You are on page 1of 9

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using


Artificial Neural Networks visible mathematical model (white box)
Salaheldin Elkatatny a,b,n, Zeeshan Tariq a, Mohamed Mahmoud a,c
a
Department of petroleum Engineering King Fahd University of Petroleum @Minerals. Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
b
Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
c
Suez University, Suez, Egypt

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The drilling fluid rheological properties should be monitored frequently during the drilling operations to
Received 17 November 2015 prevent the problems related to the change in these properties. Properties such as yield point, plastic
Received in revised form viscosity, and apparent viscosity are crucial to evaluate the drilling fluid efficiency in cleaning the well.
14 March 2016
These properties are only measured twice or once a day, but the Marsh funnel viscosity, solid content,
Accepted 19 August 2016
and drilling fluid density are measured every 10 min. Previous models were introduced only to predict
the apparent viscosity of the drilling fluid from the Marsh funnel viscosity with large errors.
Keywords: In this paper and for the first time we introduced new model to predict the drilling fluid rheological
Rheology properties from the Marsh funnel viscosity, solid content, and density measurements in real time. We
Drilling fluid
developed a mathematical model that obtained from the weights, biases, and the transfer functions used
Real time
in the Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The ANNs black box was converted to white box to obtain a
Artificial neural network
Plastic viscosity visible mathematical model that can be used to predict the drilling fluid rheological properties only using
Yield point Marsh funnel viscosity, solid content, and density.
Based on 9000 data points (collected from the field measurements for actual drilling fluid samples)
used in model training and testing, the viscometer readings at 300 and 600 rpm were predicted using the
visible mathematical model from the ANNs. The rheological parameters such as yield point, plastic
viscosity, apparent viscosity, and consistency index were determined from the viscometer readings at
300 and 600 rpm. The predicted rheological parameters were compared with the measured ones from
the field and the match was very good. The average absolute error for the various parameters ranges
from 1 to maximum 5 compared to 60 if we used the previously developed correlations. The developed
model is a robust technique and tool that can be used to predict the real time drilling fluid rheological
parameters that are essential for the drilling hydraulics design and also to predict the performance of
drilling fluid. Efficient performance of the drilling fluids depends on the quality of the drilling fluid which
needs to be monitored frequently and with the new model this process will be achievable.
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (Hossain and Al-Majed, 2015). Oil-based drilling fluid contains


