Flow of Drilling Mud

By H. N. HERRICK, * SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

(New York Meeting, February, 1932)

THE flow characteristics of drilling muds, as described in this paper,

and the method given for solving problems relating to the flow of these
muds through pipe and accessory equipment, are based on a conception
that drilling muds are plastic solids like paints or greases; not liquids.
The data presented in this report have been obtained from studies of
California muds, chiefly those used in the Kettleman Hills field, by the
Producing Department of the Standard Oil Company of California.
Although' no claim of scientific exactness is made for the formulas and
diagrams, since the data upon which they are based are not complete
even for California muds, the method has proved to be a convenient
means for estimating, closely enough for practical purposes, the pressures
required to force muds at various rates through pipe systems in which
they are handled. Certain approximations have been made to simplify
the procedures so that they can be used easily in the field.

VISCOSITY AND SHEARING STRENGTH OF MUD

For the purpose of this discussion a plastic solid is defined as a material

in which no deformation or flow takes place when the material is subjected
to shearing forces, until the shearing force reaches a value called the
"yield point." 'With liquids, the smallest force will produce continuous
deformation; that is, the yield point of liquids is zero. The difference
between true liquids and muds is illustrated in Fig. I, which shows rates
of flow through a small tube under different pressures. The flow rate
of the liquids is directly proportional to the pressure and that of the muds
is not. The behavior of drilling mud does not conform in every detail
with the definition of a plastic solid as given, because mud actually flows
slightly at pressures below its yield point. However, for practical pur-
poses the definition describes the condition adequately and has the
advantage of simplicity.
In order to make mud-flow calculations based on the theory that mud
is a plastic solid, it is necessary to know the" yield point" of the mud,
which hereinafter is defined by equation 1 under the caption" Viscosity

* Engineer, Research and Development Department, Standard Oil Company

of California.
476
 H. N. HERRICK 477
Measurements," and its "viscosity" is defined by equation 2. The
terms" yield point" and" viscosity" used in this paper should be under-
stood to be the values so defined, without regard to the strict meaning of
these terms as used by physicists.
To apply these values to mud-flow problems, the pressure loss is
computed as a constant amount independent of the flow rate, required to
overcome the shearing strength of the mud, plus an amount depending
upon the flow rate and viscosity, as for true liquids. This is a purely
300
82.5_~ 92·~Z :V/
72.4~ MU)-
MUO- MUD- . ;s.~
II)
o 250
r7 V
!"'> '"
b~~
" ~V)

~
z
8
UJ
I
..... ~q: fI ¥4' ,~.
en
c.§ (3)j'' ~,<f/
~ 200

c::: ~ ..s;:- f'l <?"'r

Go' -Go

~j ~ ~., '-~~~~
UJ ~ /;;':.><..
C1. I

~ 150
I
oct ,rf-~~
'" ~ ~~
C>O
c:: L.k' tJ ~. J/-J! ~
~ t~ ~ 'I
<.D -

C)~~. 0' ~~~

c).
0
~ "0/. r Theli,,;d, ""'ot be d;",clly

0
Q;
-0; /
~v..1.....
tf
/c:fl f.---o-"'l.''''
k~i
~ IJ'
compared because of much
ima'ier Sp. GrjVit y.

/
// i
V Vo '
I J
\ (~.1i~i~\
0 ' ~--..,..-
I. _
0/ V -1./-~J-f--- --i : \-lea'll
--"irs-Sec. Saybol'j
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ZO 22 24 26
PRESSURE - INCHES OF WATER
Fro. I.-VISCOSITY OF KETTLEMAN DRILLING MUD AT 75° F.

empjrical assumption, suggested by the shape of the pressure-quantity

curves resulting from viscosity tests of mud.
Owing to the lack of proportionality between pressure and flow rate,
a single test in an ordinary viscosimeter will not give satisfactory results
for mud. As an illustration, the apparent viscosity of a sample of Kettle-
man Hills drilling mud weighing 75.6 lb. per cu. ft., determined on a
Stormer viscosimeter using different actuating weights was as follows:
ACTUATING "'''EIGHT, GRAMS ApPARENT VISCOSITY, CENTIPOISEB
139.96 53
89.96 103
The slllallpst wpight uspc! with the instrUlll('nt would not move it, which
makes the apparent viscosity of the mud infinite; in other words, the
shearing force supplied by the small weight was less than the yield value
478 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

of the mud. Actually, the viscosity of this mud was only 8 centipoises,
and its yield point was 0.2 lb. per sq. ft. The fact that special methods
are required to determine the viscosity of any suspension of a solid in a
liquid cannot be emphasized too strongly. This fact is well known to
paint and grease chemists, but often is overlooked in oil-field work.
VISCOSITY MEASUREMENT

Some type of viscosimeter must be used in which several determina-

tions can be made at different rates of flow. A simple apparatus adapted
for use with mud is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 2. This is a modified
.,.-._-_.--

'" '30#Water 1
U-Tube !
" 4 H Plug· '"
! 4"'Collar .
f k'\pubberTubing .
(
......-.:::=r--~

I
\ I
\. '-- . .,..,. /

FIG. 2.-PRESSURE VISCOSIMETER FOR TESTING DRILLING MUD.

