheology
difference. The impact force for water-based mud is greater than the impact force for the
oil-based mud, due to difference in flow rate and nozzle sizes between the two cases. The
bit hydraulic power and percent of pressure lost at bit in the oil-based mud are smaller than
the water-based mud due to the difference in bit and nozzle sizes and flow rates between
the two cases.
The swab and surge analysis is made to determine the safe pulling and running
speeds and minimized trip times. This is done by changing the maximum or minimum time
per stand and recalculating the swab and surge pressures until times per stand are found
where the swab and surge pressures plus the hydrostatic pressure is approximately equal to
the formation pressure and fracture pressure.


Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 69

Keywords: Drilling Fluid, Rheology, Non-Newtonian Fluid, Hydraulic System, Swab and
Surge Analysis

1. Introduction
Rheology and hydraulics are interrelated studies of fluid behaviour. Rheology is the study of how
matter deforms and flows. It is primarily concerned with the relationship of shear stress and shear rate
and the impact these have on flow characteristics inside tubular and annular spaces. Hydraulics
describes how fluid flow creates and uses pressures. In drilling fluids, the flow behaviour of the fluid
must be described using rheological models and equations before the hydraulic equations can be
applied.
The physical properties of a drilling fluid, density and rheological properties contribute to
several important aspects for successfully drilling a well, including:
Provide pressure control to prevent an influx of formation fluid.
Provide energy at the bit to maximize Rate of Penetration (ROP).
Provide wellbore stability through pressured or mechanically stressed zones.
Suspend cuttings and weight material during static periods.
Permit separation of drilled solids and gas at surface.
Remove cuttings from the well.
Each well is unique, therefore it is important to control these properties with respect to the
requirements for a specific well and fluid being used. The rheological properties of a fluid can affect
one aspect negatively while providing a significant positive impact with respect to another aspect. A
balance must be attained in order to maximize hole cleaning, minimize pump pressures and avoid fluid
or formation influxes, as well as prevent loss of circulation to formations being drilled.
In the present study, the field data were collected from measurements of some oil fields in the
region of Belayim marine oil field. Belayim marine oil field is located between latitudes 28 34 45
and 28 38 32 N and between longitudes 33 05 17 and 33 10 38 E in the eastern side of the Gulf
of Suez, 165 km southeast of the Suez city. Gadallah et al. [2009], used gamma ray spectrometry and
well log data to evaluate the spectrometry of Rudeis Formation, determine the oil bearing zones of the
Rudeis Formation using gamma ray spectrometry log, and evaluate the reservoir characteristics of
Rudeis Formation in Belayim marine oil field.
In the literature several studies were made on the rheology and hydraulics of drilling fluid
systems. Hamed and Belhadri [2009], developed water based mud systems using two biopolymers,
which are xanthan gum and scleroglucan, generally proposed for high permeability reservoirs or for
complex geometries such as horizontal wells and found that non-Newtonian rheological behaviour can
be described well by the three parameter in HerschelBulkley (modified power law) rheological model.
Zhou and Shah [2004] investigated experimentally the rheological properties and friction pressure
losses of several common well-drilling, completion, and stimulation fluids. These fluids include
polymeric fluidsXanthan gum, partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA), guar gum, and
hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), bentonite drilling mud, oil-based drilling mud, and guar-based
fracturing slurries. Rheological measurements showed that these fluids exhibit shear thinning and
thermal thinning behaviour except the bentonite drilling mud whose viscosity increased as the
temperature was raised. Flow experiments using a full-scale coiled tubing test facility showed that the
friction pressure loss in coiled tubing is significantly higher than in straight tubing. Zhou and Shah
[2006], presented a complete set of friction factor correlations for both Newtonian and non-Newtonian
fluids in laminar and turbulent flow in coiled tubing. The friction factor correlation for non-Newtonian
fluids in laminar flow is based on power law model, while in turbulent flow is based on experiment
considering pipe roughness. Zhou [2008] studied the hole-cleaning problem while drilling an under
balanced well using an aerated non-Newtonian flow in an inclined wellbore section. He concluded that
his new mechanistic model is useful for predicting minimum annular velocity and cutting bed thickness
in horizontal and inclined wellbore geometry. Effects of temperature, bottom hole pressure, liquid flow
70 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
rate, gas injection rate, cuttings size and density, inclination angle, and rheological properties of
drilling mud on hole cleaning are analyzed using this mechanistic model. Omland et al. [2006]
described the effect that different salts in the internal brine phases in synthetic- and oil-based drilling
fluids had on sag performance.
Birchenko et al. [2010] developed an explicit analytical model for turbulent flow in a highly
deviated wellbore, to account for frictional pressure drop along the completion as an important factor
in the design of horizontal wells. Gallego and Shah [2009], assumed that energy dissipation by eddies
in turbulent flow of viscoelastic fluids to be the mechanism causing drag reduction, and developed
generalized correlations for the prediction of drag reduction in dilute polymer solutions flowing in
straight and coiled tubing on the basis of the energy dissipation of eddies in turbulent flow field and a
shear rate dependent relaxation time. Kuru et al. [2005] used a transient-mechanistic model of cuttings
transport with foam to revisit the classical theory of hydraulic optimization (i.e., maximum bit-
hydraulic-horsepower/jet-impact-force criteria). A new methodology has been suggested to determine
the optimum gas/liquid-injection rates for maximizing drilling rates when drilling with foam in vertical
wells while keeping the bottomhole pressure at minimum.
Javora et al. [2008], described the field applications of new brine-based , high-density, solids-
free cleaning fluids in balanced displacements in deepwater and offshore shelf wells. The new high-
density fluids were based on new surfactant technology developed to ensure effective wellbore
cleaning, wellbore design parameters, and displacement modelling. In addition, weighted spacers aid in
reducing high pump pressures and wellbore pressure differentials. Robello Samuel [2010], concluded
that well planning should include torque and drag modeling with worst-case friction factors to ensure
that the drill string can be advanced, rotated, slid if oriented drilling is necessary, and pulled out of the
hole. Chen et al. [2009] developed a foam-flow hydraulics model on the bases of the experimental
results of foam rheology and a steady-state momentum balance equation, to predict pressure profile,
equivalent circulating density (ECD), foam velocity, and foam quality along a
vertical/inclined/horizontal wellbore. They indicated that it is possible to use foam to create a pressure
profile within the narrow window between continuously changing pore-pressure and fracture pressure
gradients.
The properties of the drilling fluid such as viscosity, gel strength, density, fluid loss control
(filter cake), and sand content have effect on both the rate and efficiency of drilling wells. The
penetration rate of the drill bit may be increased, drill bit life may be increased, and unplanned
borehole deviation may be decreased through the suitable designing and managing of drilling fluid
properties. These results offer economic benefits in terms of reducing drilling time by improving
productivity during drilling and reducing costly down-time.
High solids or sand content increases the fluid density. High fluid density causes pressure in the
formation of the borehole. This pressure drives the drilling fluid through the filter cake into the
formation, leads to excessive drilling fluid loss to the formation, and extends well development time
required to remove the mud from the formation. As the fluid density increases, the pressure required to
move the fluid up the borehole also increases, leading to high mud pump pressure requirements. High
solids or sand content also leads to significant abrasion in the drill tooling as the fine particles are
recirculating through the mud pump and drill string. Since drilling fluid density influences drilling rate
and hole stability, it can be controlled by dilution with water or remove solids to decrease or add
barium to increase. The desirable limit is less than about 1080 kg/m
3
, and sand content less than 2% by
volume [M.I. LLC., 2006].
As a general rule, viscosity should be maintained as low as possible to provide the required
hole-stability and water loss control. Thin mud does the best job of cleaning the bit and optimizing the
drilling rate, but thick mud are needed to remove coarse gravel from the hole. Marsh funnel viscosity
readings should be taken routinely and recorded on the boring log. The measure of the capability of a
drilling fluid to hold particles in suspension after flow ceases is referred to as gel strength (thixotropy).
Gel strength results from the electrical charges on the individual clay platelets. The capability of
keeping cuttings in suspension prevents sand locking (sticking) the tools in the borehole while drill
Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 71

