energies

Article
Apparent Viscosity Prediction of Water-Based Muds Using
Empirical Correlation and an Artificial Neural Network
Emad A. Al-Khdheeawi 1,2, * and Doaa Saleh Mahdi 2
1 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Curtin University, Kensington 6151, Australia
2 Petroleum Technology Department, University of Technology, Baghdad 10066, Iraq
* Correspondence: e.al-khdheeawi@postgrad.curtin.edu.au




Received: 24 June 2019; Accepted: 7 August 2019; Published: 9 August 2019


Abstract: Apparent viscosity is of one of the main rheological properties of drilling fluid. Monitoring
apparent viscosity during drilling operations is very important to prevent various drilling problems
and improve well cleaning efficiency. Apparent viscosity can be measured in the laboratory using
rheometer or viscometer devices. However, this laboratory measurement is a time-consuming
operation. Thus, in this paper, we have developed a new empirical correlation and a new artificial
neural network model to predict the apparent viscosity of drilling fluid as a function of two simple and
fast measurements of drilling mud (i.e., March funnel viscosity and mud density). 142 experimental
measurements for different drilling mud samples have been used to develop the new correlation.
The calculated apparent viscosity from the developed correlation and neural network model has
been compared with the measured apparent viscosity from the laboratory. The results show that
the developed correlation and neural network model predict the apparent viscosity with very good
accuracy. The new correlation and neural network models predict the apparent viscosity with a
correlation coefficient (R) of 98.8% and 98.1% and an average absolute error (AAE) of 8.6% and 10.9%,
respectively, compared to the R of 89.2% and AAE of 20.3% if the literature correlations are used.
Thus, we conclude that the newly developed correlation and artificial neural network (ANN) models
are preferable to predict the apparent viscosity of drilling fluid.

Keywords: rheological properties; drilling mud; apparent viscosity; marsh funnel; mud weight

1. Introduction
Drilling mud, or drilling fluid, represents any fluid which used during an oil well drilling
operation [1]. Generally, drilling fluid pumps from the surface tanks to the well bottom via the drill
string and bit and circulates back to the surface tanks through the annulus (i.e., the annular space
between the drill string and the open hole or casing) [2]. In drilling mud, solids are suspended in
water or oleic fluid with surfactants. The solids provide weight to the drilling fluid for pressure
control, which represents the main objective of the drilling mud [3]. Furthermore, drilling mud has
many other functions, including removing the cutting from the well bottom to the surface, sealing
permeable reservoirs, transmitting the hydraulic power to the bit, reducing the formation damage, and
cooling, lubricating the drill string, etc. [4]. The majority of the used drilling fluids are water-based.
In water-based mud, the used liquid can be either freshwater or saltwater, which have been used in
this study. Water-based muds are preferable because they are cheap, easy to prepare, and able to
mitigate most well control problems [5]. Water-based mud can be classified into three types, which are
inhibitive, non-inhibitive, and polymer fluids [2]. Drilling mud also can be a gaseous or nonaqueous
base [4,5]. Drilling mud viscosity is one of the rheological properties of drilling mud [5]. Viscosity
represents a measure of matter’s resistance to a deforming force [3]. Thus, drilling mud viscosity needs
to be adequately measured and controlled. Generally, the amount of drilling mud viscosity must be

Energies 2019, 12, 3067; doi:10.3390/en12163067 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 3067 2 of 10