"pressure viscosimeter" such as is used in testing greases, but any con-

venient arrangement whereby a series of determinations can be made of
the rate of efflux of the mud through a small tube of known dimensions
under different pressures between 2 and 20 in. of water may be used.
The equipment at the left of the figure is used to vary and measure the
air pressure above the mud in the viscosimeter, and would not be needed
in a laboratory where compressed air is available. It would be better
also to make the efflux tube longer than that shown in the figure. The
diameter of the efflux tube should not be over 0.05 in., and must be
measured accurately, since the fourth power of the diameter is used in
the formula for determining viscosity. The hole should be drilled smaller
than specified and reamed or lapped smooth to size.
To use this viscosimeter, a sample of mud is put through a 40-mesh
screen to remove grains that might plug the efHux tube, and a series of
determinations is made of the rate of discharge in grams per 100 sec.
 H. N. HERRICK 479
under different pressures. These results are plotted as shown in Fig. 1,
using flow in grams per lOO sec. as ordinates aIHl prCSHure in inches of
water as abscissas. A straight line is then drawn throu/!:h the plotted
points as nearly as possible. Constants of the instrument should be
checked with a liquid of known viscosity, such as 40 per cent sugar
solution, viscosity 6.5 centipoises at 65° F.
The intercept of this line on the pressure axis is the "yield point
pressure," h.
The yield point and" viscosity" of the mud are then computed by
means of the following formulas:
D
1. F = 1.3 y}

2. V = 1001~OD4 (H - h)
where for any point on the line:
Q = grams discharged per second,
D = diameter of efflux tube, inches (exact),
L = length of efflux tube, inches,
V = absolute viscosity, centipoises,
H = pressure, inches of water, corresponding to rate Q,
h = "yield point pressure," inches of water (at point where line cuts
pressure axis),
F = "yield point" (shearing strength of mud), pounds per square foot.
These formulas are an adaptation from the work of Hatschek 1
wherein the English and metric units have been used in the present work
as most convenient under the local conditions.
The diagram, Fig. 1, shows typical results on three samples of mud,
with two liquids similarly plotted to illustrate the difference in physical
properties between liquids and plastic solids. The viscosity is indicated
by the slope of the lines, and it is evident that the viscosity of muds
does not vary greatly, although there is wide variation in their shearing
strengths. The reason for the erratic results with different weights
on the Stormer viscosimeter will be clear when it is considered that
such determinations are equivalent to drawing lines from the origin to
different points on the line representing test results. The slopes (viscosi-
ties) of the two lines so drawn will have no physical meaning, and cannot
check each other.
For the muds tested in California, the" yield point" F in pounds per
square foot is approximately:
F = 0.02[(weight of mud, lb. per cu. ft.) - 65].
1 E. Hatschek: The Viscosity of Liquids, 18. D. Van Nostrand, New York
1928.
480 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

This r<'la t ion do('s not, apply to muds lighf,!'r than 67 lb. or hC'avier t.han
Ion lh. 1)('1' cu. fl., 01' 1.0 nlllds that have had special chemical treatment.
TplIIpemture variation within ordinary limits does not have much
effect on yield points.
The viscosity varies between 7 centipoises for mud weighing 70 lb.
per cu. ft. and 11 centipoises for 90-lb. mud. It decreases very rapidly
for material weighing less than 70 lb. per cu. ft., but such material
hardly would be considered drilling mud.
FLOW OF MUD IN PIPE

A full mathematical description of the flow of plastic solids is given

by Bingham. 2 For our purpose, it is sufficient to assume that the pres-
sure required to start and maintain shear in a pipe filled with a plastic
solid is:
L
"yield point pressure," in pounds per square inch = 0.333FD
in which
F = "yield point" of the plastic solid, lbs. per sq. ft., from viscosimeter
test curves,
L = length of line, feet
D = diameter of line, inches.
This pressure does not vary with the flow rate, but is simply the
pressure that is required to overcome the shearing strength of the mud.
To find the total pressure required to maintain any given rate of flow
the lost head due to friction, calculated from the viscosity and flow rate,
and the static pressure due to any difference of elevation between the
ends of the line must be added to the "yield point pressure."
The following empirical formulas describe the flow of California muds
of various densities through pipe lines. They will be recognized as
adaptations of Williams and Hazen's formula for the flow of water,
modified to take account of both viscosity and "yield-point pressure"
of the muds.
For 70-lb. mud, Q = 1.24D2.63(p _ 3~3)0.54

80-lb. mud, Q = 1.08D2.63 P - ( D100) 0.54

167)0.54
90-lb. mud, Q = 0.97 D2.63 ( P - D

where:
Q = quantity flowing in gallons per minute.
2 E. C. Bingham: Fluidity and Plasticity, 218 et seq. New York, 1922. McGraw-
Hill Book Co.
 H. N. HERRICK 481

P = pressure loss per 1000 feet, pounds lWJ' "C[. ill.

