Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203 – 224

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Optimal determination of rheological parameters for

Herschel–Bulkley drilling fluids and impact on pressure drop,
velocity profiles and penetration rates during drilling
V.C. Kelessidis a,⁎, R. Maglione b , C. Tsamantaki a , Y. Aspirtakis a
a
Mineral Resources Engineering Department, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece
b
Vercelli, Italy
Received 1 June 2005; accepted 16 June 2006

Abstract

Drilling fluids containing bentonite and bentonite–lignite as additives exhibit non-Newtonian rheological behavior which can
be described well by the three parameter Herschel–Bulkley rheological model. It is shown that determination of these parameters
using standard techniques can sometimes provide non-optimal and even unrealistic solutions which could be detrimental to the
estimation of hydraulic parameters during drilling. An optimal procedure is proposed whereby the best value of the yield stress is
estimated using the Golden Section search methodology while the fluid consistency and fluid behavior indices are determined with
linear regression on the transformed rheometric data. The technique yields in many cases results which are as accurate as these
obtained by non-linear regression but also gives positive yield stress in cases where numerical schemes give negative yield stress
values. It is shown that the impact of the values of the model parameters can be significant for pressure drop estimation but less
significant for velocity profile estimation for flow of these fluids in drill pipes and concentric annuli. It is demonstrated that very
small differences among the values of the model parameters determined by different techniques can lead to substantial differences
in most operational hydraulic parameters in oil-well drilling, particularly pressure drop and apparent viscosity of the fluid at the
drilling bit affecting penetration rates, signifying thus the importance of making the best simulation of the rheological behavior of
drilling fluids.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drilling fluids; Rheology; Herschel–Bulkley; Pressure drop; Velocity profile; Penetration rates

1. Introduction that above around 120 °C and in conditions of high

In oil-well drilling, bentonite is added in drilling
fluids for viscosity control, to aid the transfer of cuttings
from the bottom of the well to the surface, and for
filtration control to prevent filtration of drilling fluids
into the pores of productive formations. It is long known
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kelesidi@mred.tuc.gr (V.C. Kelessidis).
0920-4105/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.06.004
salinity, bentonite slurries begin to thicken catastrophi-
cally (Gray and Darley, 1980; Bleler, 1990; Elward-
Berry and Darby, 1992). Attempts to describe and to
predict the gelling tendencies of bentonite suspensions
have not yet resulted in a concise method which could
predict rheological and filtration properties, given the
amount of added bentonite and its physical character-
istics. The flocculation of bentonite suspensions at high
temperatures could be resolved with the addition of
204 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
thinners to reduce the rheology of the mixture but many
thinners degrade over the same temperature range. A
thinner with high thermal stability is lignite (Clark,
1994; Briscoe et al., 1994; Miano and Rabaioli, 1994)
and recent evidence (Mihalakis et al., 2004; Kelessidis
et al., 2005) demonstrated the stabilizing effect of Greek
lignite in terms of rheological and filtration control of
bentonite slurries. Their measurements also showed that
the three parameter Herschel–Bulkley model describes
well the rheology of these bentonite–lignite water
suspensions.
Various rheological models have been proposed to
describe the rheological behavior of bentonite mixtures,
particularly for drilling applications. The two parameter
Bingham plastic model (Bingham, 1922) or the power
law model (Govier and Aziz, 1972; Bourgoyne et al.,
1991) are used most often because of their simplicity
and the fair agreement of predictions with the
rheograms. The power law model, although useful as a
first correction to Newtonian behavior, it may lead to
substantial errors if the fluid exhibits yield stress. Other
two parameter models like the Casson model (Casson,
1959; Hanks, 1989) or the Prandl–Eyring model
(Govier and Aziz, 1972) have not found wide
acceptance. Three constant parameter models have
been proposed by Herschel and Bulkley (1926), by
Graves and Collins (1978), by Gucuyener (1983) and by
Robertson and Stiff (1976). More complex four
parameters models (Shulman, 1968; Mnatsakanov et
al., 1991) or even five parameter models (Maglione et
al., 1996) have also been proposed. Detailed description
of the various rheological models proposed and
derivation of the appropriate flow equations have been
given by Bird et al. (1982) and by Maglione and
Romagnoli (1999).
The more complex rheological models are deemed
more accurate in predicting the behavior of drilling fluids
than the two parameter models that are widely accepted
at present. However, there is not wide acceptance and
wide application of the more complex models because of
the difficulty in finding analytical solutions for the
differential equations of motion and because of the
complexity of the calculations for the derivation of the
appropriate hydraulic parameters such as Reynolds
number, flow velocity profiles, circular and annular
pressure drops and criteria for transition from laminar to
turbulent flow. Simulation of rotational viscometer data
of non-Newtonian fluids appears to be better when a
larger number of rheological parameters is used but in
this case, the hydraulic parameters can be obtained only
by numerical methods for most of the more complex
rheological models. As of today, a compromise between
the accuracy in the calculations and the simplicity of the
use is required and the best way to achieve this is with the
use of the Herschel–Bulkley rheological model. The
three parameter Herschel–Bulkley model has not been
used widely until very recently, although it was not only
proposed almost at the same time as the Bingham plastic
model but it also describes most drilling fluid rheological
data much better (Fordham et al., 1991; Hemphil et al.,
1993; Maglione and Ferrario, 1996; Kelessidis et al.,
2005). The reason for the nonfrequent use is that
derivation of the model's three parameters is complex
(Nguyen and Boger, 1987; Hemphil et al., 1993).
Furthermore, analytical solutions for laminar flow in
pipe and annuli are not possible, requiring either
graphical or trial-and-error solutions (Hanks, 1979;
Govier and Aziz, 1972; Fordham et al., 1991). The
advent of personal computers and their online use in the
field, however, made trial-and-error solutions trivial
tasks, hence, more and more investigators opt to use
Herschel–Bulkley rheological models in fluid me-
chanics computations of drilling fluids (Maglione et
al., 1999a; Maglione et al., 2000; Becker et al., 2003). A
search in the Society of Petroleum Engineers electronic
library of scientific articles, covering the period of 1975–
2003, resulted in 319 articles having as keywords ‘power
law’, 131 articles with keywords ‘Bingham’, 51 articles
with keywords ‘Herschel–Bulkley’, and 16 articles with
keywords ‘Casson’.
Viscometric data reduction procedures applicable to
various rheological models have been proposed by
many investigators, addressing also some of the inherent
problems associated with data reduction (Krieger, 1968;
Darby, 1985; Borgia and Spera, 1990; Yeow et al.,
2000). The standard procedure for the estimation of the
three rheological parameters for Herschel–Bulkley
liquids, with rheological equation,
s ¼ sy þ Kγn ð1Þ
where τ, τy are the shear stress and the yield stress
respectively, K, n are the fluid consistency and fluid
behavior indices respectively and γ is the shear rate, is
through non-linear regression of the viscometric data
from concentric cylinder geometry. This is normally
done using a numerical package, minimizing the sum of
error squares and judging the goodness of fit through the
value of the correlation coefficient Rc2 from the
linearized form of Eq. (1), as in Eq. (2),
lnðs−sy Þ ¼ lnK þ nlnðγÞ ð2Þ
However, non-linear fit to various data in this
laboratory with a numerical package sometimes has
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
given the best fit (highest correlation coefficient Rc2) with
negative values for the yield stress, which is mean-
ingless. In these situations, the condition τy > 0 must be
imposed to get meaningful results affecting thus the
optimum determination of all three parameters, while
there is also a possibility of non-unique solutions.
Moreover, there is concern over the use of the correlation
coefficient as an indicator of the goodness of fit because
it should be used only for linear functions (Helland,
1988; Ohen and Blick, 1990). In addition, consideration
should be given to differences of rheological parameters
and their effect on subsequent computations, when
choosing data with similar correlation coefficients (Rc2),
like for example data with Rc2 = 0.95 versus data with
Rc2 = 0.96, or between Rc2 = 0.98 and Rc2 = 0.99.
Many times, especially when curve fitting non-linear
functions, the sum of square errors (Q2) is utilized for
the goodness of fit, which is defined as,
X Prior work (Maglione and Romagnoli, 1998; Maglione,
Q2 ¼ ðyi − ŷ i Þ2 ð3Þ
i behavior index of the Herschel–Bulkley model could be
where yi, ŷi are the measured and the predicted
quantities. Another method to determine the goodness
of fit of a particular rheological model to rheometric data
is the method based on the best index value (BIV). It is
defined as the ratio between the sum of the squares of
the deviation of the predicted value from the average
value ȳ and the sum of the squares of the deviation of
the measured value from the average value (Maglione
and Romagnoli, 1999).
X The authors concluded, however, that more studies were
ð ŷ i − ȳ Þ2
BIV ¼ X i
ð4Þ
ðyi − ȳ Þ2
i
The closer the value of BIV to one, the better is the
capacity of the analytical equation (or the rheological
model) to approximate viscometer data. Values of BIV
larger than one indicate tendency for over-prediction
with the model while values lower than one indicate
tendency for under-prediction.
The final choice of the particular parameters can
always be questioned when the choice could be, for
example, between data fits with Rc2 = 0.995 or Rc2 = 0.998,
between Q2 = 0.9 or Q2 = 1.1, and between BIV = 0.99 or
BIV = 1.01, as it will be demonstrated later. Most of the
time, two or even more rheological parameter sets can
approximate well and in a similar way rotational
viscometer data, but in turn they could have large effects
on the end results. For example, parameters like Reynolds
number, velocity profile, pressure drop for the circular and
205
the annular sections in a drilling circuit can all be largely
influenced by this choice and can have desirable or
undesirable carry-over effects. For instance, a variation
in the velocity profile and the Reynolds number can
affect the cuttings carrying capacity of the drilling fluid.
So, the same drilling fluid can be estimated to perform
better if a rheological parameter set is preferred to
another, even though both may have very similar values
of Rc2, Q2 or BIV.
As most flows during drilling oil and gas wells are
laminar, for which analytical solutions exist for the flow
of Herschel–Bulkley fluids in pipes and annuli, although
not explicit, effort should be made to determine the
impact of the use of different sets of rheological para-
meters, derived with different methodologies, on the
main parameters of interest, pressure drop and velocity
profiles, thus providing a more robust indicator for the
proper choice of the appropriate rheological parameters.
1999) has suggested that the variation of the flow
the most important factor because it can influence all
hydraulic parameters of the drilling hydraulic circuit,
from flow regimes, to velocity profiles, to pressure drop
and to rates of penetration. It was shown that the lower
the flow behavior index is, the lower the pressure drop is,
in the circular and the annular sections. As the maximum
pressure available is normally constant, the gained
pressure drop (due to a lower n) can be used to increase
the flow rate thus providing more hydraulic power at the
drilling bit or allowing the drilling of longer sections.
required to better define and resolve this problem.
The scope of the present work is to propose a different
and optimal methodology to determine the three
Herschel–Bulkley rheological parameters of drilling
fluids from concentric cylinder viscometric data, avoid-
ing the observed pitfalls of current non-linear regression
techniques, which may give meaningless negative yield
stress values. Furthermore, the paper aims to demon-
strate that the particular choice of the rheological
parameters, among similarly performing data fit curves,
can greatly affect the determination of pressure drop and
velocity profiles of drilling fluids flowing in drilling
hydraulic circuits (pipe and annuli) and to present field
cases of these implications. An evaluation is also
attempted about the conditions for preferring a particular
rheological parameter set, whether it is the best fit of a
particular rheological model to rheometric data or also
the impact of the specific choice of rheological parameter
values on pressure drop and velocity profile estimation
for flow of drilling fluids during drilling.
206 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
2. Experimental data
The rheometric data used in this work were taken
from an on-going research project on the use of Greek
lignite as thinning agent in bentonite suspensions,
particularly when exposed to high temperatures (Miha-
lakis et al., 2004; Kelessidis et al., 2005), samples S1
through S12, as well as from published field data from
drilling operations reported by Merlo et al. (1995) and
drilling fluid data of Blick (1992), as reported by Al-
Zahrani (1997).
The experimental data of Mihalakis et al. (2004) and
Kelessidis et al. (2005) were taken with water–bentonite
suspensions at 6.42% w/v, either hydrated for 24 h at
room temperature or aged statically in an aging cell for
16 h at 177 °C. Various types of lignites from different
places in Greece were added at 0.5% w/v and 3% w/v in
the suspension in a similar fashion (hydrated or aged
thermally). The bentonite used was a commercial
product used in oil-well drilling (Zenith©) provided by
S&B Industrial Minerals S.A. All samples were prepared
following American Petroleum Institute procedures
(2000). The samples were agitated vigorously for
5 min before testing and measurements were made
with a continuously varying rotational speed rotating
viscometer (Grace, M3500) at two sample temperatures,
25 °C and 65 °C and 12 speeds: 3, 6, 10, 20, 30, 60, 100,
200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 rpm. The data is reproduced
in Appendix B (Table B1).
The data of Merlo et al. (1995), reproduced in Table
B2, were derived with drilling fluid from field
operations during drilling circulation tests at various
sections of the well, taking fluid samples from the outlet
of the drilling circuit. The rheometric data were derived
with a Huxley–Bertran high pressure high temperature
rotational viscometer for samples S13, S14, S15, S16
and S17, while data for sample S18 were derived with a
Fann VG 35 six speed rotational viscometer (Merlo et
al., 1995). Al-Zahrani (1997) reports that the rheological
data of Blick (1992), samples S19 to S21 reproduced in
Table B3, were taken with a rotary viscometer for
different suspensions prepared by adding various
quantities of Wyoming bentonite in water.
3. Rheological parameter estimation for
Herschel–Bulkley drilling fluids
3.1. Current methodology
Some of the rheometric data, given in Table B1, are
presented in Figs. 1 and 2. The three rheological
Herschel–Bulkley parameters were derived according to
Fig. 1. Rheograms of 6.42% w/v bentonite suspensions in water,
hydrated (sample S1) and thermally aged at 177 °C for 16 h (sample
S2). The rheological measurements were taken at 25 °C.
standard methodology, using non-linear regression with
an appropriate numerical package. These values are
given in Table 1 together with the correlation coeffi-
cient, the sum of errors squared and the best index value,
as defined above. From the rheograms presented in Figs.
1 and 2 above, as well as from the values of the
rheological parameters listed in Table 1, it is evident that
the rheological behavior of these suspensions is typical
of yield-pseudoplastic fluids and modeling their rheo-
logical behavior as Herschel–Bulkley fluids is more
than appropriate.
There exist, however, situations where application of
non-linear regression to rheometric data gives as optimal
set of the three rheological parameters, a set with
negative values of the yield stress, which of course is
meaningless. Reported data showing this behavior is
presented in Table 2 for data of Kelessidis et al. (2005),
of Merlo et al. (1995) and of Blick (1992). There is the
possibility of imposing the condition τy > 0 when
deriving the rheological parameters with non-linear
regression which, however, leads to non-optimal solu-
tions, as will be demonstrated later.
It is evident that the use of a numerical package to
apply non-linear regression to rheometric data in order
to derive Herschel–Bulkley parameters is not always
the optimal procedure since the method can lead to
inappropriate negative values for the yield stress. For
yield-pseudoplastic fluids, as most bentonite suspen-
sions are, a yield value exists either as an engineering
reality or as an inherent fluid property, although there
is considerable dispute about this issue (Barnes and
Walters, 1985; Chen, 1986; Hartnett and Hu, 1989;
Evans, 1992; Schurz, 1992; De Kee and Chan Man
Fong, 1993; Barnes, 1999). The yield value of the
fluid should be derived first using an appropriate
technique, followed by the estimation of the other two
parameters with non-linear regression applied to the
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 207