sufficient to suspend the mud solids. Thus, a drilling cutting’s retention in drilling mud depends on
the drilling mud’s viscosity. Viscosity is highly affected by the shear rate. Increasing the shear rate in
high viscosity drilling muds improves the retention of the solids on the drilling mud and decreases the
performance of high shear solid removal tools (e.g., shale shaker) [6]. However, decreasing the shear
rate in high viscosity drilling muds decreases the performance of the low shear solid removal tools
(e.g., centrifuges) because the viscosity is inversely proportional to the solid settling velocity and the
efficiency of separation [7]. Drilling fluid viscosity can be altered favourably for downhole conditions
by using nanomaterials [8–10]. However, such complexities in the composition of viscosity prediction
have not been considered in this study.
Even though apparent viscosity can be measured in the lab using a VG meter apparatus, this lab
measurement is considered a time-consuming operation. There were some previous studies carried out
in this area, which resulted in the development of new empirical correlations to predict the apparent
viscosity of drilling mud.
Pitt [11] introduced a correlation (µa = ρ (t − 25)) to predict the apparent drilling fluid viscosity (µa )
as a function of Marsh funnel viscosity (t) and mud weight (ρ), with a correlation coefficient of 89.2.
He used a numerical model to simulate the drilling mud’s flow behavior in a Marsh funnel.
Elkatatny et al. [12] developed new empirical correlations to estimate the apparent viscosity of the
drilling fluid as a function of mud density, solid percent, and Marsh funnel viscosity using an artificial
neural network (ANN).
Thus, here, a new correlation and a new artificial neural network model have been developed
to estimate the apparent viscosity of drilling fluid as a function of March funnel viscosity and mud
density using 142 experimental measurements.

2. Artificial Neural Network

An Artificial neural network (ANN) is considered an important tool to solve non-linear and
complex problems between any input and output parameters [13–21]. ANNs have various applications
in different fields (e.g., medicine, electronics, aerospace, petroleum industry, and chemistry) [22–25].
The structure of the ANN model comprises of three different components, which are a learning
algorithm, transfer function, and network architecture [13–21]. In addition, each ANN model should
be made up of at least three layers (i.e., input, hidden and output layers). Some ANN models may have
multiple hidden layers. These layers are connected to each other by weights, which is an adjustment
between the layers is the main factor affecting the neural network performance. Further, the number of
hidden layer neurons affects the neural network’s performance (i.e., reducing the number of hidden
layer neurons results in underfitting, while increasing the number of hidden layer neurons leads to
overfitting) [26]. Hidden layers are usually assigned to a transfer function (tan or log), while output
layers usually assign to an activation function (per line). Thus, it is essential to optimize the number
of neurons in the hidden layer. Network training is the first step in the development of a neural
network model. Hence, the input data processes from the input layer to the output layer via the hidden
layer. In the output layer, the predicted data will be compared with the actual data. This training
processes continuously until the average error between the measured and predicted data reached the
user-defined value.

3. Experimental Measurements
This section covers the used experimental procedure to measure the field data (i.e., apparent
viscosity, Marsh Funnel viscosity, and mud weight) that are used in this study to develop the new
mathematical model.

3.1. Drilling Mud Preparation

In order to prepare the required experimental data to develop the new correlation for predicting
apparent viscosity, 142 laboratory and field experiments were performed on two different types of
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 3 of 10