£)= inside dianwter of line inches.
These formulas are considerably more accurate than the diagram
actually used (Fig. 3) but they are not satisfactory for practical work

90POUNDMUD-u~~~~~~~Ww~~~~~~~~~~~~~

80POUNDMUIOW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J-~~~

70POUND~III_

en
Z
o...J
...J
<
<:>

INSIDE DIAMETER
DRILL PIPE
WEIGHT PER roOT
LINE PIPE
FIG. 3.-DATA FOR CALCULATING FLOW OF MUD.

in the field, because they can be used only by "trial and error" to deter-
mine the quantity of mud that can be pumped with a given pressure, or
the pressure necessary to circulate a given quantity of mud through a
given pipe line with various fittings, in series with an annular passage.
In order to simplify the calculation, shearing force and fluid friction
are figured separately, and the same viscosity is used for all weights of
482 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

mud. Since the actual viscosity range is only between 7 and 11 centi-
poises, this approximation is justifiable for practical work, as the shearing
strength of the mud is the property that is chiefly responsible for variation
in its behavior.

FLOW OF MUD IN WELLS

A series of equivalents has been computed, giving the lengths of

drill pipe that will cause the same loss in pressure as various equipment
such as tool joints, bits, driving stems, etc., so that the whole system
can be expressed as an "equivalent length" of drill pipe-that is, a
length of drill pipe that would give the same pressure drop as the actual
length plus other equipment. The equivalents that are used most
frequently are given in Table 1. Tool joints and driving stems are
believed to be present A.P.1. standard.

EQUIVALENTS, SHEAR

For calculations regarding circulation in wells, the shear in tool

joints, Kelleys, hose and bits is not large enough to be considered, and
it is on'y necessary to figure shearing pressure in the drill pipe and the
annular return space outside it, the latter being expressed as a length
of drill pipe of the same size as in the hole, by multiplying the length
of annular space by the factor in Table 1 (bold face figures). For sizes of
casing or hole not listed, the factor can be calculated as follows:
Let
D = outside diameter of annular space, inches,
d = inside diameter of annular space, = outside diameter of drill pipe,
inches,
d1 = inside diameter of drill pipe, inches,
F = "yield point" of mud, pounds per square foot,
P = pressure to cause shear, pounds per square inch.
The shearing resistance per foot length of annular space is
F (D + d)
11" 12

The force causing shear is 11": (D2 - d 2) (pressure X cross-sectional area)

These are equal at yield point

11": (D2 _ d2) = 1I"F(D 1; d)

whence
 TABLE I.-Equivalents
Feet of Drill Pipe Equal to Equipment below. Compute Fluid Friction Only No Shear
-
I FeetofofSizes
Drill Pipe Equal to Each Foot between Pipe and Casing
Indicated. Compute Fluid Friction and Shear

Kelly Stems
I
Size, In. Tool Bit I 2:HBitIn. 3-in.
Pipe ,5~4 In. 6% In. 7 In. 8% In. 9 In. 11%ln'113%
Joint 1 2:% In. I-hose 3).2 In. I6 In. I
6 In. 1672 In.
X 33 Ft. X 51 Ft. X 33 Ft. X 33 Ft' l I

2% 4.8
6.65
1 67
43
II 124
79
100
62
0.039 0.0132 0.0081 I \ Fluid
28
17
280
175
0.024 0.0078 0.005 J
55
35
45
29
19
12
I f~iction I
0.76 0.58 0.52 I Shear 1

2H 6.45 --SO---;w----ml--8-6----:no~~--5-4-
I 0.735 0.0.50 ~ 0.0008 -1---1--- 1- - -
8.35
10.4
60
39
260 I
168
210
134
.57 I
39 I
575
375
113 I
74
93
67
40
26
0.545 0.037
0.375 0.026
0.022
0.01;';
0.0006 ~ Fluid fr,. iction '
0.0004 J I 1
I
________ I_______________ i______ ~~~~1 Shear ,_ _ _ 1_ _
3H 8 ..5
11.2
12,; I'
9;;
545
410 I
324
244
217
166
1.640
1.220
338
205
1
I
254
189
125
9.5
0.29.5
0.227
0.149
0.114
0.029
1 0.022
1
I
0.0021
0.0016
I} I
Fluid friction
13.3 71, 310 183 130 970 192 I 142 71 0.179 0.090 0.0175 0.0012 I
1 ' 1.30 1.11 0.72 0.67 Shear
-4}~--- --;)51
13.75 I 93 1
2.0'30
2.000
'~-rn6I'---1.1301--s35
1.170 757 1.110 I 810
448
437 Fluid friction .. {
r 1.68
1.60
I 0.205
10.19.'3
Ii 0.137
0.130
-i(J.Q19'I---
10.018
____ 1~_6_~~~~, _ _ _ ~1~~ l U~ In~5-lUAO Ig:~P,Shear
5~6 22.2 I 100
82
15.720
4.700
3.3~0 2.0,00
I
2.7.00
I
2.3~0 I 2.080
3.!40 2.320
1.910
1.2.50
1.030 Fluid friction .......... {
r 11.!~
1.;'.0
! 1. 0;';
1 0 . 93
i 0.094\
10.083
25.25 78 i 4.400 2.600 1.805 2.440 1.810 975 l 1. 36 ! 0.87 '0.073
I Shear 2.24: 1.87 I 0.96 10.76
~---1-us114.500
25.2 107 13.100 I
8.5.')0
7.!20
'M2Q------S:0005:9001
~.5~0 7.230 5.~20·
3.180
2.870 Fluid friction..................
{ , 106
98
0.3~
0.3,)
i 0.085
0.078
31. 9 90 11.100 6.000 ".100 6.120 4.000 2.440 I Shear
I
83
4.03
0.30
1.47
I 0.067
11.03
484 }'LOW OF DRILLING MUD

which is the pressure drop in pounds per square inch per foot of length to
start and maintain shear in annular passages.
The ratio of this shear pressure drop to that inside the drill pipe is

O.333F:; ~ ~2 D+d
1 dty)2 - d2
O.333F d 1

which is the "factor" by which length of drill pipe having shear resistance
equal to 1 ft. length of annular space is calculated.