rods are added to the string and minimizes sediment collecting in the bottom of the hole after reaming
and before going back in the hole with a sampler. Since the viscosity influences the cuttings transport,
cutting settlement, and circulation pressures, it can be controlled by adding water, phosphates, or
lignites to thin, and adding bentonite or polymers to thicken. The desirable viscosity limit is 34-40
sec/dm
3
(Marsh funnel and measuring cup) [M.I. LLC., 2006].
Filtration refers to the ability of the drilling fluid to limit fluid loss to the formation by
deposition of mud solids on the walls of the hole. The solid deposit is referred to as a filter cake. The
ideal filter cake is thin with minimal intrusion into the formation. The thickness of the filter cake for a
particular mud is generally a function of the permeability of the formation. The desirable limit of filter
cake thickness is less than 0.2 cm, and can be controlled by controlling density and viscosity of mud.
The acidity or alkalinity (pH) of drilling fluid influences mud properties, filtration control,
hole-stability, and corrosion of equipment. The pH can be increased with sodium carbonate and
decreased with sodium bicarbonate. The pH desirable limit is from 8.5 to 9.5 [M.I. LLC., 2006].
Salt content such as Calcium (hard water) influences mud properties and filtration control. It
can be controlled by pretreating mixing water with sodium bicarbonate. The desirable limit is less than
100 ppm calcium. For other salts, dilute salt content with fresh water or use organic polymers in the
drilling fluid [M.I. LLC., 2006].
In the present study, empirical relations for the rheology of water-based mud and oil-based mud
are introduced using field data from the measurements of some oil fields in the region of Belayim
marine oil field. The introduced shear stress-shear rate empirical equations in the form of the power
law, modified power law, Bingham plastic, and newly proposed polynomial model, are used to
describe empirical relations for the apparent viscosity of the water-based and oil-based mud, in the
form of power functions. Then, the hydraulic calculations have been performed, using Excel sheets, to
calculate the pressure loss in the hydraulic circuit, Fig. (1), using the introduced empirical relations for
apparent viscosity. In addition, the swab and surge analysis is made to determine the safe pulling and
running speeds and minimized trip times.

Figure 1: Mud Circulating System and Drill String Components (courtesy of M.I. LLC., USA, 2006).



72 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi




2. Drilling Fluid Rheology
A rheological model is a description of the relationship between the shear stress and shear rate. Most
drilling fluids are non-Newtonian fluids, and many models have been developed to describe the flow
behavior of non-Newtonian fluids. Bingham Plastic, Power Law and Modified Power Law models are
discussed.