a set of parameters derived with a correlation coefficient

Fig. 2. Rheograms of bentonite–lignite–water suspensions (samples
S7 and S12) both thermally aged at 177 °C for 16 h. The rheological
measurements were taken at 25 °C.
linearized form of Herschel–Bulkley rheological
equation (Eq. (2)).
This could be accomplished through a trial-and-error
procedure, where various values of τy are assumed and
the original (τ − γ) rheological data is transformed to [ln
(τ − τy) − ln γ] data in order to establish the best linear
curve, determined from the correlation coefficient and
the sum of error squares, giving as y-intercept, (ln K),
while the slope of the curve will be the flow behavior
index, (n) (Hemphil et al., 1993; Turian et al., 1997).
With this approach, however, there is no guarantee that
the optimum values have been derived since the
determination of (K,n) depends on the correct estimation
of τy. Turian et al. (1997) found the procedure very
tedious and the results very sensitive to the assumed
value of the yield stress. They further stated that a major
weakness of the Herschel–Bulkley model has been the
inability to unambiguously establish the model para-
meters since different sets of these values can provide
equivalent fits of the experimental data, exactly the kind
of behavior described in this work. Furthermore, a set of
Herschel–Bulkley rheological parameters derived with
a correlation coefficient of 0.998 could be different than
of 0.996, and the final choice, which will have an impact
on the end result, pressure drop and velocity profiles,
can be a dilemma.
The procedure could be improved if a proper initial
value of τy is assumed, either taken from the original
rheogram or from a semi-log plot, with τy the y-
intercept, as shown in Fig. 3. In this semi-log plot of
[τ − log(γ)], the last points at low shear rates should lie
normally on a straight line, which when extended to
very low values of the shear rate (τ → 0) it should cross
the τ-axis at the value of the yield stress, a procedure
followed by some investigators (Benna et al., 1999;
Barnes, 1999). This method, however, is not deemed
very accurate because measurements at very low shear
rates may suffer from wall slip effects (Guillot, 1990;
Barnes, 1995).
Other investigators have proposed to measure
separately τy by other means, for example utilizing the
vane method (Nguyen and Boger, 1987; Alderman et
al., 1991; Barnes and Nguyen, 2001) which, although it
leads to better determination for the yield stress, it is
time consuming and not applicable for drilling
operations.
3.2. New methodology
A new methodology is proposed, amenable to
computer implementation, which determines the three
rheological Herschel–Bulkley parameters avoiding
potential errors of deriving negative yield stress values.
The methodology is based on an initial optimal
determination of τy, using a near optimum form of the
Golden Section search, sometimes called the Fibonacci
search, followed by linear regression of the linearized
form of the Herschel–Bulkley rheological equation. The
technique has been proposed by Ohen and Blick (1990)
for Robertson and Stiff fluids (Robertson and Stiff, 1976)