EQUIVALENTS, FLUID FRICTION

For fluid friction the equivalent length of drill pipe for manifold and
hose, driving stem, tool joints, bit, and return space outside the drill
pipe must be computed. Losses in tool joints, etc., are based on limited
test data, which can be improved upon as information accumulates, but
are good enough for ordinary oil-field estimating. An approximation is
necessary in converting orifices such as tool joints to equivalent lengths
of pipe, since the pressure loss in square-edged contractions of this type
varies about as the square of the quantity flowing, while the loss in a
pipe varies as the 1.85 power of the flow. Since it is necessary to convert
the whole system into an equivalent length of one-size pipe in order to
simplify the computations to the point of practical utility, the factors
in the table were calculated for average conditions, but may be in error
up to 10 per cent for very high or very low rates of flow.
The "equivalent factor" for annular passages is different for fluid
friction than for shear. It was calculated by first computing the diameter
of a circular pipe having the same resistance to flow as the annular space,
by the formula

where
d m = diameter of equivalent circular pipe, inches
d = outside diameter of drill pipe, inches
D = inside diameter of casing, inches

Having this equivalent diameter, the length of drill pipe corresponding

to 1 ft. of pipe of diameter dm was determined by dividing the 4.86 power
of the inside diameter of drill pipe by the 4.86 power of dm .
All the above constants are assembled in Table 1.
The diagram, Fig. 3, is used in figuring pressure drops in the final
equivalent pipe line, for three different weights of mud. The diagram
is a rough means of solving the equations of flow which have been stated
 H. N. HERRICK 485
previously. Values for muds of densities intermediate to those specified
are intcrpolatcd on the scales for shear by eye.
USE OF DATA

The method of using the data for solving mud-flow problems is much
simpler than suggested by the explanation of the reasoning upon which
the method is based. The procedure is as follows:
Given a length of drill pipe and specified fittings, working in a hole of
known diameter, and a known pump pressure and weight of mud, to find
the rate of circulation of mud, the steps are as follows:
1. Figure the equivalent length of drill pipe for shear. This is the
sum of the actual length of drill pipe, plus this length multiplied by
the shear equivalent factor found in Table 1, for the annular space
between the sizes of pipe and casing specified. (Shown by bold face
figures to distinguish from fluid friction factors.)
2. From the diagram, Fig. 3, for the weight of mud used, find the
shear per 1000 ft. of the drill pipe, multiply it by the number of thousands
of feet equivalent length in step 1, to get shear pressure loss. (This does
not vary with rate of flow.)
3. Subtract the shear pressure loss from the actual pump pressure to
get the net pressure available for fluid friction.
4. Compute the equivalent length of (a) manifold and hose, (b) Kelly
stem, (c) drill pipe, (d) tool joints, (e) bit, (f) annular return space, in
terms of length of drill pipe, for fluid friction, and add aU these equivalent
lengths to the drill pipe length.
Divide the net pressure found in operation 3 by the number of thou-
sands of feet of determined equivalent length of drill pipe to get the pres-
sure drop per thousand feet for fluid friction.
5. Enter the diagram (Fig. 3) with size of drill pipe and pressure drop
per thousand feet and read flow in gallons per minute.
Flow of mud in line pipe can be figured with the same diagram,
always remembering to allow for any difference of elevation between the
ends of the line.
Example.-Given: 5200 ft. of 4~~-in., 16.6-lb. drill pipe, 170 tool
joints, working through 8%-in. casing. On 6-in. by 51-ft. Kelly, bit has
2%-in. holes. Pump pressure 850 lb. per sq. inch. How much 80-1b.
mud will circulate?

Solution:
Feet
Equivalent length for shear:
Drill pipe length.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 5,200
Equivalent length outside drill pipe 5,200 X 1.31 ................. , . . 6,812

Total equivalent length 4~f-in. shear ............................. 12,012

486 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

Feet
Equivalent length, fluid friction:
Drill pipe ...................................................... . 5,200
Tool joints, 170 X 76 ............................................ . 12,920
3-in. pipe and hose, surface ....................................... . 640
6-in. X 51-ft. Kelly .............................................. . 900
Bit, 2%-in. holes ................................................ . 1,630
Space outside drill pipe 5,200 X 0.165 ............................. . 860

Total equivalent 4~-in. fluid friction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22,150

Pounds
Pressure:
Available pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Shear (Fig. 3) 26.2 X 1;~~~.......
, ................................ 315