2.1. Bingham Plastic Model
This model describes a fluid in which a finite force is required to initiate flow (yield point) and which
then exhibits a constant viscosity with increasing shear rate (plastic viscosity). The equation for the
Bingham Plastic model is:
=
o
+ PV (1)
Where:
= Shear stress

o
= Yield point or shear stress at zero shear rate (Y-intercept)
PV = Plastic viscosity or rate of increase of shear stress with increasing shear rate (slope of the
line)
= Shear rate

2.2. Power Law Model
The Power Law model attempts to solve the shortcomings of the Bingham Plastic model at low shear
rates. The Power Law model is more complicated than the Bingham plastic model in that it does not
assume a linear relationship between shear stress and shear rate. This model describes a fluid in which
the shear stress increases as a function of the shear rate mathematically raised to some power.
Mathematically, the power law model is expressed as:
= K
n
(2)
Where:
= Shear stress
Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 73

K = Consistency index
= Shear rate
n = Power Law index

2.3. Modified Power Law Model
The API has chosen the Power Law model as the standard model. The Power Law model, however,
does not fully describe drilling fluids because it does not have a yield stress and underestimates low
shear rate viscosity (LSRV). The modified Power Law or Herschel- Bulkley model can be used to
account for the stress required to initiate fluid movement (yield stress). Mathematically the Herschel-
Bulkley model is:
=
o
+ K
n
(3)
Where:
= Shear stress

o
= Yield stress or stress to initiate flow
K = Consistency index
= Shear rate
n = Power Law index
The consistency index (K), and index (n), of power law and modified power law, in the new
empirical equations, were determined from the data fitting, instead of using the traditional equations
described in references [M.I. LLC., 2006; ASME Shale Shaker Committee, 2005].

2.4. A Newly Proposed Polynomial Model
In the present study, a new proposed polynomial model is introduced. In this model, we have assumed
a seconed degree polynomial function to describe the shear stress-shear rate relations, in the form:
= a
2
+b+c (4)
Where:
a, b, and c are constants.
Using field data from the measurements of some oil fields in the region of Belayim marine oil
field, for water-based mud and oil-based mud, the value of
o
, K, n, and polynomial constants can be
determined as shown in Fig. (2) for water-based mud, and Fig.(3) for oil-based mud.

Figure 2: Shear stress-shear rate relation, for water-based mud @48.88 C.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate, (1/s)
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

(
P
a
)

Polynomial model
Bingham plastic model
Power law model
Modified power law model
9229 . 4 0543 . 0 10 2
2 5
+ + =


0314 . 0 2669 . 7 + =
3858 . 0
2887 . 2 =
3858 . 0
15 . 2
2 . 2
=
=
=
+ =
n
k
k
o
n
o

74 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
Figure 3: Shear stress-shear rate relation, for oil-based mud@65.55 C.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate, (1/s)
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

(
P
a
.
s
.
)
Polynomial model
Bingham plastic model
Power law model
Modified power law model
3561 . 0
4
35 . 4
=
=
=
+ =
n
k
k
o
n
o

9618 . 8 0719 . 0 10 2
2 5
+ + =


3561 . 0
3365 . 4 =
0535 . 0 848 . 10 + =


2.5. Apparent (Effective) Viscosity
The viscosity of a non-Newtonian fluid changes with shear. The effective viscosity () of a fluid is a
fluids viscosity under specific conditions. These conditions include shear rate, pressure and
temperature. By definition:

= (5)
The shear rate is dependent on the average velocity of the fluid in the geometry in which it is
flowing. Thus, shear rates are higher in small geometries (inside the drillstring) and lower in larger
geometries (such as casing and riser annuli). Higher shear rates usually cause a greater resistive force
of shear stress. Therefore, shear stresses in the drillstring (where higher shear rates exist) exceed those
in the annulus (where lower shear rates exist). The sum of pressure losses throughout the circulating
system (pump pressure) is often associated with shear stress while the pump rate is associated with
shear rate. The shear stress-shear rate relations described in Fig. (2) for water-based mud, and Fig.(3)
for oil-based mud, substituted in Eq.(5) to calculate the apparent viscosity, and describe the results by
power functions for each rheological model and compare it with the field data, in Fig. (4) for water-
based mud, and Fig.(5) for oil-based mud.

Figure 4: Apparent viscosity-shear rate relation, for water-based mud @48.88 C.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate, (1/s)
A
p
p
a
r
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
,

(
P
a
.
s
.
)

Polynomial model
Bingham plastic model
Power law model
Modified power law model
6198 . 0
4261 . 2

=
7179 . 0
0224 . 4

=
6142 . 0
2887 . 2

=
6847 . 0
6372 . 3

=


Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 75

Figure 5: Apparent viscosity-shear rate relation, for oil-based mud@65.55 C.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Shear rate, (1/s)
A
p
p
a
r
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
,

(
P
a
.
s
.
)

Polynomial model
Bingham plastic model
Power law model
Modified power law model
6572 . 0
6042 . 4

=
6439 . 0
3365 . 4

=
6975 . 0
7867 . 5

=
7183 . 0
0984 . 7

=


The shear rate (sec
1
) at the wall of a cylindrical pipe may be calculated by using the following
equation [M.I. LLC., 2006]:
D
V 8
= (6)
Where:
V = Average fluid velocity in the pipe (m/sec)
D = Pipe diameter (m)
The annular shear rate (sec
1
) for concentric pipes is calculated using the following equation
[M.I. LLC., 2006]:
P H
D D
V

=
12
(7)
Where:
V = Average fluid velocity in the annulus (m/sec)
D
H
= Diameter of the hole (m)
D
P
= Outside diameter of the pipe (m)
Thus, the viscosity can be determined as shown in Fig. (4) for water-based mud, and Fig.(5) for
oil-based mud, in the pipe and annulus, by substituting the shear rate described in Eqns. (6 and 7), into
the empirical relations of the viscosity.