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11

drilling mud: Ferro Chrome Lignosulfonate (FCL) mud, and Salt Saturated mud (SSM), which is a
drilling mud:mud
water-based Ferro Chrome Lignosulfonate
containing high concentrations (FCL)ofmud,
sodiumandchloride
Salt Saturated
(NaCl) [4].mud (SSM),
First, which
for both is a
types
water-based mud containing high concentrations of sodium chloride
of water-based drilling mud, the PH of water was treated to be approximately 9 by adding caustic(NaCl) [4]. First, for both types
of
Sodawater-based drilling the
(NaOH). Second, mud, the PH
water March of water
Funnel was treatedincreased
viscosity to be approximately 9 by adding
by using Bentonite for thecaustic
FCL
Soda
muds(NaOH).
and hydrated Second, the water
Bentonite March Funnel
or Attapulgite viscosity
for the SSM muds.increased by using Bentonite
Carboxymethyl cellulose for the FCL
(CMC), and
muds and hydrated Bentonite or Attapulgite for the SSM muds. Carboxymethyl
Starch were used to control the fluid loss and filtration of the FCL and SSM muds, respectively. Finally, cellulose (CMC),
and Starch
for both FCLwere
andused SSMtomuds, control the fluid
Barite loss and
was used filtrationthe
to increase of mixture
the FCL density
and SSM inmuds,
order to respectively.
obtain the
Finally, for both FCL and
required drilling mud weight [27]. SSM muds, Barite was used to increase the mixture density in order to
obtain the required drilling mud weight [27].
3.2. Apparent Viscosity Measurement
3.2. Apparent Viscosity Measurement
Drilling fluids can be classified into two main groups: Newtonian fluids and non-Newtonian
Drilling fluids can
fluids [3]. Viscosity be classified of
is independent into
thetwo main
shear rategroups: Newtonian
in Newtonian fluids
fluids, whileandit non-Newtonian
is a function of
fluids
the shear[3]. Viscosity is independentfluids.
rate in non-Newtonian of the shear rate inviscosity
Apparent Newtonian andfluids, while
the other it is a function
rheological of the
properties
shearplastic
(i.e., rate inviscosity,
non-Newtonianyield point,fluids.
andApparent viscosity
gel strengths) and the otherdrilling
of non-Newtonian rheologicalfluidsproperties
are measured (i.e.,
plastic
in the oilviscosity,
industry yield point,
using theand gel strengths)
Bingham Plastic of non-Newtonian
mathematical drilling fluids
rheological modelare measured
[28,29]. in the
All above
oil industry properties
rheological using the Bingham Plasticfrom
are calculated mathematical
VG meterrheological model
readings (i.e., R300[28,29].
and RAll600 above
). In therheological
Bingham
properties
Plastic model, are itcalculated
is assumed from
thatVG
themeter
curve ofreadings (i.e., R300
shear stress vs. theand R600).
shear rateIn
is athe Bingham
straight line,Plastic
which model,
should
it
notis cross
assumed that the
the origin curve
(i.e., of shear
the curve stress vs.
intercept thewith
point sheartherate is a stress,
shear straight line, is
which which
called should
the yieldnot point,
cross
the
shouldorigin
be (i.e.,
morethe curve
than zero) intercept
(Figure point
1) [30].with
Thethe shear stress,
Bingham Plasticwhich
modelisuses
called thethe yield point,
following should
equations:
be more than zero) (Figure 1) [30]. The Bingham Plastic model uses the following equations:
γ
τ = PV (  ) + YP (1)
 𝑃𝑉 300 𝑌𝑃 (1)
300
PV = R600 − R300 (2)
𝑃𝑉 𝑅 𝑅 (2)
𝑌𝑃 = R𝑅300 − PV
YP PV (3)
(3)
R600
µa = 𝑅 (4)
𝜇 2 (4)
2
where τ = shear stress (lb/100 ft22), γ = shear rate (sec−1 ), PV = plastic viscosity (cP), YP = yield point
where τ = shear stress (lb/100 ft ), γ = shear rate (sec–1), PV = plastic viscosity (cP), YP = yield point
(lb/100 ft22 ), and µa = apparent viscosity (cP).
(lb/100 ft ), and μa = apparent viscosity (cP).

Figure 1. Bingham plastic model fluid behavior [30].

Figure 1. Bingham plastic model fluid behavior [30].
3.3. Marsh Funnel Viscosity Measurement
3.3. Marsh Funnel Viscosity Measurement
The marsh Funnel viscosity represents the time in seconds that it takes a quart of fluid (1500 mL)
The
to flow marsh
out Funnel
of a cone viaviscosity represents
a short cylinder intothe time in seconds
a graduated that it2)takes
cup (Figure [31].aMarsh
quart of fluidviscosity
funnel (1500 mL)is
to flow out of a cone via a short cylinder into a graduated cup (Figure 2) [31]. Marsh funnel
a direct indication of the overall viscosity of drilling mud. The standard Marsh funnel viscosity of viscosity
is a direct
water indication of 26
is approximately thes.overall viscosity of drilling mud. The standard Marsh funnel viscosity of
water is approximately 26 seconds.
Energies 2019, 12,
Energies 2019, 12, 3067
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 11
10
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11

Figure
Figure 2. March funnel.
2. March funnel.
Figure 2. March funnel.
3.4. Mud Weight Measurement
3.4.
3.4.MudMudWeight
WeightMeasurement
Measurement
Mud weight (density) is measured by using a mud balance device (Figure 3), which consists of a
Mud weight
Mudwith
weight (density)
(density) isismeasured
measured by using
bybeam, aamud
mudbalance
balancedevice
usingcounterweight, device (Figure
(Figure 3),
3),which
which consists of
mud cup a fixed volume, a graduated rider, and lid [2,23]. Mud consists of
balance is
a mud cup
cupwith a fixed volume,
volume,away agraduated beam, counterweight, rider, and
andlid
lid[2,23]. Mud
Mudbalance
aavery
mudsimple with
anda very
fixedaccurate graduated beam,
to measure thecounterweight,
mud density. The rider,
measurement [2,23].
of mud balance
density
isis aa very
very simple
simple and
andisvery
very accurate
accurateofway
way to
to measure
measure the mud
mud density.
density. The
The measurement
measurement of of mud
using a mud balance independent the drilling mudthetemperature. mud
density using a mud balance is independent of the drilling mud
density using a mud balance is independent of the drilling mud temperature. temperature.