Table 1
Herschel–Bulkley rheological parameters of bentonite–water and bentonite–lignite–water suspensions (data of Kelessidis et al., 2005)
Sample τy (Pa) K (Pa sn) n R2c Q2 (Pa2) BIV
S1 8.4748 3.4010 0.2556 0.9876 3.8520 0.9980
S2 11.3025 5.9115 0.2645 0.9885 12.6820 0.9883
S3 0.0788 2.3861 0.3407 0.9340 44.8843 0.9343
S4 0.0000 0.2050 0.4930 0.9450 4.1802 0.6399
S5 0.6751 0.0732 0.7001 0.9937 0.7718 0.9927
S6 6.3938 0.4498 0.5001 0.9951 1.2885 0.9945
S7 2.4095 0.1251 0.7012 0.9975 0.9188 0.9980
S8 1.1843 0.1265 0.6436 0.9965 0.5671 0.9961
S9 3.4701 0.0313 0.8045 0.9666 3.3209 0.9687
S10 0.3793 0.0567 0.6196 0.9983 0.0395 0.9982
208 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224

Table 2
Herschel–Bulkley rheological parameters of bentonite–water and bentonite–lignite–water suspensions with negative τy, derived from nonlinear
regression
Sample τy (Pa) K (Pa sn) n R2c Q2 (Pa2) BIV Source
S11 − 0.2685 0.2486 0.5312 0.9957 0.5402 0.9848 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
S12 − 0.2880 0.2210 0.5841 0.9963 0.7890 0.9960 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
S14 − 0.0932 1.9580 0.3488 0.9990 0.2595 0.9991 Merlo et al. (1995)
S15 − 1.1650 2.3990 0.3158 0.9988 0.2850 0.9981 Merlo et al. (1995)
S17 − 0.6213 1.1400 0.3704 0.9994 0.0739 0.9995 Merlo et al. (1995)
S19 − 0.0906 1.1371 0.4393 0.9964 1.3320 0.9958 Blick (1992)
S20 − 3.7262 5.4440 0.3222 0.9982 2.4130 0.9985 Blick (1992)
S21 − 6.0980 9.2885 0.3208 0.9988 4.7160 0.9996 Blick (1992)

which follow rheological Eq. (5) below, with A, B, C the
Robertson–Stiff rheological parameters, and it has been
extended to Herschel–Bulkley fluids in this work.
s ¼ Aðγ þ CÞB
The aim is to find the value of the yield stress, τy,
which minimizes the error of the difference between the
predicted and the measured shear stress values, in other
words, to bracket a minimum for a given function f (x)
in the interval (a, c). A minimum is known to be
bracketed only when there is a triplet of points a < b < c
(or c < b < a) such that f (b) is less than both f (a) and f
(c) (Press et al., 1992). The function is then evaluated at
an intermediate point, x, which is chosen, either between
a and b or between b and c. After evaluating f (x), if f
(b) < f (x), the new bracketing triplet becomes (a,b, x),
otherwise, if f (b) > f (x), the triplet becomes (b, x, c).
The process continues until the bracketing interval is
tolerably small. The strategy for choosing point b (or x),
given (a, c) leads to the Golden Section search, which
states that the optimal bracketing interval a, b, c has its
middle point b a fractional distance from one end, for
example a, of a value equal to the golden ratio of
0.61803 and a fractional distance from the other end of
0.38197 (Fig. 4). At each stage of the search of the
ð5Þ bracketing interval of the minimum, the next point to be
tried is the point x which is a fractional distance 0.61803
from one end and a distance of 0.38197 from the other
end (Press et al., 1992).
To estimate the three rheological parameters τy, K, n,
a combination of iteration, to determine the yield stress
using the Golden Section search method, and a least
squares fitting of the linearized Herschel–Bulkley equa-
tion, is used (Ohen and Blick, 1990). This is accomplished
by first picking an initial interval of search (L, U), with L
the lower limit and U the upper limit, defined as,
U ¼ sy0 þ tol ð6Þ
L ¼ sy0 −tol ð7Þ
where tol is the half width of the search interval and τy0
is an initial estimate of the yield stress. The lower limit is
taken very close to zero while the upper limit can be
taken as 2 · τy0. Although the value of τy0 can be any
non-zero value and the procedure will converge, τy0 can
be estimated following the graphical procedure proposed
by Robertson and Stiff (1976) as modified by Ohen and
Blick (1990). Given a rheological data set of τ −γ, three
data sets are defined, one at the lowest shear stress, τmin
−γmin, one at the highest shear stress, τmax − γmax, while
the third set is based on the geometric mean shear stress

Fig. 3. Graphical determination of yield stress, τy, taken as the y-

intercept from a semi-log plot of the original rheogram. Fig. 4. Schematic explaining the Golden Section ratio.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 209

from the first two points, that is, (τ̄)2 = (τmin *τmax), with quick convergence. The search interval varies according
γ̄ derived by interpolation. A system of three equations to the conditions,
with three unknowns is thus derived as,
R2c1 < R2c2 YU ¼ sy1 ð15Þ
smin ¼ sy0 þ K0 γnmin
0
ð8Þ

smax ¼ sy0 þ K0 γnmax

0
ð9Þ R2c1 > R2c2 YL ¼ sy2 ð16Þ
s̄ ¼ sy0 þ K0 γ̄ n0 ð10Þ
R2c1 ¼ R2c2 YU ¼ sy1 ; L ¼ sy2 ð17Þ
This system can be solved to get the initial value of
τy0. Combination of Eqs. (8)–(10) gives, The whole procedure can be performed with a
numerical package.
smax −smin γnmax
0
−γnmin
0

¼ n0 ð11Þ
smax − s̄ γmax −γ̄ 0
n
3.3. Computational results and comparison with
with 0 < n0 < 1. Eq. (11) can be solved easily numerically experimental data
to get n0 and it is then used to derive the initial value for
yield stress, τy0, This methodology has been applied to several data
sets, given in Tables B1–B3 in Appendix B, and has
s̄ ðγ̄ 2n0 −γnmin
0
γnmax
0
Þ proved to work extremely well. In Table 3, the
sy0 ¼ ð12Þ
γ̄ n0 ðγnmin
0
þ γmax −2γ̄ 0 Þ þ γ̄ 2n0 −γnmin
n0 n 0
γnmax
0
rheological parameters that have been calculated using
both procedures, non-linear regression with a numerical
The triplet of points (L, τy0, U) is thus established package and with the Golden Section technique are
following the above procedure. The new points, in the presented for the cases where non-linear regression
search of the minimum, are evaluated using the golden provides meaningful results, in other words, positive
ratio of 0.61803 as, yield stress values. Rheograms of some of the samples
are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 together with the curves
sy1 ¼ L þ 0:61803ðU −LÞ ð13Þ derived from non-linear regression (NL) and for Golden
Section search (GS).
for the point between (L, τy0), while for the point The results show minor differences among the two
between (τy0, U) the new value becomes, methods both in terms of all three rheological
parameters and the two of the three indices of correlation
sy2 ¼ U −0:61803ðU −LÞ ð14Þ (Rc2, Q2) while the third index (BIV) does not really
reflect the similarities between the estimated parameters.
The functional relationship for optimization is This close agreement demonstrates the ability of the new
provided by the correlation coefficient Rc2 of Eq. (2) proposed scheme to properly determine the rheological
for the chosen value of τy. Schematically, the relation- parameters with similar success as the application of
ship Rc2 − τ y is shown in Fig. 5 for successive nonlinear regression using numerical packages, for the
approximations of τy. It is a unimodal function implying cases that the latter predict positive yield stress values.
The results show also that for all fluid samples,
except sample S8, the flow behavior index, n,
determined with the GS method, is smaller when
compared to the value determined with the NL method,
while the yield point may be smaller or larger. In
practical terms, and while keeping all other rheological
parameters constant, a smaller n-value results in
flattening of the velocity profile improving the carrying
capacity of the drilling fluid, extending laminar flow
regime and decreasing pressure drop (Maglione and
Robotti, 1996; Maglione et al., 1999a,b).
The close agreement between the rheological para-
Fig. 5. Variation of correlation coefficient with assumed values of yield meters obtained by the two methodologies raises the
stress (the case represents real data). point about the optimal data set to be used when the
210 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224

Table 3
Comparison of rheological parameters derived from non-linear regression (NL) and by Golden Section (GS)
Sample and method τy (Pa) K (Pa sn) n R2c Q2 BIV Source
S7
NL 2.4095 0.1251 0.7012 0.9975 0.9188 0.9980 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
GS 2.4141 0.1369 0.6842 0.9910 1.3124 0.9401
S8
NL 1.1843 0.1265 0.6436 0.9965 0.5671 0.9961 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
GS 1.3012 0.1058 0.6680 0.9967 0.6013 0.9855
S9
NL 3.4701 0.0313 0.8045 0.9666 3.3209 0.9687 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
GS 2.8973 0.1566 0.5661 0.9800 4.8284 0.8285
S10
NL 0.3793 0.0567 0.6196 0.9983 0.0395 0.9982 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
GS 0.2847 0.0839 0.5625 0.9960 0.0670 0.9615
S13
NL 1.7020 1.2063 0.4352 0.9971 1.0847 0.9959 Merlo et al. (1995)
GS 0.0000 1.9940 0.3704 0.9952 1.8105 1.0246
S16
NL 0.1747 0.9448 0.4097 0.9990 0.1563 0.9989 Merlo et al. (1995)
GS 0.0379 1.0200 0.3993 0.9995 0.1636 0.9956
S18
NL 2.6750 0.2492 0.6607 0.9982 0.7375 0.9977 Merlo et al. (1995)
GS 1.6813 0.6496 0.5173 0.9950 5.1244 0.8035
Positive yield stress values.

