SPE

Society of Petroletm Engineers of A 1M E

SPE 11993

Frictional Pressure Losses for the Flow of Drilling Mud and

Mud/Gas Mixtures
by J.P. Langlinais, A.T. Bourgoyne Jr., and W.R. Holden, Louisiana State U.
Members SPE-AIME

This paper was presented at the 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, October 5-8, 1983. The material is subject
to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway,
Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT flow data presented in the literature have been ob-

The calcuatiDn of single phase and two phase flow-
ing pressure gradients in a well annulus is generally
based on an extension of empirical correlations devel-
oped for Newtonian fluids in circular pipes. Various
techniques for extending pipe flow correlations to an
annular geometry have been presented in the literature
which involve the representation of the annular well
geometry with an equivalent circular diameter and the
representation of non-Newtonian fluid behavior with
an apparent Newtonian viscosity. Unfortunately, little
experimental data have been available which would allow
a comparison of the relative accuracy of the various
proposed techniques.
In this study, experimental pressure gradient data
have been taken in two 6000 ft. wells_ Frictional
pressure losses for single phase flow (mud only) in two
annuli were compared to values predicted by the Bingham
Plastic and Power law Models. These calculations util-
ized the equivalent diameters defined by the Crittendon
criteria, the hydraulic radius, and the slot approxima-
tion. Also, total pressure difference for two-phase
flow was measured for one annular geometry. This data
was compared to that predicted by the Poettmann and
Carpenter, Hagedorn and Brown, Orkiszewski, and Beggs
and Brill correlations.
Comparison of experimental data with the various
prediction techniques was favorable, each having ad-
vantage in certain situations. For the data investi-
gated, the Crittendon criteria using a Bingham Plastic diameter and apparent viscosity were evaluated using
Model gave the best results. The two phase flow data
was best predicted by the Hagedorn and Brown correla-
tion utilizing a hydraulic radius equivalent diameter.
INTRODUCTION
Historically, engineers have had considerable
difficulty estimating flowing pressure gradients in a
well annulus for drilling or well control operations.
Although several calculation procedures have been pre-
sented previously in the literature for extending em-
pirical pipe flow correlations to annular flow condi-
tions, little experimental annular flow data has been
available to establish the reliability of these pro-
posed techniques. In addition, essentially all annular
tained in laboratory apparatus, which are much smaller
lengths and diameters than the well systems of prac-
tical interest.
There are a number of situations in which an ac-
curate description is desired, for either (1) single
phase annular flow of a non-Newtonian mud or cement
slurry or (2) multiphase flow of a mud-gas mixture.
The calculation of equivalent circulating density (ECD)
during drilling or cementing operations are examples
of the need for an accurate single phase, non-Newton-
ian, annular flow model. Calculation of ECD's can be
particularly important in a deep, slim hole geometry,
or a deepwater drilling location which typically has
a greatly reduced formation fracture gradient. The
design of a dynamic kill of an uncontrolled flowing
well is an example of the need for an accurate multi-
phase, non-Newtonian, annular flow model. Another
example appl ication is the accurate prediction of
well behavior during conventional well control opera-
tions by means of a well control computer simulator.
They are often used for training rig personnel and
evaluating alternative pressure control procedures.
In this paper, experimental annular flow data
were obtained in two instrumented 6000 ft. wells for
both single phase and two phase conditions. These data
were then used to test the accuracy of several calcu-
lation techniques for predicting single phase and
multiphase annular flow pressure gradients. In parti-
cular, several schemes for estimating equivalent pipe
the Bingham Plastic and Power Law Models. Also, sev-
eral vertical, two phase pipe flow correlations were
extended for use in an annulus and evaluated using the
experimental data.
METHODS FOR COMPUTING ANNULAR GRADIENTS
Single Phase Flow
Both the Bingham Plastic and the Power Law Rheo-
logical Models were used in the study. Laminar flow
of a fluid, when using the Bingham Plastic Model~ can
be described using a slot flow equation given by'
 2 FRICTIONAL PRESSURE LOSSES FOR THE FLOW OF DRILLING MUD AND MUD-GAS MIXTURES SPE 11993
is used when employing the Bingham Plastic Model. A
correlation presented by Dodge and Metzner3 , given by
(1)
(9)

Laminar flow of a fluid described by the Power Law

Model is given by2 is used when the Power Law Model is employed.
(2) The equation used to determine the apparent vis-
~ P)
(. ~L f =
kii n
144,OOO(do - dj)(I + n)
r~ + 1. ]
LO.02~8J
n cosity, ~a' also differs for the Bingham Plastic and
Power Law Models. That is, when using the Bingham
Plastic Model, one approach is to use the plastic vis-
cosity for the apparent viscosity in determining the
Reynold's numhpr·
For both rheological modes, turbulent flow can be
described by (10)
(3)