Figure 3. The used mud balance device.

Figure 3. The used mud balance device.
Figure 3. The used mud balance device.
4. Result and Discussion
4.4.Result
Resultand
andDiscussion
Discussion
4.1. Development of New Empirical Correlation
4.1.
4.1.Development
Development ofofNew
New Empirical
EmpiricalaCorrelation
Correlation
In this section, we develop new empirical correlation for predicting the apparent viscosity of
drilling
In fluid as a function of the march funnel’s viscosity and mud predicting
weight. All data used to develop this
Inthis
thissection,
section,we wedevelop
developaanew newempirical
empiricalcorrelation
correlationfor
for predictingthe
theapparent
apparentviscosity
viscosityofof
correlation
drilling were obtained from our experimental measurements on 142 samples of two different types
drilling fluid as a function of the march funnel’s viscosity and mud weight. All data usedto
fluid as a function of the march funnel’s viscosity and mud weight. All data used todevelop
develop
of
thiswater-based
correlation mud (i.e., Ferrofrom
Chrome Lignosulfonate (FCL) mud, onand142
Salt Saturated mud (SSM),
this correlationwere
wereobtained
obtained from our
ourexperimental
experimental measurements
measurements on 142 samples
samples of
oftwo
two different
different
Table
types1of
types and
of Figure 4), please
water-based
water-based mud refers
mud (i.e.,
(i.e., to section
Ferro
Ferro Chromethree
Chrome for the used experimental
Lignosulfonate
Lignosulfonate (FCL) mud,measurement
(FCL) mud, and
and Salt techniques.
Salt Saturated
Saturated mud
mud
(SSM),TheTable
data 1 and
analysis Figure 4),
software please
system refers to section
(STATISTICA) three
was for
used the
withused
the experimental
nonlinear measurement
multiple
(SSM), Table 1 and Figure 4), please refers to section three for the used experimental measurement regression
techniques.
method to obtain the best match for our data [32]. The below correlation is identified as the best form,
techniques.
representing the relationship between our output parameter (apparent viscosity) and the two input
parameters (i.e., the march funnel viscosity and mud weight):

µa = A1 ρ + A2 ρA3 + A4 t + A5 tA6 + A7 ρt + A8 (5)

where µa represents apparent viscosity (cp), ρ represents mud density (gm/cc), and t is March Funnel
viscosity, while A1 to A8 are mathematical model constants from the simulation model, which are listed
in Table 2.
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 5 of 10
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11