choice is among values giving very similar data fit.
Furthermore it raises questions about the implications
and the real impact on the operational parameters of
interest, pressure drop and velocity profiles.
The new methodology has been applied also to
rheometric data which give negative yield stress values
when applying non-linear regression, with the results
shown in Table 4. The listed rheological parameters are
derived using three different techniques: application of
non-linear regression (NL, numerical-no penalty),
application of non-linear regression with imposition of
τy > 0 (NLP, numerical with penalty) and application of
the Golden Section search (GS). Imposing τy > 0 may
sometimes result in non-optimum solutions giving
lower correlation coefficients, much higher sum of
squared errors and values of best index value signifi-
cantly different than one, compared to cases of non-
linear regression but without this imposition and to
cases of Golden Section search methodology (samples
S11, S12, S15). For some of the cases though, NLP
method may result in as good predictions as the Golden
Section search (samples S14, S17, S19, S20 and S21).
The new proposed scheme provides good solutions, as
evidenced by the sum of squared errors, the correlation

Fig. 6. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from Fig. 7. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from
rheological models for bentonite–lignite–water suspensions. rheological models for drilling mud.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 211

Table 4
Comparison of rheological parameters derived from numerical package and by proposed scheme, non-optimal solutions
Sample and method τy (Pa) K (Pa sn) n R2c Q2 BIV Source
S11
NL − 0.2685 0.2486 0.5312 0.9957 0.5402 0.9948 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
NLP 0.0000 0.2326 0.5166 0.9590 5.1540 0.9149
GS 0.0718 0.1462 0.6068 0.9942 0.7865 1.0263
S12
NL − 0.2880 0.2210 0.5841 0.9963 0.7890 0.9960 Kelessidis et al. (2005)
NLP 0.0001 1.0493 0.3218 0.9160 34.15 0.4435
GS 0.3976 0.0940 0.7036 0.9942 1.5646 0.9881
S14
NL − 0.09323 1.9580 0.3488 0.9990 0.2595 0.9991 Merlo et al. (1995)
NLP 0.0000 1.8900 0.3530 0.9990 0.2627 0.9938
GS 0.0000 1.9050 0.3523 0.9990 0.2608 0.9987
S15
NL − 1.1650 2.3990 0.3158 0.9988 0.2850 0.9981 Merlo et al. (1995)
NLP 0.0076 1.7260 0.3813 0.9959 0.9695 1.5152
GS 0.0000 1.7330 0.3561 0.9981 0.4583 0.9832
S17
NL − 0.6213 1.1400 0.3704 0.9994 0.0739 0.9995 Merlo et al. (1995)
NLP 0.0000 0.8491 0.4079 0.9987 0.1619 0.9196
GS 0.3767 0.4160 0.4083 0.9987 0.1619 0.7949
S19
NL − 0.0906 1.1371 0.4393 0.9964 1.3320 0.9958 Blick (1992)
NLP 0.0000 1.1170 0.4414 0.9964 1.3380 0.9930
GS 1.4701 0.6234 0.5203 0.9927 2.2244 1.0398
S20
NL − 3.7262 5.4440 0.3222 0.9982 2.4130 0.9985 Blick (1992)
NLP 0.0000 3.6872 0.3683 0.9974 3.3610 0.9890
GS 0.0000 3.5776 0.3739 0.9975 3.7578 1.0204
S21
NL − 6.0980 9.2885 0.3208 0.9988 4.7160 0.9996 Blick (1992)
NLP 0.0003 6.3864 0.3650 0.9980 7.2000 0.9900
GS 0.0000 6.1803 0.3712 0.9987 8.4888 1.0262
(NL) is the application of non-linear regression, (NLP) is the application of non-linear regression with the imposition of τy > 0 and (GS) is the
application of the new technique.

coefficients and the best index values. The suitability of Table 4 are given for the various approaches. Similar
the proposed scheme is further demonstrated in Figs. 8– graphs produced for the rest of the samples have further
12, where the rheograms for some of the samples of demonstrated the suitability of the proposed technique.