weighting materials to increase the density, emulsifier and wett-
Drilling fluids are classified according to the base fluid to; ability agents for emulsion and filtration control, and organophilic
water-based drilling fluid, oil-based drilling fluid, and gas-based clay for viscosity control. The main advantages of oil based mud
drilling fluid (Caenn et al., 2011). Oil-based drilling fluid consists of are stability at high temperature, prevent or eliminate formation
oil as a continuous phase and water as a dispersed phase (water damage, and provide shale stability during drilling operation,
ratio is less than 5%). It used to drill certain formations that are (Bourgoyne et al., 1991; Abdo and Haneef, 2012).
difficult or highly cost to be drilled with water-based mud, Invert emulsion is a type of oil based drilling fluid that has 50%
water ratio. This type of oil is low toxicity and oil is the continuous
phase while water with CaCl2 is the dispersed phase. Calcium
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd chloride is used to increase the salinity of water and prevent any
University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia.
migration of water molecules from solution to formation. Invert
E-mail addresses: elkatatny@kfupm.edu.sa (S. Elkatatny),
g201406240@kfupm.edu.sa (Z. Tariq), mmahmoud@kfupm.edu.sa, emulsion is commonly used in the drilling operations in oil and
mohnasreldin80@gmail.com (M. Mahmoud). gas industry, Hossain and Al-Majed (2015).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021
0920-4105/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
2 S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Laboratory instruments such as, mud balance, Fann 35 visc- drilling operations. Increasing the plastic viscosity will increase
ometer, API filter press, and High pressure high temperature filter the equivalent circulation density (ECD), surge and swab pressure,
press are used to evaluate the invert emulsion properties. These and possibility of differential sticking due to increase in solid
tests require long time and certain percussion for cleaning of these content. In addition, increasing the plastic viscosity will decrease
equipment after testing. The common properties are mud density the rate of penetration.
to control formation pressure, plastic viscosity and yield point for Yield point is a strong function of the antiparticle attraction of
hole cleaning. the solids in the drilling fluid and it can be controlled by chemical
On the well site, a complete mud test is performed two times, thinners, dispersants, and viscosifiers (Adams, 1985). Luo et al.
one test in the morning and one in the evening. In the same time, (1994) developed simple charts for hole cleaning. In turbulent
Marsh funnel is frequently used during the day (every 10–15 min) flow, lower yield point is good for higher lifting force while in
to indicate any changes of the drilling fluid properties. Marsh
laminar flow; higher yield point is preferred as the fluid drag force
(1931) introduced his funnel with certain specification that can be
increased and remove the cutting as sliding bed (Luo et al., 1994).
used to determine the time required to fill a cup of 930 cm3. Marsh
They stated that it is more effective to adjust the yield point than
funnel is inexpensive, short time test and can be used to estimate
plastic viscosity to prevent hole cleaning problems. Increasing YP/
many parameters such as fluid yield stress with high accuracy
PV ratio in laminar flow will increase the hole cleaning efficiency
(Balhoff et al., 2011).
Drilling fluid rheological properties, which are generated from (Okrajni and Azar, 1986).
the fine particles of the drilled formation and rheology control
additives, are highly important in the drilling operations (Power 1.2. Artificial Neural Network
and Zamora, 2003). Each parameter plays an important role in the
success of drilling operations. Rheology measurements are very Fausett (1994) stated that ANN has the capability to approx-
important in order to determine fluid flow profile, hole cleaning imate any non-linear complex function between input and output
efficiency, pressure loss calculations, and equivalent circulation parameters. ANN models consists of fundamental processing unit,
density. termed as neurons. The neural network models are structured on
Drilling fluid properties such as density, viscosity, and filtration
three components, learning algorithm, transfer function and net-
rate have a noticeable effect on the rate of penetration (ROP). In-
work architecture and comprises of at least three layers, input
creasing the drilling fluid density, viscosity, and solid content will
layer, hidden layer and output layer. Hidden layer can be single or
reduce the ROP and increasing the filtration will increase the ROP
multiple. Each layer connects with other layers with the help of
(Mitchell and Miska, 2011). Estes (1974) stated that increasing the
weights. The network performance is solely based on the adjust-
drilling fluid viscosity will decrease the ROP if the bit is not
contaminated. ment of weights between these layers.
Zamora and Power (2002) stated that the relation between ANN molding is started by the training of the network in which
yield stress and yield point (τy/YP) is a crucial parameter that the data are process through the input layer to hidden layer
describes the mud rheology. They concluded that the acceptable (s) then all the way to the output layer. In the output layer the data
range of τy/YP ratio was 0.5–0.68 for synthetic-based mud and is compared with the actual data.
0.48–0.59 for oil-based mud. Hudson et al. (2015) stated that the model training should be
Hussaini and Azar (1983) reported that the mud rheological continued for all the data set until the average error reduce to
properties had a major influence on cutting transportation only if certain defined limit. This process is called epoch, in which the
the annular velocity less than 120 ft/min. Robinson and Morgan difference between actual and predicted data is transferred back to
(2004) developed a new correlation to describe hole cleaning the model to update the individual weights between each con-
which is carrying capacity index (CCI), which is function of con- nections and the biases of each layers.
sistency index. Aalst et al. (2010) and Haykin (1999) mentioned that number of
Although rheological properties are the key factor in rig hy- neurons plays a vital role for making the model. Fewer neuron
draulic calculations, there are other factors that should be taken cause under-fitting and excessive neurons cause over-fitting, so
into consideration for hydraulics calculation such as; solid percent optimization is required for the designing of neurons.
and hole diameter. Zhang et al. (2015) concluded that at low flow ANN technique was selected in this research from artificial in-
rates, the drilling fluid solids content affected the pressure profile telligent network techniques because it can provide the mathe-
while at high flow rate its effect decreased. In addition, the hole matical equations with high accuracy. The developed models from
shape has a noticeable effect on hydraulic performance and hole the ANN can be applied everywhere without the need for special
cleaning. Noncircular holes may have lower pressure gradient and software. This will help the application of this developed techni-
better hole cleaning than circular holes, Taghipour et al. (2014).
que on the rig site.
The objective of this paper is to develop new empirical corre-
1.1. Drilling fluid rheology
lations that can be used to predict rheological parameters of invert
emulsion based drilling fluid using artificial neural network (ANN).
The main rheological properties of the drilling fluid are plastic
The new correlations depend on mud density, Marsh funnel visc-
viscosity, yield point, apparent viscosity, flow behavior index, and
osity, and solid percent of the drilling fluid. Mud density, Marsh
consistency index. These properties can be determined from the
rheometer measurements. Adams (1985) stated that plastic visc- funnel viscosity, and solid content are measured frequently on the
osity is affected by the size, shape, and concentration of particles well site (usually every 10–15 min). The developed model will be
in the mud system. Plastic viscosity is increased by increasing the used to predict the drilling fluid rheological parameters such as;
solid content in the drilling fluid such as weighting and lost cir- viscometer reading at 300 and 600 rpm, flow behavior index (n),
culation materials. Increasing the plastic viscosity without in- consistency index (k), apparent viscosity (AV), plastic viscosity
creasing the mud weight means increasing the amount of ultra- (PV), and yield point (YP). This means with the new model a
fine solids in the drilling fluid. complete log vs. depth can be obtained for the rheological para-
Kersten (1946) and Paiaman et al. (2009) stated that plastic meters and deviation from the designed properties can be de-
viscosity of the drilling fluids plays an important role in the tected easily and fixed.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