Net pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535

Pressure drop per 1,000 ft. equivalent 4~-in. (fluid friction) =
535
- = 24 lb. per 1,000 ft.
22.2
From Fig. 3: Flow = 200 gal. per minute.
A liberal factor of safety should be used in selecting pump liners
on the basis of such figuring, since the steam pressure at the pump is likely
to be considerably less than that at the boilers, and there is likely to be
20 lb. or so more back-pressure on the pump exhaust than could reason-
ably be expected.
SETTLING OF SAND GRAINS IN MUD
When mud is regarded as a solid, instead of a liquid, many of its
properties are easily understood. For example, there is for each mud a
minimum size of sand grain that can settle out. Any grain smaller than
this minimum size does not have sufficient force per unit area due to its
weight to shear the mud, and so cannot settle any faster than the clay
particles. Dilution of the mud allows such grains to settle by reducing
the" yield point." This has nothing to do with flow, but is mentioned as a
matter of interest and to bring out the nature of the physical properties
assigned to mud in the foregoing discussion.
The data given herein have been taken on California muds, chiefly
those used in the Kettleman Hills field. Muds used in other districts
may have different properties which should be determined before attempt-
ing to apply the method to them. The material is offered rather as
illustrative of a useful line of thought than as a finished piece of work,
with the hope that it may be developed by wider application.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Acknowledgment. is made to the personnel of the Research and
Development Department of the Standard Oil Company of California,
and to C. C. Scharpenberg and R. B. Rule of the Producing Department,
who have cooperated in development of the method.
 DISCUSSION 487

DISCUSSION
(H. C. Fowler presiding)
H. C. FOWLER, * Washington, D. C.-In Fig. 3, there are two horizontal dotted
lines, one for 200 gal. per minute and one for 260 gal. per minute. The example cited
in this paper pertains to 200 gal. per minute. A 70-lb. mud was under consideration
in some other work of Mr. Herrick's, but only the 80-lb. mud is discussed in this paper.
By C. P. PARSONs,t Duncan, Okla. (written discussion).-Mr. Herrick makes an
important contribution to a very difficult subject in which the available precedents
are not only few, but some of them are vague and inconsistent. He shows courage
in the manner in which he simplifies reasoning with previous interpretations of pure
physics applied to flow of drilling fluids; and shows resourcefulness in presenting a line
of constructive reasoning, which should be useful in practical problems connected
with the circulating system of rotary drilling.
The paper classifies drilling fluids as "plastic solids," which is reasonable, though
somewhat at variance with previous conceptions. It is a classification that auto-
matically emphasizes the effect of the solids on the flowing nature of a drilling fluid.
After all, a drilling well is usually started with water as the drilling fluid, the flowing
nature of which is practically constant, and after solid matter is picked up or added
to the water the fluid becomes heterogeneous and the flowing nature varies with
the nature and concentration of solid matter.
When the paper mentions measurement of viscosity in "centipoises," it brings
forth a subject that has been bothering many of us who have been studying drilling
fluids for the past few years. Personally, I have reached several stages of satisfaction
with results, only to find later that considerable development was still lacking. As
a result I have been sidetracking absolute viscosity determinations in our records
until we become thoroughly familiar with the vagaries of the subject and feel more
confident of its application to drilling fluids. In the meantime, we have been making
our viscosity determinations on a Stormer viscosimeter and recording these measure-
ments in terms of specific viscosity, rather than in terms of absolute viscosity based
on calibrations with so-called absolute viscosities of standard solutions. Several of
us have tried to make expressions in terms of absolute viscosity but have found wide
variations, although we have been close in our observed measurements. Therefore,
the discrepancies are in the calibrations.
The paper dismisses the Stormer viscosimeter, because in using the instrument
with variable weights proportion is lacking between pressure and flow rate. Our
results also show this to be true, but I still feel that possibly it is due to our lack of
thorough understanding of the instrument.
The theory of fluid friction equivalents set forth in the paper in which the varying
fluid friction in the different parts of a rotary circulating system, exclusive of the
pumps, is brought to a common basis by means of a table of equivalents, is a very
good one and a material contribution to the study of drilling fluids.
As I see it, a practical use of these equivalents will be in calculating expected pump
pressures to meet the resistance of a mud fluid in a circulating system while drilling.
Such calculations will have practical significance in selection or design of pumping
equipment in areas where high circulating pressures are a problem, and in deep-well
drilling in general. We must remember that 1931 went down in drilling history as
the" 1O,000-ft. year"; and when drilling at such depths the flow of drilling fluid is
vitally important from many angles, especially in cementing.
* U. S. Bureau of Mines.
t Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
 DISCUSSION 489
I<ufficiently fluid to be rcadily handled by thc pumps. The low viscosity permits
I>eparation of sand and cutt.ings at the surface.
If the sodium silicate treatment is overdone, the cuttings tend to settle through
the mud in the hole. If the mud is too fluid, the velocity of the mud wiII have to be
increased greatly in order to bring the cuttings and sand to the surface. Sodium
silicate must be used with caution; try it in the laboratory before trying it in the well.
B. O. ORAFT, * Baton Rouge, La.-It has been shown, in U. S. Bureau of Standards
Technologic Paper 234, that in working with clays the results obtained with the Bing-
ham plastometer are dependent upon capillary dimensions. If this method of measur-
ing plasticity is to be used, a standard orifice should be adopted and employed in all
tests, in order that the results may be comparable. It is suggested that the orifice
dimensions be the same as those used by Mr. Herrick.
H. N. MARSHt AND M. E. DrcE,t Los Angeles, Oalif. (written discussion).-The
title and introduction of Mr. Herrick's paper indicate that it concerns only the relation
between pressure and rate of flow, which may not be of general interest. As a matter
of fact, it emphasizes and illustrates the importance of considering rotary mud as a
plastic. This should make it of interest and value to everyone concerned with rotary
drilling. While the shearing strength of mud is probably more important than its
viscosity, this property has not been commonly reported and considered in the past.
The adaption of the Bingham plastometer should probably be followed by other
investigators, although it is possible that the same information could be secured
with the Stormer viscosimeter by those who are familiar with this instrument or
otherwise prefer it, provided it were properly calibrated. The statement that tem-
perature does not have much effect on shearing strength or viscosity is important. It
would be interesting to have the data upon which this statement is based in order that
it might be more definitely evaluated. It has been said that pressure has an enormous
effect upon viscosity, and perhaps Mr. Herrick can add some information on this point.
The formulas and charts developed by Mr. Herrick are based on streamline
(viscous) flow. In common practice, is not the flow of mud frequently turbulent, con-
sequently changing the pressure-quantity relations? It is hoped that Prof. W. B.
Gregory, of Tulane University, as well as the author will have comments on this point.
The effect of shearing strength upon settling of sand grains, as explained in the
final section, should be obvious, but is not commonly understood. It explains why
ditches and settling pits are so ineffective wherE'! mud of any appreciable shearing
strength is used.
W. B. GREGORY,§ New Orleans, La.-The writer's experience in pumping mud is
confined to a piece of research work done in the city of New Orleans to determine the
practicability of pumping the material from the settling basins of the city waterworks
plant to the cement plant several miles away. The material pumped contained about
15 per cent solids by weight as it came from the settling basins of the filtration plant.
By allowing it to settle for several days and drawing off the top of the mixture, it
may be concentrated to about 25 per cent solids. To further remove the water by
settling requires considerable time.
The material was actually pumped through a 4-in. cast-iron pipe. Velocity was
obtained from volumetric measurements and the loss in pressure determined in a
length of 200 ft. of pipe. The details of the work are given in Mechanical Engineering
(June, 1927) 609.
* Assistant Pro{essor, Petroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University.
t Production Engineer, General Petroleum Oorporation of Oalifornia.
t Research Engineer, General Petroleum Oorporation of Oalifornia.
§ Professor of Hydraulics, Tulane University.
 FLOW OF ORILLING MUD