Figure 4. Log of the experimental data (input and output variables) measured in this study and used
Figure 4. Log of the experimental data (input and output variables) measured in this study and used
for developing the new correlation.
for developing the new correlation.
Table 1. The range of data used for developing the new correlation and neural network model.
Table 1. The range of data used for developing the new correlation and neural network model.
Property Minimum Maximum Mean
Property Minimum Maximum Mean
Apparent viscosity (cp) 12 150 50.3
Apparent viscosity (cp) 12 150 50.3
Mud weight (gm/cc) 1.04 2.26 1.6
Mud weight (gm/cc) 33
March Funnel viscosity (sec)
1.04 2.26
146
1.6 56.4
March
plastic viscosity (cp) Funnel viscosity (sec)126 33 146
10 56.4 38.4
plastic
Yield point (Lb/100 ft ) 2 viscosity (cp) 59 126 410 38.4 24
Yield ftpoint
Initial gel strength (Lb/100 2) (Lb/100 ft2) 28 59 34 24 10.3
10 minute gel strengthInitial gel strength
(Lb/100 ft2 ) (Lb/100 77ft2) 28 73 10.3 35.3
10 minute gel strength (Lb/100 ft2) 77 7 35.3
Table 2. Correlation constants of the new mathematical model for two different ranges of drilling mud
The data
density (D). analysis software system (STATISTICA) was used with the nonlinear multiple
regression method to obtain the best match for our data [32]. The below correlation is identified as
Model
the best form, ρ ≤ 2.19our output parameter (apparent
Constant the relationship between
representing ρ > 2.19 viscosity) and
the two input parameters
A1 (i.e., the march funnel viscosity and mud weight): 1800.007
−22.1223471
A2 −16,969.9217 −163.094
A3 𝜇 𝐴 ρ 𝐴 ρ 0.001953123𝐴 t 𝐴 t 𝐴 ρt 𝐴 −23.0043 (5)
A4 −1.51689336 72.08154
where μa represents apparent viscosity (cp), ρ represents mud density (gm/cc), and t is March Funnel
A5 1521.04489 −2.85495
viscosity, while A1Ato A8 are mathematical model constants from the simulation
−3501.02636 model, which are
0.829787
6
listed in Table 2. A7 1.73767137 −31.2506
A8 17,000.0495 −3997.91
 A3 0.001953123 -23.0043
A4 -1.51689336 72.08154
A5 1521.04489 -2.85495
A6 -3501.02636 0.829787
A7 1.73767137 -31.2506
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 6 of 10
A8 17000.0495 -3997.91

To check
To check the
the accuracy
accuracy of of our
our established
established new new correlations,
correlations, the
the output
output datadata for
for prediction
prediction are are
compared with the experimental results. Statistical parameters (i.e., the correlation coefficient
compared with the experimental results. Statistical parameters (i.e., the correlation coefficient (R) and (R) and
the average
the average absolute
absolute error
error (AAE))
(AAE)) areare calculated
calculated and
and compared
comparedwith withthetheliterature correlationµμa== ρρ
literaturecorrelation
a
(t-25) by Pitt [11] for predicting the apparent viscosity and listed in Table 3.
(t − 25) by Pitt [11] for predicting the apparent viscosity and listed in Table 3. The results The results showshowthatthat
the
new correlation predicts the apparent viscosity with very high accuracy.
the new correlation predicts the apparent viscosity with very high accuracy. For example, the new For example, the new
correlation has
correlation has the
the highest
highest R R (98.8%)
(98.8%) (Figure
(Figure 5),
5), which
which was
was only
only (89.2)
(89.2) for
for the
the correlation
correlation found
found inin the
the
literature (Figure 6 and Table 3). Further, the new correlation estimates the apparent viscosity with aa
literature (Figure 6 and Table 3). Further, the new correlation estimates the apparent viscosity with
very low
very low average
average absolute
absolute error
error (e.g.,
(e.g., the
the AAE
AAE waswas only
only 8.6%
8.6% for
for our
our developed
developed correlation,
correlation, while
while itit
was more
was more than
than 20%
20% (20.3%)
(20.3%) forfor the
the literature
literature correlation
correlation (Table
(Table 3)).
3)). These
These good
good agreements
agreements suggest
suggest
that our new mathematical model is able to predict the apparent viscosity for
that our new mathematical model is able to predict the apparent viscosity for two different types oftwo different types of
drilling mud,
drilling mud, for
for the
the first
first time,
time, with
with high
high accuracy.
accuracy.

Figure 5. Cross-plot of the measured (experimental) and predicted apparent viscosity from the newly
Energies 2019, 5.
12,Cross-plot
x FOR PEER
Figure ofREVIEW
the measured (experimental) and predicted apparent viscosity from the newly7 of 11
developed correlation.
developed correlation.

Figure 6. Cross-plot of the (measured) experimental and predicted apparent viscosity from the
Figure 6. Cross-plot of the (measured) experimental and predicted apparent viscosity from the Pit's
Pit’s [11] correlation.
[11] correlation.

Table 3. The statistical accuracy of the developed correlation, literature correlation and artificial
neural network (ANN) model.