2. Field data description

Table 1 lists the measured field data for invert emulsion based
drilling fluid (9000 data points). Invert emulsion fluid contains oil
as the continuous phase and water as the dispersed phase (oil base
mud). The drilling fluid density is measured by mud balance at
ambient conditions. The rheology properties such as plastic visc-
osity and yield point are measured using the rheometer at 120°F
temperature and atmospheric pressure (Elkatatny et al., 2012,
Power and Zamora, 2003; and Maxey, 2007). Marsh funnel visc-
osity is measure by the Marsh funnel at room temperature and
atmospheric pressure. The solid percent is measure by using mud
retort by evaporating the liquid phase and collect the amount of
solids. The drilling fluid samples were collected after shale shaker.
The available data covered wide range of drilling fluid density
(56–113 ppg). The Marsh funnel time ranged from 50 to 110 s/
quart and the solid percent ranged from 4 to 40.5%. Plastic visc-
Fig. 1. Predicted and actual value of R300 over wide range of fluid density and
osity ranged from 12 to 58 cP and the yield point ranged from 13 Marsh funnel viscosity.
to 28 lb/100 ft2.

3. Development of the empirical correlations

These data were used to determine R600 and R300 (viscometer


measurements at 600 and 300 rpm respectively). R600 and R300 are
very important to determine the flow regimes and fluid properties.
Drilling fluid can be described as plastic fluid, Bingham (1922) or
pseudoplastic fluid, Metzner (1956). R300 can be calculated using
Eq. (1) and R600 can be determine using Eq. (2). The flow behavior
index and flow consistency index are calculated using Eqs. (3) and
(4).
R300 = YP + PV (1)

R600 = PV + R300 (2)

⎛R ⎞
n=3. 32*log⎜ 600 ⎟ Fig. 2. Predicted value of R300 vs. actual value with an average absolute error of
⎝ R300 ⎠ (3) 3.48.

R600
K= Table 2
1022n (4) Coefficients for R300 Eq. (5).

The ANNs model for R300 was built using 70% of the available Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Hidden Lay- Output Lay-
data and the rest of the data was used for testing. Fig. 1 shows the Bias Vector er Weight er Bias
match of the predicted data of R300 with the actual measured data Vector Vector
W1j
of R300. The average absolute error was 3.48, Fig. 2. In order to
change the artificial intelligent network (AIN) to a white box, ANN j ¼1 j¼ 2 j ¼3 b1 W2 b2
was used to develop Eq. (5) to predict R300 values. Fig. 2 shows
that the correlation coefficient was 0.898 for the predicted and the  1.8274  5.44602 2.917047  5.04461  0.40551  0.92544
 6.57472 2.527389  1.32686 4.621764  0.41472
actual data of R300. Table 2 lists the coefficients that are needed to
 3.67728 3.814311 0.591854 3.055837  0.8714
calculate R300 values. 1.363588  2.44286 0.879379  1.13918  1.58862
 2.79676 2.870059 0.362025 1.135271  1.20976
Table 1  0.72685  3.34112 5.168337 1.17104  0.29844
Sample of field data for different drilling fluids (total of 9000 data points).  2.44122 1.992331  0.37745  0.65788  0.62676
11.90745 4.310661  2.68545 6.197622  0.02387
Mud density, Funnel viscosity, Solid, vol% Plastic viscos- Yield Point,  3.23666 0.264822 3.133789 0.924594  0.87753
lb/ft3 s/quart ity, cP lb/100 ft3 0.224346  3.43736  8.13821 0.940092  0.11798
 2.05153 0.542769 1.808985 0.932974 2.654141
58 77 6 23 27  2.48756  5.01087  1.432  5.45311  0.10142
65 55 8 20 21
67 64 8 23 22
68 62 14 23 22
⎡ N ⎤
75
80
81
74
20
14
27
30
22
24
R300 = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (5)
90 86 20 34 23
100 76 24 42 21
104 72 25.9 40 22
where; X is the input variables (mud density, March funnel, and
solid percent); N is the number of neurons which was optimized