(~L
~P) fpii2 When using the Power Law Model, the apparent viscosity
can be defined by
f = 25.8d e

where f is a Fanning Friction Factor and d is an

equivalent pipe diameter. Empirical correlations fLa
k (do - dj)U-n)
= 144i7 (I-n)
[2 +
*]n
.0208
(11 )

between the Fanning Friction Factor and Reynold's

Number, NR> exist for pipe flow. Reynold's Number
can be defined by
928 piid e
= (4)
fLa
for use in an annulus where de is the equivalent
pipe diameter and ~a is the apparent viscosity.
Three techniques for computing equivalent diameter,
d which were investigated in this paper include
r Four vertical, two phase flow correlations modi-
d: :;i[t~n~nd;i~r:~w:e;~ ~ ~ rd! _~1~
In(:~)J 2 L' 0 IJ
I 4.
the hydraulic radius, where
and the equivalent laminar flow slot, where
d. = .816 (do - dj}
A fourth criteria, suggested by Lamb, was found to
give essentially equivalent results to the equivalent
laminar flow slot formula for the range of do/di
ratios investigated.
The calculation of frictional pressure gradients
using the Crittendon criteria differs from the other
two shown in that the average velocity, V, must be
computed using a fictitious area defined by the equ-
ivalent diameter, de. The other criteria shown use
the actual annular area when computing velocity, v.
The Fanning Friction Factor correlation used
differs for the Bingham Plastic and Power Law Models.
The Colebrook function, given by
In this study, the transition from laminar to
turbulent flow was chosen as the conditions for which
the computed frictional pressure gradients for each
equal. Frictional gradients were always calculated
using both laminar and turbulent flow equations and
the correct value was chosen as the larger of the two
computed values.
Two Phase Flow
(5)
fied for use in this study included those presented by
1. Poettmann and Carpenter4
2.
3.
Hagedorn and Brown 5
Orkiszewski6
Beggs and Bril17,8
Pressure gradients at a given point were computed as
(6) recommended by these authors with the exception that
equivalent diameters computed using Equations (5),
(6), or (7) were used. In addition, the apparent liq-
uid viscosity was computed using either Equation (10)
or (11). When Equation (11) was employed, the average
(7) velocity, V, was replaced by a two-phase superficial
velocity, defined by
(12)
ii .,
Since pressure gradient varies with depth for
vertical two phase flow, a numerical integration pro-
cedure was employed to compute the total pressure
change between the bottom of the experimental wells
and the surface. This numerical procedure was accom-
plished using a high speed digital computer.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The experimental wells, each 6000 ft. deep, were
used in this study. The LSU B-7 well ,9 described in

'ff
I
• - 4 Loglo
r. I
L3.72
.!.. +
d. '!I
1.225 ]
NRe
(8) Fig. 1, permitted the determination of annular flow-
ing gradients in a 4.892 in. by 2.875 in. annulus and
a 2.442 in. by 1.315 in. annulus. Subsurface pres-
SPE 11993 J.P. LANGLIANAIS, A.T. BOURGOYNE, JR., and W.R. HOLDEN 3