Fig. 8. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from Fig. 9. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from
rheological models for bentonite–lignite–water suspensions (sample rheological models for bentonite–lignite–water suspensions (sample
S11). S12).
212 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Fig. 10. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from
rheological models for drilling mud (sample S15).
From the data reported in Table 4 it is evident that
the values of the flow behavior index, determined
with the three different methods, do not differ
significantly except for sample S12. The main
difference is the yield point which can affect both
cuttings carrying capacity of drilling fluids and
pressure drop. The results of Tables 3 and 4 show
that when the fluid shows a positive yield point,
when determined by non-linear regression, the GS
method determines quite different rheological para-
meters with the larger difference observed on the
value of the flow behavior index. When the fluid
shows negative value of the yield point, when derived
by non-linear regression, the only difference derived
when using the GS method is on the yield point
itself.
3.4. Discussion
The results presented above have indicated that
optimal determination of the rheological parameters of
drilling fluids described by the Herschel–Bulkley
Fig. 11. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from
rheological models for drilling mud (sample S19).
Fig. 12. Comparison of rheograms of original data with results from
rheological models for drilling mud (sample S21).
rheological model is not an easy task. There will be
cases where application of non-linear regression with
available numerical packages can give estimates of the
three rheological parameters with high degree of
confidence. Caution, however, should be exercised
when these techniques give meaningless negative
yield stress values. Imposition of the condition that
yield stress is positive may lead to significant differ-
ences of the estimated rheological parameters and the
choice of an inappropriate rheological model, other than
the Herschel–Bulkley model which might have been
derived if determination of the rheological parameters is
performed following the Golden Section search meth-
odology proposed here.
It has been demonstrated that the proposed
technique, which relies on the proper choice of the
yield stress using the Golden Section search methodol-
ogy and on the minimization of the sum of squared
errors on the linearized form of the Herschel–Bulkley
rheological equation, can lead to meaningful and
appropriate values of all three rheological parameters
with high degree of confidence. The technique
eliminates the ambiguity and tediousness in finding
the correct parameter set, evident by previous used
methodologies.
Data fitting with the appropriate model and the
application of the most applicable technique always
poses the question about a relevant index of “correct-
ness”. There are concerns over real differences between
parameters derived with curve fitting giving similar
correlation coefficients, as for example, differences
between Rc2 = 0.97 and Rc2 = 0.98. The values in Tables 3
and 4 indicate that the differences in Herschel–Bulkley
parameters can sometimes be very subtle and sometimes
very large, but the impact on the main parameters of
interest, pressure drop and velocity profiles is not really
known nor it has been investigated thoroughly in the
past.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
4. Impact on pressure drop and velocity profile of
rheological parameter estimation by different
techniques for drilling operations
4.1. Theoretical considerations
The rheological parameters determined by the three
techniques described above, non-linear regression, non-
linear regression with imposition of penalty for negative
yield stress and the new methodology utilizing the
Golden Section search methodology, have been utilized
to determine pressure drop and velocity profiles in
typical oil-well drilling situations. Two pipe geometries
are used, a pipe with internal diameter of 0.0883 m and a
pipe with internal diameter of 0.1264 m. In addition,
three annulus geometries are used, an annulus with an
internal diameter of the outer pipe of 0.4445 m and an
external diameter of the inner pipe of 0.127 m, an
annulus with an internal diameter of the outer pipe of
0.311 m and an external diameter of the inner pipe of
0.127 m and an annulus with an internal diameter of the
outer pipe of 0.216 m and an external diameter of the
inner pipe of 0.089 m. Results have been derived for a
range of flow rates encountered in oil-well drilling
situations, but keeping the flow laminar, which is the
normal condition encountered in drilling applications,
particularly for flow in annulus. The appropriate flow
equations for Herschel–Bulkley fluids are summarized
in Appendix A, both for pipe flow and for concentric
annulus, utilizing slot flow solutions for the latter, a
common approach in drilling hydraulics, particularly for
annulus diameter ratios greater than 0.3 (Bourgoyne et
al., 1991; Maglione and Romagnoli, 1999).
Computations of pressure drop-flow rate data sets
have been performed for all samples with rheological
data presented in Tables B1–B3. Results, however, are
presented here for samples S12, S17 and S19, for which
negative yield values have been estimated as well as for
some of the samples giving positive yield stress values
(samples S7, S9, S10 and S18). The rheological
parameters were determined with the new methodology
applying Golden Section search (GS) and with non-
linear regression with penalty for τy > 0 (NLP) and are
listed in Tables 3 and 4.
In Fig. 13, data is presented for the pressure drop
variation with the flow rate, for flow in the 0.311 m
by 0.127 m concentric annulus. For sample S12, there
is a 2 to 3 times variation between the computed
pressure drop using rheological parameters derived
with the GS method when compared with the values
computed when the rheological parameters were
obtained according to method NLP. For this sample,
213
Fig. 13. Pressure drop-flow rate graph for the three fluids, with
rheological parameters determined by Golden Section (GS) and by
non-linear regression with τy > 0 (NLP) in a 0.311 m by 0.127 m
concentric annulus. Laminar flow computations.
the correlation coefficient for NLP is a low 0.9160
(Table 4) while for method GS is 0.9942, hence the
variation observed in Fig. 13 may be partly explained
by the bad fit of the rheogram when using method
NLP. For sample S17, the variation in the predicted
pressure drop values with the rheological parameters
derived by methods GS and NLP is between 1.5 to 2.5
times. For this case, however, the correlation coeffi-
cient for the estimation of the rheological parameters
is a high 0.9987 for both methods (Table 4). For
sample S19, for which the rheological parameters
were determined with GS have a correlation coeffi-
cient of 0.9927 and with NLP have a correlation
coefficient of 0.9964 (Table 4), the difference in the
pressure drop predictions is smaller than the previous
cases but it is still significant ranging from 10% at
high flow rates to 50% at low flow rates.
The computed velocity profiles for the 0.311 m by
0.127 m concentric annulus at various flow rates for
sample S19, the sample that showed the smallest
variation in pressure drop values, are shown in Fig.
14. Small variations on velocity profiles are observed
with larger variations in plug velocities, particularly at
high flow rates. Larger variations are expected and have
been determined for the other fluid samples for which
larger pressure drop variations have been observed
when using rheological parameters derived with the two
techniques.
Fig. 15 shows the results of the pressure drop
computations for the smaller annulus and similar trends
are observed as in Fig. 13. For sample S12, the variation
between the pressure drop values computed with
214 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Fig. 14. Velocity profiles for fluid S19 with rheological parameters
determined by Golden Section (GS) and by non-linear regression with
penalty (NLP) in the 0.311 m by 0.127 m concentric annulus. Laminar
flow computations for five flow rates (379 l/min, 1136 l/min, 1893 l/
min, 3028 l/min and 3785 l/min).
rheological parameters obtained by methods GS and
NLP, is two to three times. For sample S17, this
variation is between 1.5 to 2 times, while for sample S19
there are no significant differences for flow rates higher
than 600 l/min. The velocity profiles for sample S12, the
sample that showed the largest variation in the estimated
pressure drop values, are shown in Fig. 16, and
differences are observed both in velocity profiles but
also in maximum (plug) velocities for the computed
values using the rheological parameters from the two
cases.
Fig. 15. Pressure drop-flow rate graph for three fluids, with rheological
parameters determined by Golden Section (GS) and by non-linear
regression with penalty (NLP), for the 0.216 m by 0.089 m concentric
annulus. Laminar flow computations.
Fig. 16. Velocity profiles for fluid S12 with rheological parameters
determined by Golden Section (GS) and non-linear regression with
penalty (NLP), for the 0.216 m by 0.089 m concentric annulus, for five
flow rates.
For pipes, the results for pressure drop estimation are
shown in Fig. 17 for the pipe size of 0.1264 m and Fig.
18 for the pipe size of 0.0883 m for samples S12, S17
and S19, for laminar flow. The variation observed is
similar to the presented cases for the concentric annulus,
with significant variation for samples S12 and S17 for
both pipe sizes, while the variation is very small for
sample S19 for both pipe sizes.
Similar computations, for the samples for which the
yield stress was found positive and with no significant
differences among the model parameters listed in Table
3, have revealed that the differences in pressure drop
Fig. 17. Pressure drop-flow rate graph for three fluids, with rheological
parameters determined by Golden Section (GS) and by non-linear
regression with penalty (NLP), for the 0.1264 m pipe. Laminar flow
computations.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Fig. 18. Pressure drop-flow rate graph for three fluids, with rheological
parameters determined by Golden Section (GS) and by non-linear
regression with penalty (NLP), for the 0.0883 m pipe. Laminar flow
computations.
computation are much smaller in this case while the
velocity profiles for the cases of these samples do not
vary much. Some of the results for the pressure drop
estimation are shown in Fig. 19 for samples S7, S9, S10
and S18.
The presented results demonstrate that differences in
computed pressure drop values and velocity profiles
exist when computations are performed using either the
rheological parameters obtained by GS (the most
correct one) or by NLP. The variations can be rather
large for typical drilling situations not only on pressure
drop but also on velocity profiles. This is particularly
Fig. 19. Pressure drop-flow rate graph for fluids S7, S9, S10 and S18,
with rheological parameters determined by Golden Section (GS) and
by non-linear regression (NL), for the 0.311 m by 0.127 m concentric
annulus. Laminar flow computations.
215
important for pressure drop estimation because of the
small margin for frictional pressure drop normally
allowed for flow in the annulus. It is equally important
for the estimation of velocity profiles which affect
cuttings transport and intermixing of fluids in the
annulus, where laminar flow conditions normally
prevail. The analysis further demonstrates that selec-
tion of rheological parameters based on the goodness
of fit of the rheogram, the correlation coefficient or the
best index value may not always be sufficient.
Estimation of the impact of the choice of the
rheological parameters by an appropriate methodology
should be made by computing pressure drop and
velocity profiles for typical drilling situations. This
approach can be further extended and refined in order
to derive an ‘index of appropriateness’ for estimating
rheological parameters.
4.2. Implications on drilling operations
The implications on drilling from use of different
rheological parameters but from same rheological data
set have been assessed with field data of Merlo et al.
(1995). An analysis is presented for the circulation
test performed in well A at the depths of 555 m and
2008 m with the flow geometry shown in Fig. 20.
The circulation test at 555 m depth is deemed as the
most reliable in terms of data analysis because the
drill pipe was located inside the casing with a
nominal diameter of 0.508 m (inside diameter of
0.4826 m) with a well-known geometry and because
the circulating drilling fluid is not much affected by
Fig. 20. Geometry of well A for the reported drilling circulation test at
3200 l/min. Relevant geometrical data are given by Merlo et al.
(1995).
216 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
the temperature of the well. For purposes of
simulation, the S13 sample was considered, for
which the rheological parameters have been deter-
mined by using both non-linear regression (NL) and
Golden Section method (GS), which exhibit small
differences in the rheological parameters but very
similar correlation coefficients, sum of square errors
and best index values (Table 3).
The calculated value of pressure drop in the drilling
hydraulic circuit (excluding the drilling bit), using the
methodology of Merlo et al. (1995), is estimated as
44.000 Pa for the NL fluid and about 37.800 Pa for
the GS fluid. Measured field data gave a value of
29.100 Pa (Merlo et al., 1995). From the above data it
can be seen that the calculated pressure drop in the
drilling circuit is 29.9% and 51.2% more than the field
measured value when using the GS fluid or the NL
fluid respectively. Furthermore, the pressure drop
calculated by using the GS fluid is less than the
pressure drop calculated with the NL fluid by an
amount equal to 16.4% of the GS fluid value,
indicating that the GS fluid performs better than the
NL fluid, in terms of pressure drop. This holds even
though both fluids have the same formulation and
characteristics and the viscometer data are very well
described by both methods ( R c2 = 0.9971 and
Rc2 = 0.9952 for the NL fluid and the GS fluid
respectively). In Fig. 21, the variation of the calculated
frictional pressure loss in the drilling hydraulic circuit
is plotted against the flow rate for the NL fluid and
GS fluid, together with measured data.
When the flow velocity distribution in the annulus
(0.483 m by 0.127 m) is computed for the two fluids at a
Fig. 21. Pressure drop-flow rate curves for drilling circulation test for
Well A, using NL and GS derived rheological parameters for drilling
fluid sample S13. The measured data at the one flow rate (3202 lpm) is
also shown.
Fig. 22. Velocity profiles of NL and GS fluids for flow of the S13
drilling fluid in a 0.483 m by 0.127 m concentric annulus, for a flow
rate of 3202 lpm.
flow rate of 3202 lpm, the results show similar velocity
profile in the annular section (Fig. 22) meaning that both
fluids can have the same cuttings carrying capacity.
Cuttings transport efficiencies, calculated as per Walker
and Mayes (1975) but extended for Herschel–Bulkley
fluids by Gallino and Maglione (1996), are estimated at
78.9% and 77.5% for the NL fluid and GS fluid
respectively.
Finally, considering the apparent viscosity of the
drilling fluid at the nozzles of the drilling bit, μa,
which affects the rate of penetration among other
parameters, differences in the behavior of the NL and
GS fluids are expected which can be evaluated. The
apparent viscosity at the drilling bit can be
computed, following standard drilling hydraulics
procedures (Bourgoyne et al., 1991; Maglione and
Romagnoli, 1999), by estimating the wall shear
stress, τw, and the wall shear rate, γw, of the drilling
fluid at the bit nozzles, and computing the apparent
viscosity, μa, as,
sw
la ¼ ð18Þ
γw
The apparent viscosity is estimated at a value of
about 1.707 cP for the NL fluid and at a value of about
1.261 cP for the GS fluid for the flow rate of 3202 lpm.
Fig. 23 shows the behavior of apparent viscosity at the
drilling bit nozzles for the NL and GS fluids, for
various flow rates. The results show that the apparent
viscosity of the GS fluid has always lower values than
the values of the NL fluid with the differences varying
between 18 and 27%, for the range of the considered
flow rates.
The rate of penetration during drilling (ROP) is
directly affected by fluid density (ρ), fluid velocity in the
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Fig. 23. Variation of apparent viscosity, at the drilling bit, with the flow
rate, for the NL and GS fluids, for sample S13 and Well A (concentric
annulus of 0.4826 m by 0.127 m).
drilling bit nozzles (Vn), bit nozzle diameter (dn), while
it is inversely proportional to drilling fluid apparent
viscosity at the drilling bit (μa,bit) (Eckel, 1967; Beck et
al., 1995; Gallino et al., 1996). This variation is
described well by Eq. (19),
!c
qVn dn
ROP~
la;bit
where c is a constant, which depends on the drilled
formation. From Eq. (19) one can notice that, keeping
all other parameters constant, the rate of penetration is
inversely proportional to the apparent viscosity at the
bit. Considering for instance the case for well A
reported above (Merlo et al., 1995), if a value for the
rate of penetration of 10 m/h is assumed for the NL
fluid, the corresponding rate of penetration for the GS
fluid would be predicted around 12.6 m/h, an increase
of 26%. This particular example reveals that just by
considering and studying better the best fit curves of
viscometer data of drilling fluids, a surprising result
with respect to the rate of penetration can be derived.
This significant increase has been computed using
rheological parameters that were very close to each
other (Table 3, sample S13). The results could be
more dramatic, if larger differences occur among
rheological parameters derived using the two different
techniques.
All the above results could be considered as the
direct effect of the decrease of the flow behavior
index of the drilling fluid when determined using the
GS method and its consequences on hydraulic
parameters. It seems that the GS fluid performs better
than the NL fluid, even though they are the same
217
fluid, with the only difference in the approach
followed to determine the best fit rheological para-
meters from viscometer data. The variation of the
rheological parameters affects mostly frictional pres-
sure drop and apparent viscosity at the bit. Hence, at
the design phase and during oil-well drilling opera-
tions, caution should be exercised when using the
rheological parameters from the best fit curves of the
viscometer data, because, as it has been shown, very
small differences at the design phase can lead
sometimes to substantial differences in most of
operational parameters.
5. Conclusions
In this study it was shown that the Herschel–Bulkley
rheological model properly described all rheological
data of drilling fluids obtained with rotational visc-
ometer data. It has been demonstrated that the three
rheological Herschel–Bulkley parameters can be
derived with a numerical package using non-linear
regression but the procedure may not always lead to
optimal solutions, because sometimes, meaningless
negative yield stress values are determined. Imposition
ð19Þ of the condition for positive values of the yield stress
gives non-optimal solutions. A methodology has been
proposed to alleviate this problem. It estimates the best
value for the yield stress using the Golden Section
search methodology, and then applies linear regression
to the transformed data, yielding as accurate results as
the numerical schemes in normal cases but also giving
positive values for the yield stress in situations where
numerical schemes determine negative values. The
recommended approach leads to unique solutions and
can be easily implemented.
It was further shown that pressure drop and
velocity profiles for laminar flow in pipes and
concentric annulus can be significantly affected by
proper choice of rheological parameters. The most
appropriate set should be determined utilizing not only
the statistically best fit indices but also the impact on
pressure drop and velocity profiles. Use of the
relevant flow equations for laminar flow in typical
oil-well drilling situations in concentric annulus and
pipe can aid significantly in determining the impact of
the particular choice of rheological parameters on
pressure drop, on velocity profiles and on rate of
penetration, aiding in choosing the most appropriate
rheological parameters. The computed results have
demonstrated that it is very important to make the best
simulation of rheological behavior of drilling fluids
before computing hydraulic parameters. Once the best
218 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224