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
4 S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Fig. 3. Predicted and actual value of R600 over wide range of fluid density and
Marsh funnel viscosity. Fig. 4. Predicted values of R600 vs. actual values with an average absolute error of
3.7.
to be 12 for one hidden layer; J is the number of input variables;
W1 is weight of hidden layer; W2 is weight of the output layer; b1
is bias of the hidden layer, and b2 is bias of the output layer.
The ANN was used to predict R600 values and compare the
results with the measured values of R600. Fig. 3 shows the 3D
distribution of the predicted and the actual measured data of R600.
The same procedure was used to change the AIN to a white box
(visible mathematical model) using ANN technique. Eq. (6) was
developed to determine the viscometer reading at 600 rpm (R600).
Table 3 lists the coefficients that are needed for Eq. (6). Fig. 4
shows that Eq. (6) can be used to predict R600values with an
average absolute error of 3.7 and the correlation coefficient of 0.92
compared with field data of R600.
⎡ N ⎤
R600 = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (6)
Fig. 5. Predicted and actual value of n over wide range of fluid density and Marsh
The same technique (ANN) was used to predict the flow be- funnel viscosity.
havior index (n) based on mud density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and
solid percent. Fig. 5 shows the match of the predicted data and the ⎡ N ⎤
actual measured data for the flow behavior index (n), which was
n = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (7)
calculated using Eq. (3). Eq. (7) was developed to estimate the flow
behavior index. Table 4 lists the coefficients for Eq. (7). Fig. 6
shows that the average absolute error was 1.2 when Eq. (7) was
used to predict the flow behavior index (n) compared to the actual 4. Validation of the developed correlations
measured values. In addition, the correlation coefficient was 0.954,
Fig. 6. In order to validate the obtained results, plastic viscosity,

Table 3
Coefficients for R600 Eq. (6).

Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Bias Vector Hidden Layer Weight Vector Output Layer Bias Vector
W1j

j¼1 j¼2 j ¼3 b1 W2 b2

2.04501  0.7805  1.16864  5.57913923 0.185423055  0.248086865


 5.61904  3.54062  3.73392 3.622217815  0.130536886
 3.6754 1.930318  2.88181 3.355493166  0.461495298
 1.81304  1.72775 4.806933 1.285750863  0.656168695
0.265824 1.246441 0.300051 1.059357122 0.482319892
 2.07722  0.9026 3.433803 1.058943235 1.009284682
 2.40646 2.68905  0.93334  0.594411063  0.294474491
 2.77092 3.920118  6.34963 4.65294731 0.482088932
1.038762  4.18638 2.216981 1.704765425  0.027394274
2.597033  3.77111  3.43292 0.231197898  0.21042897
 3.94698  1.81948  0.79645  1.312010423 0.130257683
 2.78825  0.38894 2.418095 0.31717307  0.45821443

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

Table 4
Coefficients for n Eq. (7).

Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Hidden Layer Output Lay-
Bias Vector Weight er Bias
Vector Vector
W1j

j¼1 j ¼2 j¼ 3 b1 W2 b2

3.220315  0.57546  2.02889  1.71162  3.43656 0.853827


 3.15179 1.450377 0.441094 2.243792  7.06351
 2.11621 1.458009  0.63873 1.718367 10.30035
1.696387  1.36366 1.57797  1.61166 4.201001
 3.65465 0.698504 1.500941 1.370359  1.97065
 0.32081  1.14141 1.158275 0.808412 3.626137
 0.62693 0.245348  2.13113  0.35632  1.5808
0.180511 0.760792  1.1291  0.62025 6.490663
6.082768  1.97313 1.273213 3.14636 1.601237
5.1759  1.57097 0.676506 2.460712  1.66596
 0.35265  0.89239  0.54004  1.3417 7.741616
 0.73269  0.72809  0.89852  1.72047  6.64911
Fig. 8. Predicted values of apparent viscosity vs. actual values with an average
absolute error of 3.7.