sures can be monitored continuously using three viscosities (muds No.1 and 2), the standard deviation5
Sperry Sun pressure transmission systems installed at calculated were large relative to the actual pressures
depths of 3000 ft., 4000 ft. and 5000 ft. in the outer measured for all combinations investigated. The Power
annulus. The LSU-Goldking No.1 well, described in Law Model, utilizing a slot approximation equivalent
Fig. 2 permitted the determination of annular flowing diameter, was marginally better at these viscosities
gradients in a 2.441 in. by 1.315 in. annulus. Pre- and flow rates. Mud No. 4 was essentially in laminar
sure at 6000 ft. can be continuously monitored in this flow at all flow rates for this annulus. The Bingham
well, again by a Sperry Sun Pressure Transmission Sys- Plastic Model predictions were better than the Power
tem. These wells are routinely used for blowout pre- Law Model in this case, particularly at the higher
vention training and research. The B-7 well modes a values of flow rate.
subsea BOP stack situation.
A significant observation, within the limits of
An unweighted, water base drilling mud was used in the data taken, is that the rate of increase of fric-
this study. The viscous characteristics of the mud tional pressure loss as a function of flow rate was
were varied by clay content. The mud was conditioned much greater than that predicted by any of the methods
by circulating the well for several hours prior to investigated for muds in laminar flow in the larger
making any pressure measurements. The rheological annulus. In all cases, predicted pressure losses
properties of the mud were monitored periodically dur- were approximately equal to or greater than measured
ing experimental runs to insure a uniform fluid sys- pressure losses at low flow rates, but were much less
tem and termperature profile. Rheological properties than measured values at high flow rates.
were determined using a standard mud rotational visco-
meter. This instrument was selected to consistent Two Phase Flow
with current conventional field practice.
The experiment conducted for flow of a mud-gas
Mud properties measured in this study are sum- mixture in an annulus was suggested by previous work
marized in Table 1. All Bingham Plastic and Power where the authors were interested in two phase flow
Law flow parameters were computed using the 600 and in long choke lines. 9 In that work it was found that
300 rpm readings of the rotational viscometer. available two phase flow correlations mentioned pre-
viously were adequate to predict pressure gradients
Nitrogen gas was used in the two phase flow ex- for mud-gas mixtures in a pipe.
periments. The gas was placed in the well by injec-
ting at a constant rate down the 1.315 in. tubing The observed and predicted total pressure dif-
(inner most tubing string). Gas flow rate into the ference for the two phase flow of gas and mud in the
well was monitored using a 2 in. Daniels Turbine 6000 ft. 2.441 in. by 1.315 in. annulus of the B-7
Meter while exist gas flow rate was monitored using Well is given in Tables XI and XII. The data pre-
an 8 in. Daniels Orifice Meter installed on the vent sented in Table XII represents the four previously
line of a flowline degasser. Desired back pressure mentioned vertical two phase flow correlations, each
was held on the well at the surface using a Cameron, utilizing all three equivalent diameters to calculate
hand adjustable, drilling choke. the frictional pressure loss component of the total
pressure difference.
EVALUATION OF DATA
The Poettmann and Carpenter correlation is inde-
Single Phase Flow pendent of viscosity which consequently makes in in-
dependent of rheological model. Also, this correla-
The various muds investigated with their rheolog- tion predicted total pressure differences much less
ical properties are listed in Table 1. Actual data than that observed. This result should be expected
measured along with the predicted frictional pressure since the mud used had a consequential viscosity.
losses described using slot flow equations such as
Eq's (1) and (2) are independent of equivalent dia- The Orkiszewski correlation is extremely sensitive
meter. Therefore, laminar pressure losses are listed to equivalent diameter used due to its attempt to de-
as a separate column for the Bingham Plastic and fine flow regime as a function of pipe diameter. The
Power Law Models. The transition to turbulent flow calculated total pressure difference using this cor-
is that predicted by the methods using the different relation tended toward excessively high values when
equivalent diameters. Table X is a list of standard smaller equivalent diameters were used.
deviations calculated from the muds, rheological mod-
els, and equivalent diameters investigated. The best results were obtained with the Hagedorn
and Brown correlation using a Power Law Rheological
At low values of mud viscosity (muds No. 1 and 3) Model (see Fig. 5) and an equivalent diameter defined
in the 2.441 in. by 1.315 in. annulus the best pre- by the hydraulic radius concept. This combination
diction was that of the slot approximation method gave a standard deviation of 80 psi for the experimen-
with either mud model. With the data taken, it is tal data taken, which is approximately 2% of observed
difficult to chose either the Bingham Plastic or pressure differences. Also, the Hagedorn and Brown
Power Law Model for this equivalent diameter. However correlation was less sensitive to the particular equi-
at higher mud viscosities (muds No.4 and 5), the valent diameter used. Results using the Crittendon
hydraulic radius method with the Bingham Plastic and slot approximation equivalent diameters with this
Model gave the best results. Overall, the Crittendon correlation were within approximately 10% of measured
equivalent diameter in conjunction with the Bingham values.
Plastic Model gave the best results for all four muds.
CONCLUSIONS
Much of the data taken in the 4.892 in. by 2.875
in. annulus was at laminar flow conditions. At low For single phase flow, the calculation of annular
 4 FRICTIONAL PRESSURE LOSSES FOR THE FLOW OF
flowing pressure gradients is more sensitive to the
. ~RILLING MUD AND MUD-GAS MIXTURES SPE 11993
di - OD of inner pipe, in
method used to determine equivalent diameter than the
rheological model. Good results, however, could be de - equivalent diameter, in
obtained with either the Bingham Plastic or the Power
Law Model. f - Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
For vertical, annular, two phase flow of gas-mud k - consistency index, eq. cp
mixtures, under the experimental conditions studied,
the use of the Hagedorn and Brown correlation with L - pipe length, feet
equivalent diameter chosen from the hydraulic radius
concept and apparent liquid viscosity chosen using n - flow behavior index, dimensionless
a Power Law Rheological Model provided the most ac-
curate prediction of flowing pressure gradients. Cal- NR - Reynolds number, dimensionless
culations were much less sensitive to the method of
determining apparent viscosity and equivalent diameter NRe - Generalized, or equivalent, Reynolds number,
than to the two phase flow correlation selected. In
particilar, variations in apparent viscosity and equi- dimensionless
valent diameter did not greatly alter results obtained !lP
using the Hagedorn and Brown correlation. 61 . frictional pressure gradient, psi/ft
REFERENCES q - gal/min
1. Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr., et al., Applied Drilling qg - gas flow rate, ft 3/sec
Engineering, Louisiana State University, Petrol~um 3
Engineering Department. qm - mud flow rate, ft /sec
2. Metzner, A.B. and Reed, J.C., "Flow of Non-Newton- v - average velocity, ft/sec
ian Fluids-Correlation of the Laminar, Transition
and Turbulent-Flow Regions", AIChE Journal, Vol.l v
m - mixture superficial velocity, ft/sec
(Dec., 1955).
- apparent viscosity, cp
3. Dodge, D.W. and Metzner, A.B., "Turbulent Flow of
Non-Newtonian Systems", AIChE Journal, Vol. 5 ~e - equivalent mud viscosity, cp
(June, 1959).
~p - mud plastic viscosity, cp
4. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G., "The Multi-
phase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water through Vertical p - mud denSity, ppg
Flow Strings with Application to the Design of
Gas Lift Installation", Drilling and Production ty - yield point, Ibs/10 ft 2
Practices (1952).
6600 - viscometer dial reading at 600 rpm, degrees
5. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E., "Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During 6300 - viscometer dial reading at 300 rpm, degrees
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter
Vertical Conduits", Journal of Petroleum Techno- g - absolute pipe roughness, inches
]Qgy (Apri 1, 1965). g
d - relative pipe roughness, dimensionless
6. Orkiszewski, J., "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure
Drop in Vertical Pipe", Journal of Petroleum SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Technology (June, 1967).
7. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P., "A Study of Two-Phase
Flow in Inclined Pipes", Journal of Petroleum bbl (42 U.S. gal) x 0.1589873 = m3
Technology (May, 1973).
feet x 0.3048 = m
8. Brill, J.P. and Beggs,H.D., Two-Phase Flow in
Pipes, the University of Tul sa (1968). cp x 0.001 = pa-sec