rheological parameters are obtained, utilization of Subscripts

appropriate calculation tools for estimation of pressure min minimum value
drop and velocity profiles can aid in avoiding many max maximum value
problems during drilling operations and can allow o initial value
better exploitation of the properties of existing drilling w wall
fluids. a apparent value
a, bit at the bit
Nomenclature
A, B, C Robertson–Stiff rheological parameters Appendix A. Flow of Herschel–Bulkley drilling
BIV Best index value fluids in pipes and concentric annuli
dp/dL Pressure drop per unit length (M/L2T2)
dn Bit nozzle diameter (L) A.1. Flow in pipes
h Gap of annulus, distance between plates in the
slot (L) The geometry for pipe flow together with the
K Fluid consistency index (M/LT2−n) appropriate parameters is shown in Fig. A1. There is a
L Lower limit for the estimation of yield stress central core of the fluid which moves as a rigid plug if
n Fluid behavior index the shear stress levels are smaller than the yield stress of
p Pressure (M/LT2) the fluid. Letting Δ = dp/dL, with dp/dL the pressure
r Radius (L) drop per unit length, and for values of the shear stress τ
R pipe radius (L) greater than the yield stress of the fluid τy, τ ≥ τy,
R1 radius of outer pipe of annulus (L) balance of forces gives,
R2 radius of inner pipe of annulus (L)
Rc2 dðsrÞ dp
Correlation coefficient ¼r ¼ rD ðA1Þ
ROP Rate of penetration (L/T) dr dL
q Flow rate (L3/T) Eq. (A1) upon integration gives,
Q2 Sum of error squares
tol Half width of search interval r C1
s¼ Dþ ðA2Þ
u Liquid velocity (L/T) 2 r
U Upper limit for the estimation of yield stress The shear stress is finite at r = 0, hence, C1 = 0. The
Vn Liquid velocity at the drill bit nozzle (L/T) radius at which there is an unsheared portion of the fluid,
ya Distance of top of inner layer from bottom rp, is given by
plate (L)
yb Distance of bottom of top layer from bottom rp
plate (L) sy ¼ D ðA3Þ
2
yi Measured parameter
ŷi Predicted parameter and the wall shear stress, τw, is given by,
ȳ Average value of the parameter
w Width of the slot (L) R
sw ¼ D ðA4Þ
2
Greek letters
γ Shear rate (T− 1)
γ̄ Geometric mean shear rate (T− 1)
Δ pressure drop per unit length (M/L2T2)
μ Liquid viscosity (M/LT)
ξ Dimensionless parameter, ratio of yield stress
to wall shear stress
ρ Liquid density (M/L3)
τ Shear stress (M/LT2)
τ̄ Geometric mean shear stress (M/LT2)
τy Yield stress (M/LT2)
τy0 Initial estimate of yield stress (M/LT2)
τo Integer constant Fig. A1. Geometry and parameters for laminar flow in pipes.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 219

where R is the pipe radius. The flow curve of the

Herschel–Bulkley fluid is given by,
 
du n
s ¼ sy þ K − ðA5Þ
dr

where K, n are the fluid consistency and flow behavior

indices respectively. Hence,

 n Fig. A2. Representation of the concentric annulus as a slot.

du r
sy þ K − ¼ D ðA6Þ
dr 2
A.2. Flow in concentric annuli
The solution of Eq. (A6), utilizing the boundary
condition that the fluid velocity u is zero at the pipe For flow in a concentric annulus, the annulus can be
wall, u = 0 at r = R, is finally given by, approximated by a slot of gap h = R2 − R1, as represented
in Fig. A2. The solution that will be derived follows the
( mþ1   ) procedure for flow of Bingham plastic fluids in a slot,
1 1 D sy D sy mþ1 given by Bourgoyne et al. (1991).
u¼ R− − r− ;
D=ð2KÞ m þ 1 2K K 2K K There is a central core of the fluid which moves as a
sy rigid plug if the shear stress levels are smaller than the
rp ¼ VrVR yield stress of the fluid. Integration of the force balance
D=2
ðA7aÞ performed on a fluid element gives

and s ¼ yD þ s0 ðA9Þ

 
ðD=2KÞm sy mþ1 with τ0 an integration constant to be determined. Let ya,
u ¼ up ¼ R− ; 0VrVrp ðA7bÞ yb the distances of the lower sheared and upper sheared
mþ1 D=2
surfaces from the bottom plate respectively. At the inner
layer of the plug, ya, the shear stress τa must equal
with m = 1/n.
(− τy). It follows then from (A9),
The flow rate q can be derived as,
Z R
sa ¼ −sy ¼ s0 þ ya D ðA10Þ
q ¼ 2k urdr
0
kn ðDR=2−sy Þ1=nþ1 which gives,
¼
K 1=n ðD=2Þ3
" #
ðDR=2−sy Þ2 2sy ðDR=2−sy Þ s2y sy þ s0
 þ þ ya ¼ − ðA11Þ
1 þ 3n 1 þ 2n 1þn D

ðA8Þ Similarly, for the outer plug region one obtains for
the shear stress at yb,
Eq. (A8) relates pressure drop (Δ = dp/dL) with
flow rate (q) for flow of Herschel–Bulkley drilling sb ¼ sy ¼ s0 þ yb D ðA12Þ
fluids in a pipe of radius R for laminar flow. If the
pressure drop is known, the flow rate can be directly In the fluid layer enclosed by the inner layer of the
computed. On the other hand, if the flow rate is plug and the bottom plate, the shear stress is,
known, Eq. (A8) can be solved by trial-and-error for
the estimation of pressure drop. The velocity profiles  n
can be computed readily from Eqs. (A7a) and (A7b) du
s ¼ −sy −K ¼ s0 þ yD ðA13Þ
for both cases. dy
220 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224

The solution to differential Eq. (A13), utilizing The plug velocity, given by Eqs. (A16) and (A20) is
boundary condition u = 0 at y = 0 is finally given by, the same, hence,
(     ) ymþ1 ¼ ðh−yb Þmþ1 ðA21Þ
−K sy þ s0 mþ1 sy þ s0 D mþ1 a
u¼ − − þ − − y ;
ðm þ 1ÞD K K K
0VyVya ðA14Þ Taking the (m + 1)th root and keeping only the
positive value, it follows that,

with m = 1/n. In terms of the parameter ya this equation ya ¼ h−yb Z ya þ yb ¼ h ðA22Þ

becomes
Substituting the values of ya, yb, given above, the
unknown τ0 can now be determined as,
ðD=KÞ n m o
u¼− −ðya Þmþ1 þ ðya −yÞmþ1 ; 0VyVya
ðm þ 1Þ h h dp
s0 ¼ − D ¼ − ðA23Þ
ðA15Þ 2 2 dL