was 0.91. The estimated values of the apparent viscosity (equals to


half the reading value at R600) were plotted vs. the measured va-
lues and the average absolute error was 3.7 and the correlation
coefficient was 0.91, Fig. 8.
Fluid consistency was calculated using Eq. (4) based on the
predicted value of R600 and flow behavior index. Fig. 9 shows
match of the predicted values for fluid consistency vs. calculated
values with an average absolute error of 4.2 and a correlation
coefficient of 0.92.
The ANN technique was used to develop the empirical corre-
lation for the plastic viscosity, yield point, and fluid consistency
based on fluid density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and solid percent.
Eqs. (8)–(10) were developed to estimate plastic viscosity, yield
point, and fluid consistency, respectively. Tables , and 7 list the
coefficients for Eqs. (8)–(10) which were used to estimate plastic
viscosity, yield point, and fluid consistency, respectively.
Fig. 6. Predicted values of n vs. actual values with an average absolute error of 1.2.
⎡ N ⎤
apparent viscosity, and fluid consistency were calculated based on PV = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (8)
the predicted values of R600, R300, and flow behavior index. The
obtained results were plotted vs. the actual measured data to in-
vestigate the accuracy of these correlations. ⎡ N ⎤
Plastic viscosity was calculated using Eq. (2). Fig. 7 shows that
Yp = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (9)
the average absolute error was 5 and the correlation coefficient

Fig. 7. Predicted values of plastic viscosity (Eq. (2)) vs. actual values with an Fig. 9. Predicted values of fluid consistency vs. actual values with an average ab-
average absolute error of 5. solute error of 4.7.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
6 S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 5
Coefficients for PV Eq. (8).

Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Hidden Layer Output Lay-
Bias Vector Weight er Bias
Vector Vector
W1j

j¼1 j ¼2 j¼ 3 b1 W2 b2

0.374478 0.406195  2.548  2.12315 1.255301  0.91271


 6.15695 2.940426  0.43273 4.376571  0.45097
 1.57198 0.337708 1.008095 1.299136 4.083381
1.516747  2.69755 2.567196 0.932288  0.67141
 1.59462 1.793133  0.23098  0.38869 3.606911
 1.0662 0.13384 0.580483 0.392813  4.27352
 1.60647 2.155234  0.84021  0.48252  3.66323
1.242886 2.858236  5.32016  3.3303  0.6301
2.502998  7.81366 1.47589 1.605799  0.04951
2.066663  4.07001  7.61237 0.127739  0.13356
 2.48673  0.72278 0.142687  1.28829 1.015643
 2.24712  0.87355  1.05996  2.18532  1.00217
Fig. 10. Predicted and actual value of plastic viscosity over wide range of fluid
density and Marsh funnel viscosity.
Table 6
Coefficients for YP Eq. (9). j¼1, 2, and 3. The rheological parameters are predicted using mud
density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and solid percent, the value of W1
Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Hidden Layer Output Lay-
Bias Vector Weight er Bias will be taken at j¼ 1 for mud density, at j¼2 for Marsh funnel
Vector Vector viscosity, and at j¼3 for solid percent. The xj in the previous
W1j equations are as follows; x at j¼1 is the mud density; x at j¼2 is
j¼1 j¼2 j¼3 b1 W2 b2
the Marsh funnel viscosity; and X at j¼3 is the solid percent. For
J
example, the term ∑j = 1 w1i, jxj for PV from Table 5 can be calculated
2.62106  0.80644  0.27734  5.10152 1.170188 0.268271 J
 4.51486  1.10722  7.61206 7.387597 0.175238 as follows; ∑j = 1 w1i, jxj = w1,1x1 + w1,2x2 + w1,3x3; where the values of
 3.15386 3.750114 0.637341 3.798593 0.414109 w1,1, w1,2, and w1,3 are 0.374478, 0.406195, and  2.548 respec-
0.818592  1.16629 4.465454 0.427262  0.81236 tively. This will repeated for the 12 rows of the matrix and the
 2.466 2.056226 1.538566 4.948151 0.665309
 0.12552  0.6239 2.120301  0.27576 1.524252 corresponding values for each row can be used from the tables.
0.934483 1.541988  3.24564 2.396853 2.32595 The term x represents the drilling fluid measured property, i.e.,
 4.74318  0.46771 0.732846  1.14108  0.30128 x1 ¼mud density, x2 ¼Marsh funnel viscosity, and x3 ¼ solid
0.977057  0.05562 1.189258 2.675697  2.76761
percent.
1.340395  1.07757  2.38785 5.514589 0.404392
 4.99029 0.651775  5.67518  1.38626  0.10995 Fig. 10 compares the predicted values of the plastic viscosity
 5.53797  4.14159 2.094721  5.48834  0.4303 using Eq. (8) with the measured values over a wide range of fluid
density and Marsh funnel viscosity. Fig. 11 shows that the average
absolute error was reduced from 5 (using Eq. (2)) to 4.2 using Eq.
Table 7 (8). In addition, the correlation coefficient was increased from 0.91
Coefficients for k Eq. (10). to 0.945 using Eq. (8) to estimate plastic viscosity. This means
Input Layer Weight Matrix Input Layer Hidden Layer Output Lay- relating the plastic viscosity directly to the Marsh funnel viscosity,
Bias Vector Weight er Bias drilling fluid density, and solid percent in the drilling fluid yielded
Vector Vector better and more accurate prediction compared to estimating the
W1j