9. Elfaghi, F.A., Langlinais, J.P., Bourgoyne, A.T. psi x 6894.757 = pa

and Holden, W.R., "Frictional Pressure Loss for
Si ngl e Phase and Two Phase Flow of Dri 11 i ng Muds", psi/ft x 22620.59 = palm
Journal of Energy Resources Technoloqy, (To be
published - 1983). ppg x 119.8264 = kg/m 3
NONENCLATURE lbs/IOO ft2 x 0.135939 = nt/m 2
A - cross sectional area, ft2 gal/min (gpm) x 0.0000630902 = m3/s
d - pipe inside diameter, inches
do - ID of outer pipe, in
 TABLE I
PROPERTIES OF CLAY-WATER MUDS

Mud Mud Mud Mud Mud

Mud Property No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5
Density, ppg 8.6 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.85
Plastic Viscosity, .cp 5.0 6.5 7.5 13.0 13.5
Yield Point, lb/100 ft2 1.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 4.0
Flow Behavior Index, n .874 .784 .807 .784 .824

Consistency Index, eq. cpo 13.1 34.6 33.3 69.2 52.2

Fann VG Readings

T600 11.0 15.5 17 .5 31.0 31.0

T300 6.0 9.0 10.0 18.0 17.5

T200 4.5 6.5 7.0 13.0 12.5

T100 2.5 3.5 4.0 8.0 7.0

Table II

Single Phase Flow for Mud No. 1 (PV = 5.0) in the 2.441" x 1.315" Annulus

Flow Measured aPf predicted by Bingham Model, Psi ap f Predicted by Power Law Model, Psi
Rate, llPf
GPM ~ laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7