3. Hydraulic Analysis
3.1. Hydraulic Losses
Once the rheological properties for a fluid have been determined and modeled to predict flow behavior,
hydraulics calculations are made to determine what effect this particular fluid will have on system
pressures. The circulating system of a drilling well is made up of a number of components or intervals,
each with a specific pressure drop. The sum of these interval pressure drops is equal to the total system
pressure loss or the measured standpipe pressure. The total pressure loss for this system can described
mathematically as:
P
Total
= P
Surf Equip
+ P
Drillstring
+ P
Bit
+ P
Annulus
(8)
Each of these pressure groups is broken down into their component parts and appropriate
calculations.

76 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
3.1.1. Losses in Surface Connections (Surface Equipment)
Surface pressure losses include losses between the standpipe pressure gauge and the drill pipe. This
includes the standpipe, kelly hose, swivel, and Kelly or top drive, Fig. (1). To calculate the pressure
loss in the surface connections, use the API pipe formula for pressure loss in the drill pipe. Common
surface equipment geometries are listed in table (1) below.

Table 1: Common surface equipment geometries

Case Standpipe Hose Swivel, etc. Kelly
Eq. Length
3.826-in. ID
1
12 m long,
3-in. ID
14 m long,
2-in. ID
6.1 m long,
2-in. ID
12 m long,
214-in. ID
792 m
2
12 m long,
312-in. ID
17 m long,
212-in. ID
7.6 m long,
212-in. ID
12 m long,
314-in. ID
288 m
3
14 m long,
4-in. ID
17 m long,
3-in. ID
7.6 m long,
212-in. ID
12 m long,
314-in. ID
186 m
4
14 m long,
4-in. ID
17 m long,
3-in. ID
9.1 m long,
3-in. ID
12 m long,
4-in. ID
129 m

In the present study, case 3 is chosen to represent the surface equipment geometries. Then, The
following equation is used to calculate the pressure loss.
L
D
fV
P
SurfEquip
2
2
= (9)
Where:
V = Velocity (m/s)
D = ID pipe (m)
= Density (Mud weight) (kg/m
3
)
L = Length (m)
Before calculating the pressure loss, the Fanning friction factor ( f ) is calculated next with
different equations being used for laminar and turbulent flow. This friction factor is an indication of the
resistance to fluid flow at the pipe wall. The friction factor in these calculations assumes a similar
roughness for all tubular. If the Reynolds number is less than or equal to 2100:
Re
16
= f (10)
The Reynolds number is:

VD
= Re (11)
If the Reynolds number is greater than 2100, [Birchenko et al., 2010]:
2
9
10
10
Re
9 . 6
log 6 . 3

(
(
(

|
|
|

\
|
|
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+ =
D
f

(12)
Where:
/D=relative roughness (assumed 0.0006 for pipes, and 0.00015 for annulus).

3.1.2. Losses in Pipe Drillstring
The pressure loss in the drillstring is equal to the sum of the pressure losses in all of the drillstring
intervals, including drill pipe, drill collars, mud motors, MWD/LWD/PWD or any other downhole
tools. Drillstring (including drill collars) intervals are determined by the ID of the pipe. The length of
an interval is the length of pipe that has the same internal diameter. The following equation is used to
calculate the pressure loss for each drillstring interval.
Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 77

L
D
fV
P
p
g Drillstrin
2
2
= (13)
The Reynolds number for inside the pipe is:

D V
p
= Re (14)
Where:
V
p
=Mud velocity in pipe
D = ID drill pipe or drill collars
= Apparent (Effective) viscosity
If the drillstring contains a downhole motor; an MWD, LWD or PWD tool; a turbine or a
thruster, their pressure losses must be included in the system pressure losses when calculating the
systems hydraulics. These pressure losses can significantly change the pressure available at the bit, as
well as bypass flow around the bit. The pressure loss through MWD and LWD tools varies widely with
mud weight, mud properties, flow rate, tool design, tool size and the data transmission rate. Some
manufacturers publish pressure losses for their tools but these pressure losses can be conservative,
because they are usually determined with water. The pressure loss through Positive Displacement
Motors (PDM), thrusters and turbines is higher than the losses across MWD and LWD tools and
subject to even more variables. With a PDM or thruster, increased weight on the bit increases the
torque and pressure loss across the motor. The pressure drop through a turbine is proportional to the
flow rate, the mud weight and the number of drive stages in the turbine. The pressure loss across
motors and turbines cannot be accurately determined by formula, but, again, this pressure loss data is
available from the suppliers.

3.1.3. Losses in Bit
The pressure loss across the bit is calculated with the following equation:
2
2
TFA
Q
P
Bit

= (15)
Where:
TFA = Total Flow Area of nozzles.