j¼1 j¼2 j ¼3 b1 W2 b2

2.489259  0.56487  1.56888  3.18831 0.43982 0.477682


 3.88724 0.191164 0.51594 2.213533  0.57877
0.795752 3.041984  2.09128 2.823749 0.792402
2.925653  0.30213 0.774864  1.42721  0.85629
 2.60303 1.263653  2.73725 0.86639  0.3466
 1.14641  0.53273 2.303095 0.459328 0.591236
 1.02352 0.621879  2.17618  0.37928 0.966714
 3.48165 0.79208  0.81356  0.67174  0.61535
1.72094  1.494 0.816907 2.519659  1.13168
1.873727  2.86172  0.59109 2.42891 0.179649
 0.97912  2.46775  1.9669  2.39437  0.03243
 3.92531  0.83611  1.66906  4.14338 0.324949

⎡ N ⎤
k = ⎢ ∑ w2itansig
⎢⎣ i = 1 (∑ J
j=1 )
w1i, jxj + b1i ⎥ + b2
⎥⎦ (10)

The values of the coefficients w1, w2, b1, and b2 can be obtained Fig. 11. Predicted values of plastic viscosity (Eq. (8)) vs. actual values with an
from Tables 5–7. In these tables we have three values for W1 at average absolute error of 4.2.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Fig. 12. Predicted and actual value of apparent viscosity over wide range of fluid Fig. 14. Predicted and actual value of fluid consistency over wide range of fluid
density and Marsh funnel viscosity. density and Marsh funnel viscosity.

plastic viscosity from the predicted viscometer reading at 600 rpm


(R600).
Fig. 12 shows the 3D distribution of predicted values of yield
point with actual values over a wide range of fluid density and
Marsh funnel viscosity. The average absolute when comparing
actual and predicted yield point values was 3, as shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 14 shows the 3D distribution of predicted value of fluid con-
sistency with actual value (the average absolute error was 4.74).

4.1. Apparent viscosity from Marsh funnel (literature comparison)

Pitt (2000) developed a correlation to convert the Marsh funnel


viscosity into effective viscosity of drilling fluids as a function of
drainage time and mud weight. A numerical simulation model of
the flow behavior of drilling fluid in Marsh funnel was built. He
developed a correlation to estimate the effective viscosity of the
drilling fluid, Eq. (11). Fig. 15 shows that the average absolute error
was 61.53 when using Eq. (11) to determine the apparent viscosity Fig. 15. Apparent viscosity prediction using Pit's (2000) correlation. Average ab-
solute error of 61.5%.
and the correlation coefficient was 0.696.

AV = D( T −25) (11) Fluid density and Marsh funnel viscosity of the samples were
measured. The resulted data were used for fitting Eqs. (12) and
Almahdawi et al. (2014) introduced a new model to estimate (13). They concluded that Eq. (12) related the apparent viscosity to
the apparent viscosity of drilling fluids with the knowledge of Marsh funnel viscosity and it gives more accurate results than Eq.
Marsh funnel viscosity and fluid density. Many samples of drilling (13). They found out that the constant of 28 is more appropriate
fluids were prepared with different quantities of barite, bentonite than 25, obtained by Pitt (2000).
and other additives in order to give various rheological behaviors.
AV = − 0.0118*T2+1.6175*T −32.168 (12)

AV = D( T −28) (13)

where
AV apparent viscosity, cP.
D Fluid density, g/cm3.
T Marsh funnel time, s.
Fig. 16 shows that Almahdawi et al. (2014) correlation under-
estimated the apparent viscosity. The average absolute error was
61.53% and the correlation coefficient was 0.23 when comparing
the predicted and the actual data for apparent viscosity. Based on
the obtained results, it can be concluded that ANNs model is the
best method to predict drilling fluid rheological parameters with
high accuracy based only on mud density, Marsh funnel viscosity,
and solid percent.
Once the Bingham model parameters (plastic viscosity and
yield point) and the power low model parameters (flow behavior
Fig. 13. Predicted values of yield point vs. actual values with an average absolute index and fluid consistency) are obtained, one model can be se-
error of 3. lected to obtain the pressure loss through the rig system. In

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
8 S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

performed maximum twice a day. Using the developed model we


can predict real time and this can be logged with the well depth,
any anomalies can be detected and mitigated immediately. This
will save the cost of drilling operations and also will minimize the
drilling time.