36.8 278 200( -58)T 200( -78)T 260( -18)T 207 ( -71)T 193( -85)T 252( -26)T
44.1 365 302( -63) 274( -91) 355( -10) 281( -84) 262(-103) 340( -25)
51.5 462 398( -64) 358( -104) 465 ( 3) 366( -96) 339(-123) 441( -21)
58.8 573 504( -69) 453( -120) 586( 13) 460( -113) 424(-149) 551( -22)
68.4 722 660( -62) 591(-131) 765( 43) 596(-126) 548(-174) 710( -12)
75.0 850 778( -72) 695(-155) 89'J( 49) 698( -152) 640( -210) 829( -21)
80.9 985 892( -93) 794(-191) 1028( 43) 795(-190) 728( -257) 943( -42)
88.2 1159 1041(-118) 926 ( -233) 1197( 38) 923(-236) 843( -316) 1091( -68)
97.0 1375 1236(-139) 1096( -279) 1417 ( 42) 1088 ( -287) 992(-383) 1292( -93)
101.4 1466 1339 ( -127) 1186(-280) 1533( 67) 1175(-291) 1070( -396) 1383( -83)

Standard Deviation 91.2 181.0 37.9 182.2 244.7 49.7

Note: ( ) is the difference from measured

T is the first predicted turbulence flow rate

Table III

Single Phase Flow for Mud No.3 (PV = 7.5) in the 2.441" X 1.315" annulus

Flow Measured llP f Predicted by Bingham Model, psi llP f Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, aPt
GPM ~ laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7

29.0 184 166( -18) 196( 12)T 151("33) 199( 15)T

37.0 283 249( -34)T 229( -54)T 298( 15) 246( -37)T 224( -59)T 293( 10)
47.0 429 379( -50) 346( -83) 450( 21) 346( -83) 330( -99) 431( 2)
56.4 582 522( -60) 475(-107) 616( 34) 469(-113) 444(-138) 579( -3)
67.2 767 712( -55) 644(-123) 835( 68) 629(-138) 592(-175) 771( 4)
76.6 987 898( -89) 809(-178) 1049( 62) 784( -203) 735( -252) 956( -31)
87.4 1246 1136(-110) 1020(-226) 1321( 75) 980( -266) 914( -332) 1188( -58)
93.0 1382 1269(-113) 1137(-245) 1473( 91) 1088( -294) 1014( -368) 1317( -65)

Standard Deviation 18.0 78.7 160.0 55.2 33.0 184.3 230.6 33.4

Note: ( ) is difference from measured

T is the first predicted turbulence flow date

1Jqq~
 Table IV

Single Phase Flow for Mud No. 4 (PV = 13.0) in the 2.44111 x 1.315 11 annulus

Flow Measured L\.Pf Predicted by Bingham Model, psi L\.Pf Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, L\.Pf
GPM ~- laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7
--- --- --~ .. --- ---

34.7 277 339 (62) 317 (42)

39.2 329 366(37) 388( 59)T 349 (20) 388( 59)T
40.7 325 375 (50) 414( 89) 360(35) 412( 87)
44.1 383 395(12) 474( 91) 383( 0) 467( 84)
52.0 506 577( 71)T 480( -26)T 627( 121) 579 ( 73)T 461( -45)T 606( 100)
53.3 515 588( 73) 501( -14) 653( 138) 590( 75) 480( -35) 630( 115)
54.8 505 600( 95) 525( 20) 685 ( 180) 603( 98) 502( -3) 658( 153)
61.4 659 694( 35) 638( -21) 832( 173) 659( 0) 602( -57) 789( l30)
64.2 678 750( 72) 689( 11) 898( 220) 683( 5) 647( -31) 847( 169)
67.4 717 816( 99) 749( 32) 976( 259) 727( 10) 699( -18) 915 ( 198)
68.9 728 849( 121) 77B( 50) 10l3( 285) 754( 26) 725 ( -3) 948( 220)
69.0 711 850( 139) 780( 69) 1016( 305) 756( 45) 726( 15) 951( 240)
69.3 808 857( 49) 786( -18) 1023( 215) 761( -47) 731( -77) 957( 149)
76.8 910 1026( 116) 938( 28) 1221 ( 311) 903( -7) 864( -46) 1129 ( 210)
78.3 895 1062( 167) 970( 75) 1262( 368) 932( 37) 891( -4) 1165 ( 270)
80.3 1005 1110( 105) 1013( 8) 13l8( 313) 972( -33) 928( -77) 1213( 198)
84.6 977 l216( 239) 1109( 132) l442( 465) 1060( 83) 1010( 33) 1319 ( 342)
84.6 995 l216( 221) 1109 ( 114) 1442( 447) 1060( 65) 10IO( 15) 1319 ( 324)
88.2 1146 1309( 163) 1192( 114) l550( 404) 1136( -14) 108I( -65) 1411( 265)
88.2 1164 l309( 145) 1192 ( 28) ISS0( 386) 1136( -28) 1081( -8) 1411 ( 247)
90.9 1211 1380( 169) 1256( 45) 1633( 422) 1194( -17) 1135( -76) 1482( 271)
96.1 1353 1522( 169) 1383( 30) 1797 ( 444) 1310( -43) 1243( -110) 1621 ( 268)
101.9 1470 1688( 218) 1532( 162) 1989( 519) 1445 ( -25) 1368( -102) 1783( 313)
102.4 1521 1703( 182) 1545( 24) 2006( 485) 1456( -65) 1379(-142) 1798( 277)
104.0 1532 1750( 218) 1587( 55) 2061( 529) 1495 ( -35) 1414( -118) 1843( 311)