3.1.4. Losses in Annular Space
The pressure loss for each interval must be calculated separately and added together for the total
annular pressure loss. The following equation is used to calculate the individual interval pressure
losses.
L
D D
fV
P
a
annulus
) (
2
1 2
2

=

(16)
The Reynolds number for the annulus is:

) (
Re
1 2
D D V
a

= (17)
Where:
V
a
= Mud velocity in annular space
D
2
= ID hole or casing
D
1
= OD drill pipe or drill collars
= Apparent (Effective) viscosity
If the Reynolds number is less than or equal to 2100:
Re
24
= f (18)
If the Reynolds number is greater than 2100, f is calculated from Eq. 12.
78 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
3.2. Eqivalent Circulating Density (ECD)
The pressure on a formation while circulating, is equal to the total annular circulating pressure losses
from the point of interest to the bell nipple, plus the hydrostatic pressure of the mud. This force is
expressed as the density of mud that would exert a hydrostatic pressure equivalent to this pressure.
This equivalent mud weight is called the Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD).
TVD g
P
ECD
a

+ = (19)
Where:
=density (mud weight)
P
a
=total pressure losse in annular space
TVD=true vertical depth
g=gravity acceleration
Excessive ECD may cause losses by exceeding fracture gradient on a well. It is important to
optimize rheological properties to avoid excessive ECD.

3.3. Bit Hydraulics Calculations
In addition to bit pressure loss, several other hydraulics calculations are used to optimize the drilling
performance. These include hydraulic power, impact force and jet velocity calculations. In many areas
of the world, rock bit hydraulics can be optimized to improve rate of penetration. There are a lot of
factors that effect ROP including bit size, bit type, bit features, formation type and strength, and bit
hydraulics. In hard rock areas, bit/formation interaction has a greater impact on ROP than bit
hydraulics. Generally, the goal is to use 50 to 65% of the maximum allowable circulating pressure to
the bit. Systems are considered optimized for impact force when the pressure loss at the bit is equal to
50% of the circulating pressure. When the pressure loss at the bit is equal to approximately 65% of the
circulating pressure, the system is considered optimized for hydraulic power [M.I. LLC., 2006].

3.3.1. Hydraulic Power at Bit
Low hydraulic power at the bit can result in low penetration rates and poor bit performance. The bit
hydraulic power cannot exceed the total system hydraulic power.
746
Bit
Bit
QP
hhp = (20)

3.3.2. Nozzle Velocity (m/s)
Although more than one nozzle size may be run in a bit, the nozzle velocity will be the same for all of
the nozzles. Nozzle velocities of 76.2 to 137.2 m/sec are recommended for most bits. Nozzle velocities
in excess of 137.2 m/sec may erode the cutting structure of the bit.
) (
3 2 1
+ + +
=
n n n
n
A A A
Q
V (21)
Where:
V
n
=nozzle velocity
A
n
=nozzle area

3.3.3. Percent Pressure Drop at the Bit
It is generally desired to have 50 to 65% of surface pressure used across the bit.
100 % =
Total
Bit
Bit
P
P
P (22)

Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 79

3.3.4. Hydraulic Impact Force (IF)
n
QV IF = (23)

3.4. System Hydraulic Power
746
Total
System
QP
hhp = (24)

3.5. Swab and Surge Analysis
When the drillstring is picked up to make a connection or trip out of the well, the mud in the annulus
must fall to replace the volume of pipe pulled from the well. The hydrostatic pressure is momentarily
reduced while the mud is falling in the annulus. This action is referred to as swabbing and the
maximum reduction in hydrostatic pressure is called the swab pressure. Swab pressures are related to
the frictional pressures of the mud flowing in the annulus to displace the drillstring, not the reduction in
hydrostatic pressure due to the lower mud level in the annulus. If the swab pressure is greater than the
hydrostatic pressure safety margin (overbalance pressure), formation fluids will be swabbed into the
wellbore. When the drillstring or casing is lowered or run into the well, mud is displaced from the well.
The frictional pressure losses from the flow of mud in the annulus as it is displaced by the pipe causes
pressures in excess of the hydrostatic pressure of the column of mud in the wellbore. The elevated
pressures caused by running the drillstring into the well are called surge pressures. If the surge pressure
plus the hydrostatic pressure exceed the fracture gradient, the formation will be fractured with resultant
loss of circulation.
Swab and surge pressures are related to the muds rheological properties; the muds gel
strengths; the speed at which the pipe is pulled from, or run into, the well; the annular dimensions; and
the length of drillstring in the well. The rheological properties affect swab and surge pressures in the
same manner as they affect annular pressure losses. Increases in either the plastic viscosity or the yield
point will increase the swab and surge pressures. The velocity of the mud being displaced is different
for each annular space and is directly related to the velocity of drillstring movement, whether tripping
in or out of the well. Since the maximum (not average) swab and surge pressures must be less than the
pressures needed to swab the well in or break the formation down, swab and surge pressures must be
calculated for the maximum drillstring velocity when tripping. This is generally calculated as one-and-
one-half times the average drillstring velocity.
d S per Seconds
m Length d S
d S per s m V
ring MaxDrillst
tan
) ( tan 5 . 1
) tan , / (

= (25)
The annular velocity is calculated for each interval based on the drillstring displacement for that
interval. The drillstring displacement is adjusted accordingly for free flow from or into the drillstring
(no float, plugged bit, etc.) or for plugged drillstring where the displacement plus capacity of the
drillstring is used. The annular velocity must be calculated for each annular space. These annular
velocities should be substituted into the API equations for the annular pressure losses for each interval.
The swab and surge pressures are then calculated in the same manner as the ECD.
Capacity Annular
nt Displaceme g Drillstrin V
s m AV
ring MaxDrillst
Surge Swab