Furthermore, the following holds,

The plug velocity, up, is the velocity at y = ya, given
h dp
by, sw ¼ −s0 ¼ ðA24Þ
2 dL
 m
ymþ1 D The summary of the equations governing flow of
up ¼ a
; ya VyVyb ðA16Þ Herschel–Bulkley drilling fluids in a slot is given below.
ðm þ 1Þ K
There is fluid flow only if,
For the fluid region enclosing the plug and the upper dp sy
plate, the shear stress is D¼ > ðA25Þ
dL h=2
  When there is flow, then,
du n
s ¼ sy þ K − ¼ s0 þ yD ðA17Þ
dy h h dp
s0 ¼ − D ¼ − ¼ −sw ðA26Þ
2 2 dL
and following similar approach as above, utilizing the
boundary condition u = 0 at y = h, the velocity is given h sy
by, ya ¼ − ðA27Þ
2 D
 h sy
1 yb ¼ þ ðA28Þ
u¼ ðs0 −sy þ hDÞmþ1 2 D
DK m ðm þ 1Þ

mþ1
−ðs0 −sy þ yDÞ ; yb VyVh ðA18Þ The velocity profile is given by,

ðD=KÞm n o
u¼− −ðya Þmþ1 þ ðya −yÞmþ1 0VyVya
In terms of yb, Eq. (A18) becomes, ðm þ 1Þ
 m   ðA29aÞ
D 1  m
u¼ ðh−yb Þmþ1 −ðy−yb Þmþ1 ; yb VyVh ymþ1 D
K ðm þ 1Þ u¼ a
ya VyVyb ðA29bÞ
ðA19Þ ðm þ 1Þ K

 m  
The velocity of the plug is given when y = yb, hence, D 1 mþ1 mþ1
u¼ ðh−yb Þ −ðy−yb Þ ; yb VyVh
K ðm þ 1Þ
 m
D ðh−yb Þmþ1 ðA29cÞ
up ¼ ; ya VyVyb ðA20Þ
K ðm þ 1Þ with m = 1/n.
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 221

The flow rate per unit width of the slot, w, is given If now ξ is defined as,
by,
sy 2sy sy
n¼− ¼ ¼ ðA32Þ
Z h Z ya Z yb Z h s0 hD sw
q
¼ udy ¼ udy þ up dy þ udy
w 0 0 ya yb
and noting that for partial or full flow it must be true that
which can be written as, ξ < 1, the flow rate is,

h Z h Z h  
q  du du  m

¼ uy − y dy ¼ 0 − y dy D 2wðh=2Þmþ2 ð1−nÞmþ1
w dy dy q¼ ½n þ ðm þ 1Þ
Z0 ya 0  Z h 0  K ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ
du du
¼− y dy − y dy ¼ −I1 −I2 ðA33Þ
0 dy yb dy

An equivalent expression has been derived by

Grinchik and Kim (1974) as referenced by Fordham et
With some mathematical manipulation, it can be
al. (1991), where though, only the final result was given.
shown that,
The flow rate also can be expressed in terms of dp/dL
and τy as,
 m
D ymþ2
I1 ¼ a

K ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ dp 1=n  1þ1=n
2wðh=2Þ2þ1=n 1
sy
dL K
q¼ 1−
and ð1=n þ 1Þð1=n þ 2Þ ðh=2Þðdp=dLÞ
 
sy 1
 þ þ1
ðh=2Þðdp=dLÞ n ðA34Þ
 m " #
D ðh−yb Þmþ2 yb ðh−yb Þmþ1
I2 ¼ − þ
K mþ2 mþ1 The final result for the flow rate in terms of annulus
geometry parameters, noting that, wh = π(R22 − R12), and
h = R2 − R1, is,
So finally,

 m 2  1=n 3
D 1 dp
q 1 kðR22 −R21 ÞðR2 −R1 Þ1þ1=n
¼ 6 K dL 7
w K ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ q¼4 5
2 1=n
ð1=n þ 1Þð2=n þ 4Þ
 f−ymþ2 þ ðm þ 1Þðh−yb Þmþ2
a
 1þ1=n
þ ðm þ 2Þðyb Þðh−yb Þmþ1 g ðA30Þ sy
 1−
½ðR2 −R1 Þ=2ðdp=dLÞ
" sy #
The flow rate can be expressed in terms of parameters ½ðR −R Þðdp=dLÞ
þ 1n þ 1
 2 1

τy, Δ by replacing ya, yb and noting that τ0 = − hΔ/2, so 2 1=n

ð1=n þ 1Þð2=n þ 4Þ ðA35Þ
that,

 m      Eq. (A35) provides the relationship between flow

D w sy þ s0 mþ2 rate and pressure drop for Herschel–Bulkley drilling
q¼  − −
K ðm þ 1Þðm þ 2Þ D fluids flowing in laminar flow in concentric annuli,
 s −s mþ2 modeled as a slot. The flow rate can be directly
y 0
þðm þ 1Þ h−
D determined given the pressure drop but trial-and-error
s −s  s −s mþ1

þðm þ 2Þ
y 0
h−
y 0
ðA31Þ solution is required if the pressure drop is to be
D D determined for a given flow rate.
 222
V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Appendix B. Rheological data

Table B1. Rheological data for bentonite–water suspensions and bentonite–lignite–water suspensions (A: bentonite suspension, L: lignite) (from Kelessidis
et al., 2005).

Sample number S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

Sample source A hydrated A aged A + L1, 3.0% A + L2 3.0% A + L4 3.0% A + L5 3.0% A + L6 3.0% A + L7 0.5% A + L7 0.5% A + L4 3.0% A + L8 0.5% A + L3 3.0%
25 °C 25 °C aged 25 °C aged 25 °C aged 25 °C aged 25 °C aged 25 °C hydrated 25 °C hydrated 65 °C hydrated 65 °C hydrated 25 °C aged 25 °C
Shear rate Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear
stress stress stress stress stress stress stress stress stress stress stress stress
(1/s) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)
1021.38 28.50 48.42 21.92 6.92 10.25 20.75 18.17 11.75 12.83 4.50 9.33 12.17
851.15 27.75 46.83 22.75 6.17 8.92 19.25 16.67 11.08 9.75 4.17 8.58 11.00
680.92 26.83 44.58 26.08 5.58 7.83 17.92 14.75 9.75 8.58 3.58 7.92 9.83
510.69 25.00 41.58 22.42 4.75 5.92 17.08 12.75 8.58 8.00 3.08 6.83 8.33
340.46 22.58 37.83 18.58 3.67 4.75 15.17 9.92 6.58 7.33 2.42 5.58 6.83
170.23 21.00 35.67 13.58 2.17 3.42 12.33 6.50 4.25 5.58 1.75 3.42 4.00
136.18 21.00 33.25 12.00 1.83 3.08 11.67 6.17 4.08 5.42 1.50 2.92 3.42
102.14 20.08 30.83 10.50 1.33 2.92 10.75 5.75 3.75 5.08 1.42 2.42 2.75
51.07 16.67 27.42 6.92 0.58 2.00 9.00 4.00 2.58 4.00 1.08 1.50 1.58
34.05 17.50 27.83 7.42 0.50 1.67 8.83 4.17 2.42 4.17 1.00 1.33 1.42
17.02 16.00 21.90 6.67 0.08 1.25 8.08 3.33 2.08 3.67 0.67 1.00 1.17
10.21 14.67 23.75 6.25 0.00 1.00 8.17 3.25 1.83 3.67 0.58 0.58 0.92
5.11 13.20 19.90 5.10 0.00 0.50 7.70 2.80 1.60 3.25 0.50 0.50 0.10
 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224 223

Table B2: Rheological data of drilling fluids (from Merlo et al., 1995)

Sample S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18

number
Sample source Mud 20 °C 0.1 MPa Mud 30 °C 0.1 MPa Mud 45 °C 0.2 MPa Mud 85 °C 0.5 MPa Mud 100 °C 1 MPa Mud 20 °C 2008 m
Shear rate Shear stress Shear stress Shear stress Shear stress Shear stress Shear stress
(1/s) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)
1021.32 26.6 22.0 20.4 16.4 14.3 27.1
510.66 19.4 16.9 15.8 12.3 10.7 17.4
340.44 16.9 14.8 13.8 10.2 9.2 14.8
170.22 13.3 11.8 11.2 8.2 7.2 10.2
10.21 5.6 4.6 4.1 2.6 2.0 4.1
5.11 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.0 1.5 3.1

Table B3: Rheological data of drilling fluids (from Blick, 1992, as reported by Al-Zahrani, 1997)

Sample number S19 S20 S21

Sample source 10% bentonite 12% bentonite 28% bentonite
Shear rate Shear stress Shear stress Shear stress
(1/s) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)
1020.80 23.46 46.44 78.52
765.60 21.07 42.61 72.78
510.40 17.72 37.35 63.20
340.27 14.84 32.56 55.06
238.19 12.93 28.25 47.40
153.12 10.05 23.46 40.22
119.09 8.62 21.55 36.39
85.07 8.14 18.67 32.56
51.04 5.75 14.84 25.86
17.01 4.31 10.53 17.72