Standard Deviation 44.3 160.3 61.5 338.4 29.1 75.9 72.5 225.7

Note: ( ) is the difference from measured

T is the first predicted turbulence flow data

Table V

Single Phase Flow for Mud No.5 (PV = 13.5) in the 2.441" x 1.315" annulus

Flow Measured L\.Pf Predicted by Bingham Model, psi L\.Pf Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, L\.Pf
GPM ~ laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7
.. - - - -

29.0 228 286( 58) 261( 33)

36.7 350 333( -17) 349 ( -1)T 317(-33) 351( I)T
45.7 474 511( 37)T 389( -85)T 505( 31) 512( 38)T 380 ( -94)T 497( 23)
54.6 612 590( -22) 524( -88) 683( 71) 593( -19) 504( -108) 661( 49)
65.3 780 773( -7) 711( -69) 927 ( 147) 706( -74) 674(-106) 882( 102)
75.2 990 990( 0) 907 ( -83) 1180( 190) 893( -97) 849 (-141) 1109 ( 119)
85.3 1200 1235( 35) 1127( -73) 1466( 266) 1103( -97) 1043(-157) 1362( 162)
92.0 1364 1410( 46) 1285( -79) 1670( 306) 1252(-112) 1182 (-182) 1541( 177)
104.1 1715 1753( 38) 1592( -123) 2068( 353) 1541(-174) 1449 (-266) 1887 ( 172)
110.7 1861 1954( 93) 1771( -89) 2300( 439) 1710(-151) 1604( -257) 2088( 227)
111.4 1878 1976( 98) 1791( -87) 2326( 448) 1728( -150) 1620 (-258) 2109 ( 231)

Standard Deviation 42.7 71.6 87.5 287.8 33.0 121.7 186.4 155.8

Note: ( ) is the difference from measured

T is the first predicted turbulence flow data

Table VI

Single Phase Flow for Mud No. 5 (PV = 5.0) in the 4.892" x 2.875" annulus

Flow Measured L\.Pf Predicted by Bingham Model, psi L\.Pf Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, L\.Pf -------
GPM ~ laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6de x Eq 7
--- - - - - -----
33.S IS 21( 3) 11( -7) 12( -6)T
41.2 27 23( -4) 13(-14) 17( -10)
50.0 32 25( -7) 21( -l1)T 18( -14)T 23( -9)
57.3 38 26(-12) 28( -10)T 24( -14) 22( -16) 29( -9)
64.7 47 34( -14)T 27( -20)T 34( -13) 28( -19) 27( -20) 35( -12)
70.6 57 3S( -22) 30( -27) 39( -IS) 32( -25) 31( -26) 41( -16)
77.9 64 39( -25) 36( -28) 47( -17) 38( -26) 37( -27) 48( -16)
82.3 68 49( -31) 46( -34) 59( -21) 48( -32) 40( -34) 60( -20)
95.6 84 55( -29) 5I( -33) 66( -18) 54( -30) 51( -33) 67( -17)
101.4 .96 61( -35) 57( -390 74( -22) 60( -36) 57( -39) 74( -22)

Standard Deviation 7.4 26.4 30.6 18.1 11.1 25.2 27.5 14.7
Note: ( ) is the difference from measured
T is the first predicted turbulence flow data