) / ( (26)
Drillstring Displacement (m
3
/m)=(/4)(OD
2
pipe
- ID
2
pipe
) (27)
Annular Capacity (m
3
/m)=( /4) (ID
2
well
- OD
2
pipe
) (28)
Where:
ID
Well
= Inside diameter of open hole or casing
OD
Pipe
= Outside diameter of drill pipe or drill collars
ID
Pipe
= Inside diameter of drill pipe or drill collars
80 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
L
OD ID
AV f
P
pipe well
surge swab
annulus
) (
) ( 2
2

(29)
The Reynolds number for the annulus is:

) )( (
Re
pipe well surge swab
OD ID AV
=

(30)
If the Reynolds number is less than or equal to 2100:
Re
24
= f (31)
If the Reynolds number is greater than 2100, f is calculated from Eq. 12.
TVD g
P
EQMD Swab
annulus

= ) ( (32)
TVD g
P
EQMD Surge
annulus

+ = ) ( (33)
The object of calculating swab and surge pressures is to determine safe pulling and running
speeds and minimized trip times. This is done by changing the maximum or minimum time per stand
and recalculating the swab and surge pressures until times per stand are found where the swab and
surge pressures plus the hydrostatic pressure is approximately equal to the formation pressure and
fracture pressure. This time per stand is only relevant for the present length of drillstring in the well.
As pipe is removed from the hole, the drillstring length decreases and the bottom hole assembly
will be pulled into large diameter casing. This will make it possible to pull each stand faster without
risk of swabbing in the well. When tripping in to the well, the length of drillstring will be increasing
and the annular spaces will decrease as the BHA is run into smaller diameters. This will require that
the running time per stand be increased to avoid fracturing the formation. The swab and surge
pressures should be calculated at either 152- or 305-m intervals [M.I. LLC., 2006].


4. Results and Discussion
In the present study, empirical relations for the rheology of water-based mud and oil-based mud are
introduced using field data from the measurements in the reports of some oil fields in the region of
Belayim marine oil field. The rheology measurements reported at 48.88 C for water-based mud and at
65.55 C for oil-based mud. The shear stress-shear rate relations described in Fig. (2) for water-based
mud, and Fig.(3) for oil-based mud, substituted in Eq.(5) to calculate the apparent viscosity, and
describe the results by power functions for each rheological model and compare it with the field data,
in Fig. (4), for water-based mud, and Fig. (5), for oil-based mud. At each shear rate value, the
corresponding shear stress values are at different TVD; this is done for the sake of getting generalized
empirical equations suitable for the all TVDs during drilling process, instead of describing equation
for each TVD. In addition, the consistency index (K), and index (n), of power law and modified power
law, in the new empirical equations, were determined from the data fitting, instead of using the
traditional equations described in the manuals in references [M.I. LLC., 2006].
The hydraulic calculations have been performed, to calculate the pressure loss, Fig. (6), in the
hydraulic circuit shown in Fig. (1), using the empirical relations for power law, modified power law,
Bingham plastic, and newly proposed polynomial model. The comparison revealed that all the models
give good results, but the modified power law still the best. Thus, for oil-based mud the modified
power law only used and the results compared with the pump circulating pressure with good
agreement.

Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 81

Figure 6: Total pressure losses in the hydraulic circuit, for water-based mud and oil-based mud

Pressure losses in water-based mud hydraulic
circuit
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
,

b
a
r
M. power law
Pump pressure
Bingham
Power
Polynomial
Loseese in MWD,
Motor, Fittings

Pressure losses in oil-based mud hydraulic circuit
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

l
o
s
s
e
s
,

b
a
r
Pump pressure
M. Power law
Losses in MWD, Motor, Fittings


The drilling assembly of the oil well, using water-based mud, till depth/TVD=366.9m/341.1m,
is:
5.-in (127mmOD-109mmID)DP, 5.-in (127mmOD-76mmID)HWDP, 8.-in (203mmOD-
71mmID)DC, 9.5-in MWD, and 9.5-in Mud Motor
Nozzles 20x3/16x1 1/32"
Bit 23-in GTX-CG
The Casing is:
30.-in @ 26.7 m (89 ft) (89 TVD)
The drilling assembly of the oil well, using water-based mud, @ depth/TVD=366.9m/341.1m,
is:
5.-in DP, 5.-in HWDP , 8.-in DC, 8.5-in MWD, 8.5-in Mud Motor
Nozzles 20x3/22x1 1/32"
Bit 23-in GTX-CG
The drilling assembly of the oil well, using oil-based mud, is:
5.-in (127mmOD-109mmID)DP, 5.-in (127mmOD-76mmID)HWDP, 8.-in (203mmOD-
71mmID)DC, 8.-in JAR, 8.-in DC, and 9.5-in BCPM
Nozzles 16x3/15x6 1/32"
Bit 16-in REED
The Casing is:
30.-in @ 29.1 m (97 ft) (97 TVD)
18.625-in @ 426.6 m (1422 ft) (1304 TVD)
The measured mud weight along with calculated ECD and, the reported pump flow rate used in
the calculations, are represented at different true vertical depth (TVD) in Figs. (7-8). Note that, the
same scale is used in both figures to show clearly the comparison between their values. Fig. (7) shows
that mud weight and ECD, for water-based mud are smaller than in oil-based mud. In Fig. (8), pump
flow rates, for water-based mud are greater than the pump flow rates in the oil-based mud. The
calculated hydraulic (jet) impact force, system and bit hydraulic power, and percent of pressure lost at
bit, are represented at different true vertical depth (TVD) in the Figs. (9-11).