Correlation Correlation coefficient, R (%) Average absolute Error, AAE (%)

Pitt's correlation [11] 89.2 20.3
This study (correlation) 98.8 8.6
This study (ANN) 98.2 10.9
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 7 of 10

Figure 6. Cross-plot of the (measured) experimental and predicted apparent viscosity from the Pit's
[11] correlation.
Table 3. The statistical accuracy of the developed correlation, literature correlation and artificial neural
networkTable
(ANN) model.
3. The statistical accuracy of the developed correlation, literature correlation and artificial
neural network (ANN) model.
Correlation Correlation Coefficient, R (%) Average Absolute Error, AAE (%)
Pitt’sCorrelation
correlation [11] Correlation coefficient,
89.2 R (%) Average absolute Error,
20.3 AAE (%)
This study
Pitt's (correlation)
correlation [11] 89.2 98.8 20.3 8.6
This
This study
study (ANN)
(correlation) 98.8 98.2 8.6 10.9
This study (ANN) 98.2 10.9
4.2. Development of an Artificial Neural Network Model
4.2. Development of an Artificial Neural Network Model
ANN model development starts with the model training process. The model trained and tested the
ANN model development starts with the model training process. The model trained and tested
data, as the
described
data, as in Table 1.in In
described the1.training
Table process,
In the training we provided
process, we provided twotwo
input parameters
input parameters(i.e., the march
(i.e., the
funnel viscosity andviscosity
march funnel mud weight)
and mud and output
weight) anddata (i.e.,
output apparent
data viscosity)
(i.e., apparent for 70%
viscosity) (100(100
for 70% samples),
while the other 30%
samples), while(42
thesamples)
other 30%was used to was
(42 samples) test used
the model. Inmodel.
to test the this study,
In thiswe used
study, weaused
3 layera 3 (input,
hidden, layer (input, layers)
and output hidden,feed-forward
and output layers)
backprop feed-forward backprop
network (Figure 7). network (Figure 7). of
The characteristics Thethe used
characteristics of the used network are shown in Table 4.
network are shown in Table 4.

Schematic
Figure 7.Figure diagram of artificial neural network topology used for the apparent viscosity (µa )
7. Schematic diagram of artificial neural network topology used for the apparent viscosity (μa)
prediction model model
prediction as a function of mud
as a function density
of mud density(ρ)
(ρ)and marchfunnel
and march funnel viscosity
viscosity (t). (t).

Table 4. Characteristics of the training networks for the lithology determination model.
Table 4. Characteristics of the training networks for the lithology determination model.
Element
Element LithologyModel
Lithology Model
Number
Number of layers
of layers 3 3(Input,
(Input,hidden,
hidden,output)
output)
Number
Number of input
of input Variables
Variables (Nodes)
(Nodes) 22(ρ,
(ρ,t)t)
Number of output Variable 1 (µa )
Number of hidden layers 1
Number of Neuron in the hidden layer 10
Performance goal (mse) 0
Max. Number of epochs to train 10,000
Network type Fed-forward backprop
Transfer functions tansig, purelin
Train function Trainlgdx
Learning function Learngdm
Number of the Training sample 100
Number of Testing sample 42

Figure 8 presents the log for the measured and the predicted apparent viscosity from the newly
developed ANN for the training data (100 samples). It is clear that the new ANN model is able to
determine the apparent viscosity with an average absolute error (AAE) of 7.3% and a correlation
coefficient (R) of 99.2%, when the measured and predicted lithology is compared. After the training
process, the model is tested using unseen samples during the training process (42 samples). The result
of the testing process is shown in Figure 9 and Table 3. It is obvious that the new ANN model is able to
predict apparent viscosity with good accuracy (R = 98.1 and AAE = 10.9%).
In summary, we conclude that the newly developed ANN model can be used to predict the
apparent viscosity of drilling mud.
 determine the apparent viscosity with an average absolute error (AAE) of 7.3% and a correlation
coefficient (R) of 99.2%, when the measured and predicted lithology is compared. After the training
process, the model is tested using unseen samples during the training process (42 samples). The result
of the testing process is shown in Figure 9 and Table 3. It is obvious that the new ANN model is able
to predict apparent viscosity with good accuracy (R = 98.1 and AAE = 10.9%).
In 3067
Energies 2019, 12, summary, we conclude that the newly developed ANN model can be used to predict the 8 of 10
apparent viscosity of drilling mud.