JJqqj
 Table VII

Single Phase Flow for Mud No.2 (PV = 6.5) in the 4.892" x 2.875" annulus

Flow Measured l>.p f Predicted by Bingham Model, psi l>.p f Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, l>.Pf
GPM ~ laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x E~ laminar d e x Eq 5 de x Eq 6: de x Eq 7
-----
29.6 25 45( 20) 18( -7)
30.9 20 45( 25) 18( -2)
36.3 26 46( 20) 21 ( -5)
39.0 32 47( 15) 22( -10)
44.4 34 48( 14) 24(-10)
48.4 42 49( 7) 26( -16)
52.4 42 50( 8) 28(-14) 29( -13)T
56.4 50 51( 1) 29( -21) 33( -17)
59.1 50 52( 2) 31(-19) 35( -15)
67.2 58 54( -4) 34( -24) 43( -15)
67.2 61 54( -7) 34( -27) 43( -18)
72.6 65 55(-10) 49( -16)T 37( -28)T 49( -16) I
75.3 69 56(-13) 50( -19) 39( -30) 52( -17)
76.6 73 56(-17) 51( -22) 40( -33) 53( -20)
83.3 79 58( -21) 54( -25) 46( -33) 61( -18)
86.0 86 59( -27)T 60( -28)T 56( -30) 49( -37) 64( -22)
90.0 92 60( -32) 65( -37) 58( -34) 52( -40) 68( -24)

Standard Deviation 14.2 29.6 32.8 16.1 16.5 33.8 18.0

Note: ( ) is the difference from measured
T is the first predicted turbulence flow data

Table VIII

Single Phase Flow for Mud No.3 (PV = 7.5) in the 4.892" x 2.875" annulus

Flow Measured l>.Pf Predicted by Bingham Model, psi liPf Predicted by Power Law Model, psi
Rate, l>.Pf
GPM ~- laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7 laminar de x Eq 5 de x Eq 6 de x Eq 7
---- ---- ---- ----
28.2 17 45( 28) 18( 1)
37.6 25 48( 23) 23( -2)
47.0 36 51( 15) 27( -9)
63.2 57 55( -2) 34( -23) 41( -16)T
75.3 75 59(-16) 54( -21)T 41( -34)T 54( -21)
82.7 86 61(-25) 58( -28) 47 ( -39) 62( -24)
88.7 94 66( -28)T 62( -32) 53( -41) 70( -24)
98.8 105 74( -31) 65( -40) 59( -46) 77 ( -28)

Standard Deviation 20.1 29.5 12.4 31.0 40.2 22.9

Note: ( ) is the difference from measured

T is the first predicted turbulence flow data

Table IX

Single Phase Flow for Mud No.4 (PV = 13.0) in the 4.892" x 2.875" Annulus

Flow Measured l>.p Predicted by l>.pf Predicted by

Rate, l>.pf, ~ingham MOd;l, psi Power Law Modell l!si
GPM ~- laminar· laminar de x Eq 7'Bi

36.2 44 93( 49) 42( -2)

39.2 71 94( 23) 44( -27)
40.7 66 95( 29) 46( -20)
47.3 60 98( 38) 51( -9)
53.3 85 101 ( 16) 56( -29)
54.8 79 102( 23) 58( -21)
56.7 78 103( 25) 59( -19)
62.7 96 106( 10) 64( -32)
66.2 101 108( 7) 67( -34)
70.5 95 110( 15) 70( -25)
73.6 110 111( 1) 72( -38)
75.6 124 112( -12) 74( -50)
84.6 123 117( -6) 81( -42)
87.7 117 118( 1) 83( -34)
88.2 156 119 ( -37) 84( -72)
96.0 176 122( -54) 89( -87) 96( -80lT
97.1 141 l23( -18) 90( -51) 98( -43)
102.3 186 126( -60) 94( -92) 106( -80)
103.4 139 126( -13) 95( -44) 108( -31)

Standard Deviation 28.6 44.9 62.5

;'Bingham Model predicted laminar flow for all flow rates
**Eq. 7 was the only method to predict turbulent flow
Note: () is the difference from measured
T is the first predicted turbulence flow data
 Table X

Comparison of Standard Deviations for Single Phase Flow of Muds

Bingham Model Power Law Model

Mud laminar d x Eq 5 d x Eq b d x Eq 7. laminar d e x Eq 5 de x Eq b de x Eq 7
e e e
2.441"x1.313"

1 91.2 181. 0 37.9 182.2 244.7 49.7

3 18.0 78.7 160.0 55.2 33.0 184.3 230.6 33.4
4 44.3 160.3 61.5 338.4 29.1 75.9 72.5 225.7
5 42.7 71.6 87.5 287.8 33.0 121. 7 186.4 155.8

4.892"x2.975"

1 7 .4 26.4 30.6 18.1 11.1 25.2 27.5 14.7

2 14.2 29.6 32.8 16.1 16.5 33.8 18.0
3 20.1 29.5 12.4 31.0 40.2 22.9
4 28.6 44.9 62.5

TABLE XI
TWO-PHASE FLOW DATA

Flow Gas GLR BHP M'Total

Data Rate Rate Meas. Meas. Meas.
Point (GPM) (SCF/Min) (SCF/BB1) (Psi) (Psi)

86.8 300. 145. 5255. 3695.