References fluid applications. Paper SPE 84215 Presented at the SPE

Alderman, N.J., Meeten, G.H., Sherwood, J.D., 1991. Vane rheometry
of bentonite gels. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 39, 291–310.
Al-Zahrani, S.M., 1997. A generalized rheological model for shear
thinning fluids. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 17, 211–215.
American Petroleum Institute Specifications 13I, 2000. Recommended
Practice Standard Procedure for Laboratory Testing Drilling
Fluids.
Barnes, H.A., 1995. A review of the slip (wall depletion) of polymer
solutions, emulsions and particle suspensions in viscometers: its
cause, character and cure. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 56,
221–251.
Barnes, H.A., 1999. The yield stress — a review or ‘πάντα ρει’ —
everything flows? J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 81, 133–188.
Barnes, H.A., Nguyen, Q.D., 2001. Rotating vane geometry — a
review. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 98, 1–14.
Barnes, H.A., Walters, K., 1985. The yield stress myth? Rheol. Acta
24, 323–326.
Beck, F.E., Powell, J.W., Zamora, M., 1995. The effect of rheology on
rate of penetration. Paper SPE/IADC 29368 Presented at the SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
Becker, T.E., Morgan, R.G., Chin, W.C., Griffith, J.E., 2003. Improved
rheology model and hydraulic analysis for tomorrow's wellbore
Productions and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK.
Benna, M., Kbir-Ariguib, N., Magnin, A., Bergaya, F., 1999. Effect of
pH on rheological properties of purified sodium bentonite
suspensions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 218, 442–455.
Bingham, E.C., 1922. Fluidity and Plasticity. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Bird, R.B., Dai, G.C., Yarusso, B.Y., 1982. The rheology and flow of
viscoplastic materials. Rev. Chem. Eng. 1 (1), 1–70.
Bleler, R., 1990. Selecting a drilling fluid. J. Pet. Technol. 42,
832–834.
Blick, E.F., 1992. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics Notes, Engineer-
ing Library. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Borgia, A., Spera, F.J., 1990. Error analysis for reduction noisy wide-
gap concentric cylinder rheometric data for nonlinear fluids: theory
and applications. J. Rheol. 34 (1), 117–136.
Bourgoyne, A.T., Chenevert, M.E., Millheim, K.K., Young Jr., F.S.,
1991. In: Evers, J.F., Pye, D.S. (Eds.), Applied drilling
engineering. SPE Textbook Series, vol. 2. Richardson, TX.
Briscoe, B.J., Luckham, P.F., Ren, S.R., 1994. The properties of drilling
muds at high-pressures and high-temperatures. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Sci. 348, 179–207.
Casson, N., 1959. Flow equation for pigment oil suspensions of the
printing ink type. In: Mills, C.C. (Ed.), Rheology of Disperse
Systems. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
224 V.C. Kelessidis et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53 (2006) 203–224
Chen, D., 1986. Yield stress: a time dependent property and how to
manage it. Rheol. Acta 25, 542–554.
Clark, R.K., 1994. Impact of environmental regulations on drilling
fluid technology. J. Pet. Technol. 46, 804–809.
Darby, R., 1985. Couette viscometer data reduction for materials with
a yield stress. J. Rheol. 29, 369–378.
De Kee, D., Chan Man Fong, C.F., 1993. Letter to the Editor: a true
yield stress? J. Rheol. 37, 775–776.
Eckel, J.R., 1967. Microbit studies of the effects of fluid properties and
hydraulics on drilling rate. J. Pet. Technol. 541–546 (April).
Elward-Berry, J., Darby, J.B., 1992. Rheologically stable, nontoxic,
high temperature water-base drilling fluid. Paper SPE 24589
Presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington.
Evans, I.D., 1992. On the nature of the yield stress. J. Rheol. 36,
1313–1316.
Fordham, E.J., Bittleston, S.H., Tehrani, M.A., 1991. Viscoplastic flow in
centered annuli, pipes and slots. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 29, 517–524.
Gallino, G., Maglione, R., 1996. L'applicazione del Modello di
Herschel and Bulkley alle Attuali Teorie per l'Ottimizzazione della
Pulizia del Foro. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference
on Applied Rheology, Vico Equense—Italy.
Gallino, G., Guarneri, A., Poli, G., Xiao, L., 1996. Scleroglucan
biopolymer enhances WBM performances. Paper SPE 36426,
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver-USA.
Govier, G.W., Aziz, K., 1972. The Flow of Complex Mixtures in
Pipes. Krieger, Malabar, FL.
Graves, W.G., Collins, R.E., 1978. A new rheological model for non
Newtonian fluids. Paper SPE, vol. 7654.
Gray, H.C.H., Darley, G.R., 1980. Composition and Properties of Oil-
Well Drilling Fluids. Gulf Pub. Co., Houston.
Grinchik, I.P., Kim, A.K., 1974. Axial flow of a non-linear viscoplastic
fluid through cylindrical pipes. J. Eng. Phys. 23, 1039–1041.
Gucuyener, I.H., 1983. A rheological model for drilling fluids and
cementing slurries. Paper SPE 11487 Presented at the Middle East
Oil Technical Conference, Manama-Bahrain.
Guillot, D., 1990. Rheology of well cement slurries. In: Nelson, E.B.
(Ed.), Well Cementing. Schlumberger Educational Services,
Houston.
Hanks, R.W., 1979. The axial flow of yield — pseudoplastic fluids in a
concentric annulus. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 18, 488–493.
Hanks, R.W., 1989. Couette viscometry of Casson fluids. J. Rheol. 27,
1–6.
Hartnett, J.P., Hu, R.Y.Z., 1989. Technical note: the yield stress—an
engineering reality. J. Rheol. 33, 671–679.
Helland, I., 1988. On the structure of partial least squares regression.
Commun. Stat., Simul. Comput. 17, 581–607.
Hemphil, T., Campos, W., Tehrani, M.A., 1993. Yield power law
model accurately predicts mud rheology. Oil Gas J. 91, 45–50.
Herschel, W.H., Bulkley, R., 1926. Konsistenzmessungen von
Gummi-Benzollosungen. Kolloid-Z. 39, 291–300.
Kelessidis, V.C., Mihalakis, A., Tsamantaki, C., 2005. Rheology and
rheological parameter determination of bentonite–water and
bentonite–lignite–water mixtures at low and high temperatures.
Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Chem. Engr., Glasgow.
Krieger, I.M., 1968. Shear rate in the Couette viscometer. Trans. Soc.
Rheol. 12, 5–11.
Maglione, R., 1999. The drilling well as viscometer: the route towards
new drilling frontiers. Proceedings of the Southern Europe
Conference in Rheology, Sangineto, Italy.
Maglione, R., Ferrario, G., 1996. Equations determine flow states for
yield-pseudoplastic drilling fluids. Oil Gas J. 94, 63–66.
Maglione, R., Robotti, G., 1996. A numerical procedure for solving a
non-linear equations systems for determining the three rheological
parameters of a drilling mud from experimental data. Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Integral Methods in
Science and Engineering, Oulu, Finland.
Maglione, R., Romagnoli, R., 1998. The role of rheology optimisation
in the drilling mud design. GEAM Bull. 94, 123–132.
Maglione, R., Romagnoli, R., 1999. Idraulica dei Fluidi di
Perforazione. Edizioni Cusl, Torino.
Maglione, R., Ferrario, G., Rrokaj, K., Calderoni, A., 1996. A new
constitutive law for the rheological behaviour of non Newtonian
fluids. Proceedings of the XIIe Congrès International de Rheology,
Quebec-Canada.
Maglione, R., Guarneri, A., Ferrari, G., 1999a. Rheologic and
hydraulic parameter integration improves drilling operations. Oil
Gas J. 97, 44–48.
Maglione, R., Robotti, G., Romagnoli, R., 1999b. Drilling hydraulic
optimization: how managing it. GEAM Bull. 96, 23–30.
Maglione, R., Robotti, G., Romagnoli, R., 2000. In-situ rheological
characterization of drilling mud. SPE J. 5, 377–386.
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., Piatti, C., 1995. An innovative model for
drilling fluid hydraulics. Paper SPE 29259 Presented at the Asian-
Pacific Oil and Gas Conf., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Miano, F., Rabaioli, M.R., 1994. Rheological scaling of montmor-
illonite suspensions: the effect of electrolytes and polyelectrolytes.
Colloids Surf., A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 84, 229–237.
Mihalakis, A., Makri, P., Kelessidis, V.C., Christidis, G., Foscolos, A.,
Papanikolaou, K., 2004. Improving rheological and filtration
properties of drilling muds with addition of Greek lignite.
Proceedings of the 7th National Congress on Mechanics, Chania,
Greece.
Mnatsakanov, A.V., Litvinov, A.I., Zadvornykh, V.N., 1991. Hydro-
dynamics of the drilling in deep, thick, abnormal pressure
reservoirs. Paper SPE/IADC 21919 Presented at the Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam.
Nguyen, Q.D., Boger, D.V., 1987. Measuring the flow properties of
yield stress liquids. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24, 47–88.
Ohen, H.A., Blick, E.F., 1990. Golden search method for determina-
tion of parameters in Robertson–Stiff non-Newtonian fluid model.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 4, 309–316.
Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., 1992.
Numerical Recipes in Fortran, 2nd edition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Robertson, R.E., Stiff Jr., H.A., 1976. An improved mathematical
model for relating shear stress to shear rate in drilling fluids and
cement slurries. SPE J. 16, 31–36.
Schurz, J., 1992. A yield value in a true solution? J. Rheol. 36,
1319–1321.
Shulman, Z.P., 1968. On Phenomenological Generalization of
Viscoplastic Rheostable Disperse System Flow Curves, vol. 10.
Teplo-Massoperenos, Minsk.
Turian, R.M., Ma, T.W., Hsu, F.L.G., Sung, D.J., 1997. Characteriza-
tion, settling and rheology of concentrated fine particulate mineral
slurries. Powder Technol. 93, 219–233.
Walker, R.E., Mayes, T.M., 1975. Design of muds for carrying
capacity. Paper SPE 4975, J. Petr. Techn. 27, 893-900.
Yeow, Y.L., Ko, W.C., Tang, P.P.P., 2000. Solving the inverse problem
of Couette viscometry by Tikhonov regularization. J. Rheol. 44,
1335–1351.