Figure Figure
8.
Energies 2019, 8. xApparent
Apparent
12, FOR PEERviscosity
viscosity
REVIEW prediction
prediction usingusing an artificial
an artificial neural
neural network
network for for training
training data
data (100
(100 samples).
9 of 11
samples).

Figure
Figure 9. 9. Apparent
Apparent viscosity
viscosity prediction
prediction usingusing an artificial
an artificial neural
neural network
network for for testing
testing data
data (42(42
samples).
samples).

5. Conclusions
Apparent viscosity is an important drilling fluid property, and monitoring this property during
drilling operations is vital to prevent many drilling issues [5]. Even though apparent viscosity can be
measured experimentally using a VG meter device, such a measurement is an expensive and time-
consuming operation. Thus, in this paper, we have presented a new field correlation and a new
artificial neural network model to estimate the drilling mud apparent viscosity directly from two
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 9 of 10

5. Conclusions
Apparent viscosity is an important drilling fluid property, and monitoring this property during
drilling operations is vital to prevent many drilling issues [5]. Even though apparent viscosity can
be measured experimentally using a VG meter device, such a measurement is an expensive and
time-consuming operation. Thus, in this paper, we have presented a new field correlation and a new
artificial neural network model to estimate the drilling mud apparent viscosity directly from two
simples and fast drilling mud measurements (i.e., march funnel viscosity and mud density). To do this,
we have performed 142 laboratory measurements for two different drilling mud samples (i.e., FCL and
SSM). Then, these obtained, experimental data were used with a data analysis software system and
neural network to develop a new correlation and neural network model. The results obtained from the
new correlation and neural network were compared with the measured apparent viscosity from the
laboratory. In addition, the statistical accuracy of the new correlation and neural network model were
compared with the correlation in the literature [11]. The results show that the new correlation provides
promising results and could be further improved to increase its acceptability. The results show that the
R coefficient and AAE for the new correlation are 98.8% and 8.6%, respectively. In addition, our results
show that the newly developed artificial neural network model provides promising results (e.g., the
results show that the newly developed artificial neural network model predicts the apparent viscosity
with R= 98.2 and AAE = 10.9). Thus, we conclude that the newly developed correlation and ANN
model are preferable to predict the apparent viscosity of drilling mud.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.A.A.-K.; methodology, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.; software, D.S.M.;
validation, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.; formal analysis, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.; investigation, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.;
resources, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.; data curation, D.S.M. and E.A.A.-K.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S.M.;
writing—review and editing, E.A.A.-K.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Caenn, R.; Darley, H.C.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids; Gulf Professional
Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011.
2. Darley, H.C.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids; Gulf Professional
Publishing: Houston, TX, USA, 1988.
3. Balhoff, M.T.; Lake, L.W.; Bommer, P.W.; Lewis, W.E.; Weber, M.J.; Calderin, J.M. Rheological and yield stress
measurements of non-Newtonian fluids using a Marsh Funnel. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2011, 77, 393–402. [CrossRef]
4. ASME Shale Shaker Committee. Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011.
5. Bourgoyne, A.T.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E.; Young, F.S., Jr. Applied Drilling Engineering; Society of
Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 1986.
6. Hall, H.; Thompson, H.; Nuss, F. Ability of drilling mud to lift bit cuttings. J. Pet. Technol. 1950, 2, 35–46.
[CrossRef]
7. Hussaini, S.M.; Azar, J.J. Experimental study of drilled cuttings transport using common drilling muds.
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1983, 23, 11–20. [CrossRef]
8. Boyou, N.V.; Ismail, I.; Sulaiman, W.R.W.; Haddad, A.S.; Husein, N.; Hui, H.T.; Nadaraja, K. Experimental
investigation of hole cleaning in directional drilling by using nano-enhanced water-based drilling fluids.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 176, 220–231. [CrossRef]
9. Rafati, R.; Smith, S.R.; Haddad, A.S.; Novara, R.; Hamidi, H. Effect of nanoparticles on the modifications of
drilling fluids properties: A review of recent advances. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 161, 61–76. [CrossRef]
10. Smith, S.R.; Rafati, R.; Haddad, A.S.; Cooper, A.; Hamidi, H. Application of aluminium oxide nanoparticles
to enhance rheological and filtration properties of water based muds at HPHT conditions. Colloids Surf. A
Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2018, 537, 361–371. [CrossRef]
11. Pitt, M. The Marsh funnel and drilling fluid viscosity: A new equation for field use. SPE Drill. Complet. 2000,
15, 3–6. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 3067 10 of 10