2 98.6 450. 192. 5425. 4181.

3 86.2 600. 292. 5500. 3735.

4 87.9 650. 311. 5195. 3835.

5 86.2 650. 317. 5330. 3790.

6 87.5 1000. 480. 5173. 3954.

BELL NIPPLE

HYORILL "GK"
6"-5000Ib WP BLOWOUT PRE VENTER
CB-MERON TYPE U
6 - 11000 lb. W.P

3000 lb. CASINGHEAO

13 3/8". IZ"

NOTE: Otpth Qalum

•• 14.5 Above
B.H.F.

- 4900' THEORETICAL TOP OF

THE CEMENT

6.50 Ib.lfl., .1- 55 TUBING

: _6011' 2 7IB" 0.0.
: 6029' 1.315" 00
: ::;- INTEGRAL .I01NT TUBING
l
CHECK VALVE
. ;'.;.- ,
. : -1097' FLOAT COLLAR
.:~.. 17 Ib/fl., .I-55 CASING
: ..•..•, _ 6140' & VZ" 0.0.
.••. :.~. - 6150' BAKER BRIOGE PLUG
" &/8" 00.
43.5 Ib.lfl., N'IO CASING

Fig. 1-Schematic of LSU B-7 well.

Jlqq~
 NR(I'p) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
I i i I i I
I 5'T. ~CIo eli) I
DEEPWATER OFFSHORE WELL LSU RESEARCH AND TRAINING WELL NR<I'a =I'p+ Ii .) 1000 2000 ~O 4000 5000 .6~0
, I I I I
Botlom HoI. Pr....... S"nal N,t(I'a by Eq. II) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 ·6000
T'- La, I..Irurn.ntatlon Formation P,,",uctlvlty I I i i I I I
11.... lotOl" Contrail 160
\ BINGHAM
- - - - POWER LAW
~ 140
Gray Tripi.
..
CJ)
WoHhood High PrlllUrl U)
Hz StOfOlll
o
Modol Drill Pip•
.(2.8n1ln. lbblngl ..J 120
ILl
IO.nlln. CoIlnll 0:::
:::>
U)
Mod.1 Subl.. U)
Flowlln.. ILl 100
12.375 In. lbblnol
0:::
Q..
Surloci ConlroUld H,drll Surfac.
Subllo Wino llal .. Conlroll.d ..J
SublUrfoc. Volvi <[
Subllo BOP Slack Z 80
Bokor TrIpi.
PoroUl1 Flow Tubl o
~_ _....._SIO Floor Sirnulolad
SlaFlOOr-- ~
Bokor Packer
U
0:::
IL. 60

7.625 in. Callno

40

Gol Injection TUb. 20

Inllul 01 Goa Caua.. Sperr, Sun PrlllUro

Throollnld Blowoul Tranlmlllion S,IIom
For Bottom Halo .
Pr ••• ur. SenlDr
6000'
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
FLOW RATE. GPM

Fig. 2-Schematic of LSU-Goldking No.1 well. Fig. 3-Predicted and measured frictional pressure losses for a d. by hydraulic radius in the
2.441-1n. x 1.315-1n. annulus.
 NR (I'pl 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000
I I I
5QOO j
I 5Ty tC\O-dil
NR(I'a :I'p+ 0 ) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
I I I I I I
NR!I'a by Eq. III 1000 20pO 3000 4000 5000
I I I I· I
160
• "
POWER LAW BINGHAM de "
- - - - POWER LAW
BINGHAM o •.. 1.717"
" ""
A 1.126" "
140 000 C
• 0.919" ""
/0
o 4500 "
• /

• / ""
~ ""
• • • c""
120
,,/"0
en
C/) ~
o c 0/ "
..J 100 ..J c ,,"
~
""
W
a::: o " A
:::> I-
" "
""
C/) a.. 4000 "
...... ..
/
C/)
<I " / "
""
W 80
a:::
Q..
o
I.iJ "" """
..J
l-
e::[
""
" A
,," ""
« ..J
:::)
/
/

Z 60 U / "
o
""
..J
....o e::[
U /
/

"
e: /
"" •
""
40 /
3500
"
0\0 " ""

...
,0 '/ o
,,/'
20 "
"e"
"
"
,// 0 0
00 •
3500 4000 4500
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 MEASURED ~P TOTAL (PSI)

FLOW RATE. GPM

Fig. 4-Predicted and measured frictional pressure losses for a d, by the slot approximation in the Fig. 5-Comparison of measured two-phase pressure difference to Hagedorn and Brown correlation.

--
2.441-in. x 1.315-in. annulus.