5 views

Uploaded by tsheikh6361

Journal Paper

Journal Paper

© All Rights Reserved

- 01 Viscosity
- Solution Manual - Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (4th Edition)
- 3091r_93
- dial m85-150-p700
- Rheological properties of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) solutions
- Solutions Manual of Erosion Aand Sedimentation
- Fathom 7.0 Quick Start
- Pseudo Pressure
- A4
- Viscosity Measurement for Squalane at High Pressures
- Flow on Non-newtonian Fluids in the Open Channels
- TA Balancing Valve-STAF
- 3ERA PETROBASICA
- Cementing Additives Final Presentation
- Discussions On
- Automatic Testing System of Part Mud Properties
- Staf Staf-sg en Main
- notes GD
- Elongational+Behavior+of+Gelled+Propellant+Simulants.unlocked
- HORIZONTAL_WELL_DRILL_IN_FLUIDS.pdf

You are on page 1of 9

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

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.

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

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.

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)

⎛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

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

3.15179 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.

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

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

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.

(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).

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 ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

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

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

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

- 01 ViscosityUploaded byaishsimiley
- Solution Manual - Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (4th Edition)Uploaded byMaría José Miranda Medina
- 3091r_93Uploaded byDamaries Velázquez Galarza
- dial m85-150-p700Uploaded byEdinson Vallejo
- Rheological properties of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) solutionsUploaded byGeetanjali Chauhan
- Solutions Manual of Erosion Aand SedimentationUploaded bySK Yadav
- Fathom 7.0 Quick StartUploaded bybetojulio
- Pseudo PressureUploaded bythe_soldier_15_1
- A4Uploaded byjameswhite4321
- Viscosity Measurement for Squalane at High PressuresUploaded byEfrain Ramirez Chavez
- Flow on Non-newtonian Fluids in the Open ChannelsUploaded bymib_ajay
- TA Balancing Valve-STAFUploaded byAnonymous FZs3yBHh7
- 3ERA PETROBASICAUploaded byMarco A. Castillo Ludeña
- Cementing Additives Final PresentationUploaded bySheng Sygil
- Discussions OnUploaded byDeniz ışık
- Automatic Testing System of Part Mud PropertiesUploaded bysaa6383
- Staf Staf-sg en MainUploaded byXavierSoler
- notes GDUploaded byms280674
- Elongational+Behavior+of+Gelled+Propellant+Simulants.unlockedUploaded byColanRobinson
- HORIZONTAL_WELL_DRILL_IN_FLUIDS.pdfUploaded byYasmin Pires Rocha
- 1086Uploaded byВладимир Кондратенко
- Reichenbach Klinke2018Uploaded byVeronica
- hw2Uploaded byKareem Saleh
- 03_new_fibers (1).docxUploaded bySerafin Hernandez Torres
- Paratherm MR BulletinUploaded bykman548
- Computer Simulation RisksUploaded bybjsatola
- A First Course in HydraulicsUploaded byshivnair
- a10vo-18.pdfUploaded byEdison Yesid
- BST005-RUploaded byAssure Turbines
- Viscous 11 (1)Uploaded bynaigar

- Use of Spent Foundry Sand and Fly Ash for the Development ConcreteUploaded byquark_kuark
- Reologia TomateUploaded bydanyheel
- Fluid Lab Services Heavy Oil Testing Studies Ps (1)Uploaded bywsanchez_sotelo
- Haake MixerUploaded byMarziana Mat Din
- Short Answer QuestionsUploaded byAJAY
- Carbonation monitoring of beverage.pdfUploaded byCarLita Castro
- Technical White Paper FP 23--Rheological InterconversionsUploaded byFranklin Barrera
- Studies on the Effect of Surfactants on Rheology of Synthetic CrudeUploaded byCsr Ipn
- ChocolateUploaded byLê Minh Toàn Svd
- Guide to Set Up RheometerUploaded byherrtang
- 105-m63Uploaded byangthiankong
- Malaysia ReportUploaded byAgim Derguti
- Extrusion Die Swell Simulation of Tire Tread compound using viscoelastic equation of Phan Thien & Tanner (PTT Model)Uploaded byAshutosh Kudale
- OTC-25927-MSUploaded byGilberto Garcia de la Paz
- Ozarmut_2018_Rheological investigation of particle-foam mixtures.pdfUploaded byrbabhi
- MaterialsUploaded byRaghav
- Prickly Pear StudyUploaded bywetroof
- Evaluation AASHTO 2002Uploaded byLuis Fuentes Pumarejo
- Polymer ProccessingUploaded byThai Khang
- Rheological studies of fracturing fluids and optimization of HB yield stress using GA and PSO algorithmsUploaded bygeetanjali chauhan
- EPL 0000835 ArticleUploaded byAndika Pratama
- PVC Technology: Chapter 11Uploaded byAndri
- Elastomeric Impression MaterialsUploaded byMereesha K Noushad
- The effect of particle sizes and solids concentration on the rheology of silica sand based suspensionsUploaded bySarahMakumbe
- Crumb Rubber Modification of Binders-IE and PEUploaded byPerkresht Pawar
- Materials ManualUploaded byMalik
- Polymer Gel Rheology and AdhesionUploaded byFelipe Grillo
- ShreeNanguneriUploaded byvarungoenka
- Asphalt Design Using Recycled Plastic and Crumb-rubber Waste for Sustainable Pavement ConstructionUploaded byJayson Mark Catacutan
- Asphalt Paper DSRUploaded byyazqa