12. Elkatatny, S.; Tariq, Z.; Mahmoud, M. Real time prediction of drilling fluid rheological properties using
Artificial Neural Networks visible mathematical model (white box). J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2016, 146, 1202–1210.
[CrossRef]
13. Asadisaghandi, J.; Tahmasebi, P. Comparative evaluation of back-propagation neural network learning
algorithms and empirical correlations for prediction of oil PVT properties in Iran oilfields. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
2011, 78, 464–475. [CrossRef]
14. Tahmasebi, P.; Hezarkhani, A. Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for grade estimation;
case study, sarcheshmeh porphyry copper deposit, Kerman, Iran. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 408–420.
15. Tahmasebi, P.; Hezarkhani, A. Application of a modular feedforward neural network for grade estimation.
Nat. Resour. Res. 2011, 20, 25–32. [CrossRef]
16. Tahmasebi, P.; Hezarkhani, A. A hybrid neural networks-fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm for grade estimation.
Comput. Geosci. 2012, 42, 18–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Tahmasebi, P.; Hezarkhani, A. A fast and independent architecture of artificial neural network for permeability
prediction. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2012, 86, 118–126. [CrossRef]
18. Le Van, S.; Chon, B. Artificial neural network model for alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding in viscous oil
reservoirs: Generation and application. Energies 2016, 9, 1081. [CrossRef]
19. Le Van, S.; Chon, B. Applicability of an Artificial Neural Network for Predicting Water-Alternating-CO2
Performance. Energies 2017, 10, 842. [CrossRef]
20. Le Van, S.; Chon, B.H. Evaluating the critical performances of a CO2 -Enhanced oil recovery process using
artificial neural network models. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 157, 207–222. [CrossRef]
21. Le Van, S.; Chon, B.H. Effective prediction and management of a CO2 flooding process for enhancing oil
recovery using artificial neural networks. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2018, 140, 032906. [CrossRef]
22. Mohaghegh, S. Virtual-intelligence applications in petroleum engineering: Part 1—Artificial neural networks.
J. Pet. Technol. 2000, 52, 64–73. [CrossRef]
23. Mohagheghian, E.; Zafarian-Rigaki, H.; Motamedi-Ghahfarrokhi, Y.; Hemmati-Sarapardeh, A. Using an
artificial neural network to predict carbon dioxide compressibility factor at high pressure and temperature.
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2015, 32, 2087–2096. [CrossRef]
24. Al-Khdheeawi, E.A.; Feng, R.; Mahdi, D.S. Lithology Determination from Drilling Data Using Artificial
Neural Network. In Proceedings of the 53rd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, New York, NY,
USA, 23–26 June 2019.
25. Al-Khdheeawi, E.A.; Hussain, A.B.; Dunia, A.-S. Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Prediction for Mishrif
Reservoir in the Southern Iraqi Oil Fields Using Artificial Neural Network. J. Pet. Res. Stud. 2014, 377, 54–72.
26. Ramgulam, A.; Ertekin, T.; Flemings, P.B. Utilization of Artificial Neural Networks in the Optimization of
History Matching. Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, Stecker Ridge, PA, USA, 2006.
27. American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practice for Field Testing Water-based Drilling Fluids; American
Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
28. Skelland, A.H.P. Non-Newtonian Flow and Heat Transfer; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
29. Bingham, E.C. Fluidity and Plasticity; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1922; Volume 2.
30. Azar, J.J.; Samuel, G.R. Drilling Engineering; PennWell books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2007.
31. Marsh, H.N. Properties and treatment of rotary mud. Trans. AIME 1931, 92, 234–251. [CrossRef]
32. Baker, H.A.; Al-Shamma’a, D.A.; Al-Khdheeawi, E.A. New Correlation for Predicting Undersaturated Oil
Compressibility for Mishrif Reservoir in the Southern Iraqi Oil Fields. J. Eng. 2013, 19, 1158–1168.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).