82 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
Figure 7: Mud weight and ECD, for water-based mud and oil-based mud.

Mud weight and ECD of water-based mud
1020
1220
1420
1620
1820
2020
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
M
u
d

w
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

E
C
D
,

k
g
/
m
3
Mud Weight
ECD

Mud weight and ECD, oil-based mud
1020
1220
1420
1620
1820
2020
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
M
u
d

w
e
i
g
h
t

a
n
d

E
C
D
,

k
g
/
m
3
Mud weight
ECD


Figure 8: Pump flow rate, for water-based mud and oil-based mud.

Pump flow rate, water-based mud
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
P
u
m
p

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e
,

m
3
/
s

Pump flow rate, oil-based mud
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
P
u
m
p

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e
,

m
3
/
s


Figure 9: Impact force, for water-based mud and oil-based mud.

Impact force, water-based mud
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r
c
e
,

N

Impacy force, oil-based mud
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r
c
e
,

N


Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 83

Figure 10: System and bit power, for water-based mud and oil-based mud.

System and bit power, for water-based mud
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
S
y
s
t
e
m

a
n
d

b
i
t

h
o
r
s
e
p
o
e
r
,

h
p
Systemhydraulic
horsepower
Hydraulic horsepower at bit

System and bit power for oil-based mud
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
S
y
s
t
e
m

a
n
d

b
i
t

h
o
r
s
e
p
o
w
e
r
,

h
p
Systemhydraulic horsepower
Bit hydraulic horsepower


Figure 11: Percent of pressure drop at bit, for water-based mud and oil-based mud.

Percent of pressure lost at bit, for water-based
mud
0
5
10
15
20
25
83.4 150 318 366.9 448.2
33.6 148.5 275.4 341.1 410.4
Depth/TVD, m
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

l
o
s
t

a
t

b
i
t
,

%
D
P
B
i
t

Percent of pressure lost at bit, for oil-based mud
0
5
10
15
20
25
437.4 494.1 549.6 603 651
400.5 450 498.6 544.5 586.8
Depth/TVD, m
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

l
o
s
t

a
t

b
i
t
,

%
D
P
B
i
t


Comparison of the results, in water-based mud and oil-based mud, revealed the following. The
pressure losses, Fig. (6), and hydraulic power, Fig. (10), for the hydraulic circuit of oil-based mud are
greater than the losses and hydraulic power for the water-based mud circuit due to the rheology
difference. The impact force, Fig. (9), for water-based mud is greater than the impact force for the oil-
based mud, due to difference in flow rate and nozzle sizes between the two cases. The bit hydraulic
power, Fig.(10), and percent of pressure lost at bit, Fig. (11), in the oil-based mud are smaller than the
water-based mud due to the difference in bit and nozzle sizes and flow rates between the two cases.
In addition, the swab and surge analysis is made to determine the safe pulling and running
speeds and minimized trip times, table (2). This is done by changing the maximum or minimum time
per stand and recalculating the swab and surge pressures until times per stand are found where the
swab and surge pressures plus the hydrostatic pressure is approximately equal to the formation pressure
and fracture pressure. Swab and surge pressures are related to the muds rheological properties; the
muds gel strengths; the speed at which the pipe is pulled from, or run into, the well; the annular
dimensions, and the length of drill string in the well. In Table (2), it clear that the maximum surge
EQMD is 1144.542 kg/m
3
@ running speed 1 sec/stand, and maximum swab EQMD is 1134.427
kg/m
3
@ pulling speed 1 sec/stand. The recommended maximum running in and pulling out speeds
depend on the information about the formation pressure and fracture pressure, which are not existed
with the field data used.

84 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
5. Conclusions
In the present study, empirical relations for the rheology of water-based mud and oil-based mud are
introduced using field data from the measurements of some oil fields in the region of Belayim marine
oil field. The empirical relations for power law, modified power law, Bingham plastic, and proposed
polynomial model used to calculate the pressure losses in the hydraulic circuit. A good agreement
between the calculated pressure losses with the reported circulating pump pressure are shown in the
results. The comparison revealed that all the models give good results, but the modified power law still
the best.
Comparing the results in water-based mud and oil based-mud, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
i. The pressure losses and hydraulic power for the hydraulic circuit of oil-based mud are
greater than the losses and hydraulic power for the water-based mud circuit due to the
rheology difference.
ii. The impact force for water-based mud is greater than the impact force for the oil-based
mud, due to difference in flow rate and nozzle sizes between the two cases.
iii. The bit hydraulic power and percent of pressure lost at bit in the oil-based mud are
smaller than the water-based mud due to the difference in bit and nozzle sizes and flow
rates between the two cases.
The swab and surge analysis is made to determine the safe pulling and running speeds and
minimized trip times. This is done by changing the maximum or minimum time per stand and
recalculating the swab and surge pressures until times per stand are found where the swab and surge
pressures plus the hydrostatic pressure is approximately equal to the formation pressure and fracture
pressure. The recommended maximum running in and pulling out speeds depend on the information
about the formation pressure and fracture pressure, which are not existed with the field data used. In
future work, more detailed study including the effect of several parameters, such as annular geometry
for example, on swab and surge pressures in consideration.

Table 2: Swab and surge in equivalent mud density (EQMD), for water-based mud, at Depth/TVD= 448.2
m/410.4 m.