6. Conclusions

In this study we used ANNs to develop a model that consists of


set of empirical correlations that can be used to predict the drilling
fluid rheological properties. Actual filed measurements on actual
drilling fluid samples were collected from the field to construct the
model. 9000 data points were collected and 70% of them were
used for training the model and 30% for testing. The following are
the conclusions that can be drawn from this study:

Fig. 16. Apparent viscosity prediction using Almahdawi et al. (2014) correlation.
1. The developed model can be used to determine; plastic visc-
Average absolute error of 61.53%. osity, yield point, flow behavior index, and fluid consistency
based on fluid density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and solid percent
with an average absolute error less than 5.
addition, the rheology parameters can be used to determine surge
2. The developed technique is very useful in predicting the real
and swab pressure and can also be used to predict actual drilling
time rig hydraulics.
problem such as pipe sticking by calculation the solid concentra- 3. This inexpensive technique will help drilling engineers to better
tion in the annulus. Also the hole cleaning performance can be
control the drilling operation and predict drilling problem be-
predicted using the developed model in real time and this can be fore occurring. In addition, it will reduce the total cost of the
logged with the drilling depth. Any departure from the normal
drilling operations.
trend of the cleaning efficiency can be early detected and miti-
gated before the drilling problem happens.
References

5. The importance of predicting drilling fluid properties in real


Aalst, W.M.P., Rubin, V., Verbeek, H.M.W., Van Dongen, B.F., Verbeek, E., Günther, C.
time W., 2010. Process mining: a two-step approach to balance between underfitting
and overfitting. Softw. Syst. Model. 9 (1), 87–111.
The real time prediction of the rheology parameters such as; Abdo, J., Haneef, M.D., 2012. Nano-enhanced drilling fluids: pioneering approach to
overcome uncompromising drilling problems. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 134
plastic viscosity, yield point, apparent viscosity, fluid behavior in- (1), 014501–014506.
dex, based on drilling fluid density, March funnel viscosity and Adams, N.J., 1985. Drilling Engineering: A Complete Well Planning Approach. Penn
solid percent, will help in monitoring the drilling process. For Well Publishing Company, PennWell Publishing Company, 1421 South Sheridan
Road/P. O. Box 1260, Thlsa, 7410 Oklahoma.
example the hole cleaning efficiency can be determined during
Almahdawi, F.H., Al-Yaseri, A.Z., Jasim, N., 2014. Apparent viscosity direct from
drilling in real time based on the predicted parameters using the marsh funnel test. Iraqi J. Chem. Pet. Eng. 15 (1), 51–57.
developed model. The prediction of hole cleaning efficiency will Balhoff, M.T., Lake, L.W., Bommer, P.M., Lewis, R.E., Weber, M.J., Calderin, J.M., 2011.
prevent several drilling problems such as high drag, torque, and Rheological and yield stress measurements of non-Newtonian fluids using a
Marsh funnel. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 77 (3–4), 393–402.
pipe sticking. Once the fluid behavior index is predicted in real Bingham, E.C., 1922. Fluidity and Plasticity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
time using the developed model, the cutting carrying efficiency Bourgoyne, A.T., Cheever, M.E., Mulheim, K.K., Young, F.S., 1991. Applied Drilling
can be determined as follows (Mahmoud, 2006): Engineering, SPE Textbook Series. 2. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richard-
son, TX.
Vc Caenn, R., Darley, H.C.H., Gray, G.R., 2011. Composition and Properties of Drilling
η= x100 and Completion Fluids, Sixth ed. Gulf Professional Publishing, an imprint of
Vme (14) Elsevier, 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA.
Elkatatny, S.M., Mahmoud, M.A., Nasr-el-din, H.A., 2012. Characterization of filter
cake generated by water-based drilling fluids using CT scan. SPE Drill. Complet.
27 (2), 282–293.
2n + 1 Estes, J.C., 1974. Guidelines for selecting rotary insert rock bits. Pet. Eng.
Vme = Vm
n +1 (15) Fausett, L., 1994. Fundamentals of Neural Networks Architectures, Algorithms, and
Applications, 1st ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Haykin, S., 1999. Neural Networks, a Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd ed. Prentice
n
Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
1
⎡ 3. 878x104 ⎤ 2 − n ⎡ ⎛ 2. 4 ⎞⎛ 2n+1 ⎞⎤ 2 − n Hossain, M.E., Al-Majed, A.A., 2015. Fundamentals of Sustainable Drilling En-
Vc = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟⎥ gineering. Scrivener Publishing LLC, Scrivener Publishing LLC, Salem,
⎢⎣ ρmud ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎝ Dh − Dp ⎠⎝ 3n ⎠⎥⎦ (16) Massachusetts.
Hudson, et al., 2015. Neural Network Tool Box User's guide. 〈http://www.math
Where; η ¼ hole cleaning efficiency; Vc ¼drilling fluid critical ve-
works.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/nnet/〉.
Hussaini, S.M., Azar, J.J., 1983. Experimental study of drilled cutting transport using
locity; Vme ¼drilling fluid effective velocity; n ¼fluid behavior in- common drilling muds. SPE J. 10674-PA, 11–20.
dex; ρmud ¼drilling fluid density, Dh ¼hole size; Dp ¼drill pipe size. Kersten, G.V., 1946. Results and Use of Oil-Base Fluids in Drilling and Completing
Wells. In: Paper API-46-061 presented at Drilling and Production Practice. New
Using the developed model will add more dimensions to pre-
York, New York, 1 January.
dict several factors that control the drilling operations such as hole Luo, Y., Bern, P.A., Chambers, B.D., 1994. Simple Charts to Determine Hole Cleaning
cleaning efficiency, cutting concentration in the hole, prediction of Requirements in Deviated Wells. In: Paper SPE 27486 presented at the SPE/
drilling problems. There is no current model that can predict the IADC Drilling.
Mahmoud, M.A., 2006. An Integrated Model for Hole Cleaning during Drilling Di-
drilling parameters in real time (every 10–20 min) because all rectional Wells (MS thesis). Suez Canal University, Egypt.
models depend on the laboratory measurements which are Marsh, H., 1931. Properties and treatment of rotary mud. Pet. Dev. Technol. Trans.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i
S. Elkatatny et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