The experimenl.3 8ho,,,ed th~t for A given ooncentrfLtion the loss of heAd Wi'll!
independent of the velocity up to the eri tiefLl velocity fLnd th:'l.t the losses varied by
little from those found in pumping Imter, beyond the cri ticul I·elothy. Of cOllrse,
there WfLS found the usual zone of uncertainty neA.r the critical velocity, in which the
experimental pressures VAried 8Omewhat, as they do in pumping a ll liquids.
An attempt. was made to mCA8ure the visco8ity of the mntcrial with a Sarbolt
vi!ICosimcte r but th e results were fa r from BatisfA.clory.

" A .r,):;'· '

" "g
i
, I "'.

"
R. "

••h---1-,.~--~.c-~~".~.~.,".k.!+,--~--~,~--,t--+,-!,-!,-,~,~,~,
Ve loc:ity . feet perS.<;o~d

FIG, 4 . -RESU LTS or l\IAY ASO JVSE EXPERIMEST$. ( R~ 'ProductdJrom tIlech. Eng.,
June, 1927.)

Table 2 gives the physical properties of the material pumped. A chemical analysis
of the material is given in Tahle 3.
Thls lDateria l contained a small amount of Band, whic h was not determined, but
is included in tbe silica residue and classed with the clay.
The obviou8 conclusion from the charts showing losses in pipc ILt different velocities
for these testa (Figs. 4 and 5) is that, for minimum power requirement!l, the slurry o r
mud should be pumped at t he veloci ty that ILpproximates the critical velodty of the
mixture und~r couidemtion. Thill varied from about 1.5 ft. per second for 23.5 per
cent 80lida by weight to 8.5 ft. per second fo r 35.3 per cent solids by weight. It is also
clearly I hown that the two samples used varied somewhat in physical properties.
 DISCUSSION 491
The writer has sought in vain for a way to coordinate these results with those given
in the paper by Mr. Herrick. The writer's results are given here in the hope that some
one will be more fortunate in pointing out similarity and difference. An accumulation
of data on the important subject of the flow of mud will contribute to the eventual
solving of the problems.
I
10
~
6
7
Iltl I
6
5 .~
\\05 r
'- 4 ~"'J
~ 'IJ'Ii'/

...~
I
~
3 )f
0 ~tt
....
..."" ~I
'1
'"
0..
~
'Z
/1 /.
...u ~. l
i:i:
.$ •
c 1.0
',0.9
'<t
,,'t:. 0.7
0.8 . . .~ 'tt'
...
.f05
-G'
.Avq. Temp. 65"/: •
+ . /
I II
f
f
~ 04 • Clo.s/~ YO/V8 - f -
e:
II I
/ • oc.J!fs.Yo~e -f0-
.- 0,3 + tWo , 'lG • ~~
1/ x lJec. 2, /926, H'9"
'"'"
0
..J
6 Dec.2,l '26.lorrPressure
0.7

0.1
0.1 o.Z 0,3 0.4 0.5 0.& O.l~ 1.0 'l 3 4 5 6 7 &
Veloc.ity. Feet per Sec.ond
FIG. 5.-RESULTS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER EXPERIMENTS. (Reproduced from
Meeh. Eng., June, 1927.)