Stand time Annular Maximum Pressure drop Swab EQMD Surge EQMD
sec/stand m/s m/s bar kg/m
3
kg/m
3
200 0.001545 0.2025 0.037895 1138.592 1140.377
180 0.001715 0.225 0.039273 1138.592 1140.496
160 0.00193 0.253 0.04134 1138.473 1140.496
140 0.0022 0.28925 0.042718 1138.473 1140.496
120 0.002575 0.3375 0.044785 1138.354 1140.615
100 0.00309 0.405 0.047541 1138.354 1140.615
80 0.00385 0.50625 0.050986 1138.235 1140.734
60 0.00515 0.675 0.055809 1138.116 1140.853
40 0.0077 1.0125 0.063388 1137.997 1140.972
20 0.01545 2.025 0.079235 1137.64 1141.448
10 0.0309 4.05 0.098527 1137.164 1141.924
9 0.03435 4.5 0.101283 1137.045 1141.924
8 0.03865 5.0625 0.105417 1136.926 1142.043
7 0.04415 5.785 0.11024 1136.807 1142.162
6 0.0515 6.75 0.115752 1136.688 1142.281
5 0.06185 8.1 0.122642 1136.45 1142.4
4 0.0773 10.125 0.13091 1136.331 1142.638
3 0.10305 13.5 0.144001 1135.974 1142.995
2 0.1546 20.25 0.163293 1135.26 1143.471
1 0.30925 40.5 0.208767 1134.427 1144.542
Swab and surge analysis
Pipe velocity Bit at total depth

Drilling Fluid Rheology and Hydraulics for Oil Fields 85

Nomenclature
D diameter, (m)
f Fanning friction factor
L Length, (m)
K Consistency index, (Pa.s
n
.)
n Power Law index
PV Plastic viscosity, (Pa.s.)
Q volume flow rate, (m
3
/s)
Re Reynolds number
V Velocity, (m/s)
Shear rate, (1/s)
Density (Mud weight), (kg/m
3
)
Shear stress, (Pa)

o
Yield point, (Pa)


Abbreviation
LSRV low shear rate viscosity
TVD true vertical depth
DP drilling pipe
DC drilling collar
HWDP heavy weight drilling pipe
MWD measurement while drilling
LWD logging while drilling
PWD pressure while drilling measurement
ECD equivalent circulating density
EQMD equivalent mud weight
BHA bore-hole assembly
ROP rate of penetration
PDM positive displacement mud


References
[1] Mohamed M. G., R. A., El-Terb, E. M., El-Kattan, and I. M., El-Alfy, 2009, Spectrometry and
Reservoir Characteristics of Rudeis Formation in Belayim Marine Oil Field, Gulf of Suez,
Egypt, JKAU: Earth Sci., 21, No. 1, pp. 171-199.
[2] Robello Samuel, 2010, Friction factors: What are they for torque, drag, vibration, bottom hole
assembly and transient surge/swab analyses?, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
73, pp. 258266.
[3] Birchenko, V.M., A.V., Usnich, and D.R., Davies, 2010, Impact of frictional pressure losses
along the completion on well performance, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 73,
pp. 204213.
[4] Samira Baba H., Mansour B., 2009, Rheological properties of biopolymers drilling fluids,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 67, pp. 8490.
[5] Felipe G., Subhash N. S., 2009, Friction pressure correlations for turbulent flow of drag
reducing polymer solutions in straight and coiled tubing, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 65, pp. 147161.
[6] Zhou Y., Shah, S. N., 2006, New friction-factor correlations for non-Newtonian fluid flow in
coiled tubing, SPE drilling and completion, March, pp. 68-76.
86 Sadek Z. Kassab, Ashraf S. Ismail and Marwan M. Elessawi
[7] Zhou, Y., Shah, S. N., 2004, Rheological Properties and Frictional Pressure Loss of Drilling,
Completion, and Stimulation Fluids in Coiled Tubing, ASME, J. of Fluids Engineering, 126,
pp. 153-161.
[8] Javora, P. H., G., Baccigalopi, J., Sanfod, C., Cordeddu, Qi Qu, G., Poole, and B., Franklin,
2008, Effective high-density wellbore cleaning fluids: brine-based and solids free, SPE
drilling and completion, March, pp. 48-53.
[9] Zhou, L., 2008, Hole cleaning during underbalanced drilling in horizontal and inclined
wellbore, SPE drilling and completion, September, pp. 267-273.
[10] Omland, T., T., Albertsen, K., Taugbol, A., Saasen, K., Svanes, and P., Amundsen, 2006, The
effect of the synthetic- and oil-based drilling fluids internal water-phase composition on barite
sag, SPE drilling and completion, June, pp. 91-97.
[11] Kuru, E., O. M., Okunsebor, and Y., Li, 2005, Hydraulic optimization of foam drilling for
maximum drilling rate in vertical wells, SPE drilling and completion, December, pp. 258-267.
[12] Chen, Z., M., Duan, S. Z., Miska, M., Yu, R. M., Ahmed, and J., Hallman, 2009, Hydraulic
predictions for polymer-thickened foam flow in horizontal and directional wells, SPE drilling
and completion, March, pp. 40-49.
[13] M.I. LLC., 2006, Drilling Fluid Engineering Manual, M.I. LLC., USA.
[14] ASME Shale Shaker Committee, 2005, Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook, Elsevier Inc.,
2005.