AIME 92 (1), 234–251. improved understanding of critical drilling fluid parameters. In: Proceedings of
Maxey, J. 2007. Thixotropy and Yield Stress Behavior in Drilling Fluids. In: Pro- the AADE-03 NTCE-35, AADE Technical Conference. Houston. 1–3 April.
ceedings of the AADE-07-NTCE-37, AADE National Technical Conference and Robinson, l., Morgan, M., 2004. Effect of hole cleaning on drilling rate performance.
Exhibition held at the Wyndam, Greenspoint Hotel, Houston, Texas, 10–12 In: Paper AADE-05-DF-HO-41 was presented at the AADE Drilling Fluid Con-
April. ference Held at the Radisson in Houston, Texas, USA, 6–7 April.
Metzner, A.B., 1956. Non-Newtonian technology: fluid mechanics and transfers. Taghipour, A., Lund, B., Ytrehus, J.D., Skalle, P., Saasen, A., Reyes, A., Abdollahi, J.,
Advances in Chemical Engineering. Academic Press, New York. 2014. Experimental study of hydraulics and cuttings transport in circular and
Mitchell, R.F., Miska, S.Z., 2011. Fundamentals of drilling engineering. Soc. Pet. Eng. noncircular wellbores. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 136 (2), 022904-1-8.
Okrajni, S.S., Azar, J.J., 1986. The effects of mud rheology on annular hole cleaning in Zamora, M., Power, D., 2002. Making a case for AADE hydraulics and the unified
directional wells. SPE Drill. Eng. 1 (4), 297–308. rheological model. In: Proceedings of the AADE-02-DFWM-HO-13, AADE
Paiaman, A.M., Al-Askari, M.K.G., Salmani, B., Al-Anazi, B.D., Masihi, M., 2009. Effect Technical Conference on Drilling & Completion Fluids and Waste Management,
of drilling fluid properties on rate of penetration. NAFTA 60 (3), 129–134. Houston, 2–3 April.
Pitt, M.J., 2000. The Marsh funnel and drilling fluid viscosity: a new equation for Zhang, F., Miska, S., Yu, M., Ozbayoglu, E.M., Takach, N., 2015. Pressure profile in
field use. SPE Drill. Complet. 15 (1), 3–6. annulus: solids play a significant role. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 137 (6),
Power, D., Zamora, M., 2003. Drilling fluid yield stress: measurement techniques for 064502-1-9.

Please cite this article as: Elkatatny, S., et al., Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using Artificial Neural Networks
visible mathematical model (white box). J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.08.021i