TABLE 2.-Data on Slurries Pumped

I Water I Solid. \ Weight of
No. I Mixture, Specific Gravity of Mixture
I by
Per Cent I Per Cent I Per Cent I Per Cent
Weight, by Volume by Weight by Volume
h~'.*~r.
.
I ,

I I
L~l
1 48.0 71.0 52.0 29.0 92.0
2 61.2 80.7 38.8 19.3 82.2 1 .32 Slurry pumped in
3 69.0 85.5 31.0 14.5 77.1 1.24 May, June and
4 82.8 92.7 17.2 7.3 .69.6 .1.12 J July
5 88.2 95.2 11.8 4.8 67.2 1.08
6 76.4 88.1 23.6 11.7 73.2 1.17 Slurry pumped in
November and
I December
I I
a Weight of 1 cu. ft. of water at 85° F. = 62.2 lb.
492 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

TABLE 3.-Results of Analysis of Sludge from Coagulating Reservoir No.1,

Carrollton Water Purification Plant, as Used in Investigation of
Pipe-line Flow and Pumping Conditions
The sample taken was from the large tank at a time when the total solids
had reached approximately 38 per cent by weight.
PER CENT

Loss at 106° C. (water) .... : ............................. . 61.97

Loss on ignition ......................................... . 4.25
Silica and insoluble silicates (clay and sand) ................ . 23.40
Iron oxide and alumina .................................. . 4.21
Calcium oxide .......................................... . 5.21
Magnesium oxide ....................................... . 0.76
Undetermined .......................................... . 0.20

100.00
Carbonic acid (C0 2) • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • . . • . • . . • 4.01
Calculated to the dry basis, the approximate analysis would be as follows:
PER CENT

Clay and sand.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.29

Carbonate of lime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 . 96
Hydrate of magnesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.90
Hydrated oxide of iron....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32
Undetermined.... .......... ............ ................. 0.53

100.00
H. C. MILLER, * San Francisco, Calif. (written discussion).-Mr. Herrick's paper
clears up one of the most troublesome and perhaps least understood points encountered
in problems relating to the flow of mud fluids through pipe lines and the circulation
of mud fluid in wells drilled by the rotary method. I am of the opinion that progress
in mud-fluid research has been slow mainly because engineers (the writer included)
have heretofore considered mud fluid to be a liquid, and consequently attempted to
make the laws of flow of liquids through pipes apply to the flow of mud fluid through
similar media. Mr. Herrick has opened the door to a new thought by pointing out
that mud fluids are not liquids but plastic solids, like paints and greases. This new
conception of the physical characteristic of drilling muds immediately suggests why
we failed in the attempts to solve our problems of flow of mud fluids through pipe
lines by using formulas which are applicable only to calculations of flow of liquids.
Many have wondered why a considerable pressure was required to start the flow of
mud fluid in a pipe line, when a very much smaller pressure caused continuous flow of
water through the same or a similar line. No one seemed to be able to give a satis-
factory reason for this difference in pump pressures required to start the flow. Mr.
Herrick shows that the difference in pressures depends almost entirely upon the differ-
ence in yield points of water and mud fluid. The yield point of water is zero,
consequently a very small force applied at one end of the pipe line will produce con-
tinuous deformation or flow of water from the outlet end. However, because mud
fluid is a plastic solid, its yield point is greater than zero and there can be no flow of
mud fluid through the pipe line until the pump pressure exceeds the pressure necessary
to overcome the shearing strength of the mud fluid. The data show, for example,
that a pressure of approximately 140 lb. per sq. in. is required to overcome the shearing

• Senior Petroleum Engineer, U. S. Bureau of Mines.

 DISCUSSION 493
strength of mud fluid in a level 6-in. pipe line 5000 ft.. long when filled with mud fluid
weighing 90 lb. per cu. ft. No appreciable amount of mud fluid will flow from the out-
let end of the line until the pressnre is greater than 140 lb. per Rq. in.; if the pump pres-
sure is increased only 25 lb. per sq. in., 280 gal. of fluid per minnte will flow, and if it
is increased another 25 lb. per sq. in., 400 gal. of fluid per minute will flow from the
outlet end of the line.
The trend of methods of developing oil fields is toward unit operation of entire
fields or structures, and such operations, to be efficient, will require central mud-
mixing and reclaiming plants and elaborate pipe line systems to convey mud fluid to
and from the wells that are being drilled. It is reasonable to suppose that the mud
lines on many properties will be a mile or more long. Unless engineers are equipped
with data such as are set forth in Mr. Herrick's paper, they will not be able to design
efficient mud-fluid pipe line systems.
The data presented by Mr. Herrick show also that one cannot force enough mud
fluid through small drill pipe in deep holes to maintain the required rate of circulation
necessary to carry sand and cuttings out of the drill holes. There is a certain depth
below which 2%-in. drill pipe, for example, cannot be used in drilling a well because
the pump pressure required to circulate even a small amount of heavy mud fluid would
be greater than that capable of being set up by the mud-fluid circulating pumps on
the derrick floor.
Although Mr. Herrick's experiments were made only on mud fluids originating in
California and his conclusions are based mainly on mud fluids from the Kettleman
Hills field, he has pointed the way to a new line of reasoning which engineers in other
fields will do well to follow. The charts in this paper may not be applicable for use
in other fields and with other mud fluids, but if engineers elsewhere will do work similar
to that outlined by Mr. Herrick and will make the data available, we may possibly be
able to make a set of graphs that will be applicable for use in all fields.
F. W. HERTEL, * Ventura, Calif. (written discussion).-Either Mr. Herrick has
not carried his experiments with a Stormer viscosimeter far enough or Kettleman Hills
mud acts very differently from Ventura mud as tested by the Associated Oil Company.
The method that is used was first advocated by V. B. Zacker of the testing depart-
ment of the Associated Oil Co., and consists in determining viscosity of mud by vary-
ing the driving weight so that the speed of the cup is constant. This mcthod is fully
explained in the September-October, 1931, issue of Drilling Mud, the house organ of
the Baroid Sales Co.
It is readily recognized that very slow or very fast speeds of the Stormer cup will
not give accurate viscosity readings, but with average speed the error is slight and just
as accurate as the efflux viscosimeter. The Stormer viscosimeter is more easily
transported for field use than the pressure efflux viscosimeter described by Mr. Herrick.
It may be stated here, however, that it is hoped that some standard type of viscosim-
eter for measurement of viscosities of drilling mud fluid may be decided upon so that
the work of different research men may be correlated.
It may be true that viscosities of Kettleman Hills mud vary little, but it is not
true of Ventura mud or some of the muds used in the Los Angeles Basin. New mud in
the Ventura. field and reclaimed mud from the Dorr reclamation plant, vary consider-
ably in viscosity, and an 80-lb. mix of new mud is a much more pump able mixture than
reclaimed mud of the same weight. This is also true of new mud from Ventura in
comparison with Willmington Slough mud. Willmington Slough mud is often used as
a drilling fluid weighing 68 lb. or less, and when it is made as heavy as 80 lb. is very
viscous. It is therefore not believed to be practical to use the same viscosity for all
muds in calculations.

* Petroleum Engineer, Associated Oil Co.

494 FLOW OF DRILLING MUD

I sec little pmcticaluse for the formula to derive the mte of circulation of mud when
it is necrssary to assemble a considerable amount of data and go through computations
and then only. arrive at an approximat,e figure, when it could be measured in the mud
pit at the well in a simple manner.
H. N. HEHHICK, San Francisco, Calif. (written discussion).--The variation of
yield point and viscosit~· of mud with temperature, mentioned by Mr. Dice, is not
very clcarly brought out by the data available. Both appear to decrease slightly with
increasing tcmperature up to 200 0 F., which is the highest temperature we have used,
but the variation is of so nearly the same order of magnitude as experimental errors
that a great amount of work would be required to determine it exactly. We have
no data on the effect of pressure on yield point and viscosity of mud, except that the
flow formulas based on low-pressure tests appear to give fairly good results on high-
pressure problems.
Mr. Dice says that the formulas given in the paper apply only to streamline flow.
This is the case only for the formulas relating to the viscosimeter efflux tube, which is
designed to give streamline flow. The diagram and formulas for flow in pipe are
based on Williams and Hazen's formula, which applies to turbulent flow only.
The experimental data given by Prof. W. B. Gregory are difficult to correlate with
the drilling mud data because the yield point of the material used in his tests appears
to be much smaller than that of the drilling mud we have tested. The yield points
of the New Orleans mud, computed from Professor Gregory's Fig. 4, compare with
those of Kcttleman, Calif., muds of corresponding density, as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4.-Yield Points-:oj Muds
Yield Point, Lb. per Sq. Ft.
Solids, Per Cent
by Weight
I Approximate Weight \
per Cu. Ft.
I I
New Orleans Mud Kettleman Mud

18.6 71 0.028 0.120

23.4
29.05 I 73.5
76.8 I 0.076
0.142
0.170
0.238
32.5 78.5 0.218 0.270
35.3 80 0.300 0.300
I
The yield points of the lighter New Orleans muds are very much lower than that
of the California muds, although there is fair agreement above 78.5 lb. per cu. ft.
Apparently the New Orleans mud contained more fine sand and less clay than the
drilling muds. The data on the heavier New Orleans muds do not extend to high
enough flow rates to get a good comparison of pressure losses.
Mr. Hertel finds wide variation in the viscosities of muds, as determined with the
Stormer viscosimeter at 600 r.p.m. This is confirmed by the writer's experience,
but the viscosity so determined has no definite relation to the property specified by
equation 2 in the paper, defining the term" viscosity" as used therein, which has been
found to vary between 7 and 11 centipoises, as stated.
The practical applications of formulas for flow of mud are admittedly rather
limited. They are illustrated by the following: A well has been drilled at 4200 ft.,
using 6%-in. drill pipe. It is to be continued with 472-in. drill pipe to 7500 ft. While
the well is standing cemented, the superintendent asks what rate of circulation he will
get with the pumps already in use, or what pressure he will have to provide to get a
specified rate of circulation. Measurements of flow in the mud pit would be much
more accurate and convenient than calculation, as Mr. Hertel states, but they can
be made only after operation has started, and are not much help in providing for
anticipated changes in conditions.