Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01566-2

ORIGINAL PAPER - EXPLORATION ENGINEERING

Stepwise mathematical derivation of the Herschel–Bulkley laminar

fluid flow equations—in pipes
Rahman Ashena1,2 • Foued Badrouchi2 • Asad Elmgerbi3 • Siamak Mishani2 • Fatemeh Sotoudeh4 •

Sahand Nekoeian5

Received: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 26 August 2022 / Published online: 11 October 2022
Ó The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Stepwise derivation of flow equations of the Herschel–Bulkley (HB) model is not available in the literature. These
equations are crucial for mechanical, chemical and petroleum engineering academia and industries where fundamental
works on non-Newtonian fluids may be done to reach future models and estimation methods. Therefore, this work focuses
on derivation of laminar flow equations and estimation methods of HB fluids through pipes. In this work, first, stepwise
derivation of the HB fluid flow parameters consisting of fluid velocity, flow rate, average velocity and relative velocity
equations is presented, followed by a straightforward mathematical model for use in numerical solution. Next, stepwise
mathematical derivation of the laminar pressure drop equations by Merlo et al. (An innovative model for drilling fluid
hydraulics. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1995) and Gjerstad
and Time (SPE J 20:1–18, 2014) is presented, and finally practical and user-friendly calculation procedures for different
estimation methods are presented. The step-by-step derivation procedures presented in this work contribute to effective
learning for engineering students and practitioners in addition to providing a clear example derivation guideline for future
researchers to reach other more accurate non-Newtonian hydraulics models and estimation methods.

List of symbols fYP A parameter defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and

A Area of fluid flow [m2] Gjerstad and Time (2014) almost equal to DPHP
Cc Circular or pipe correction coefficient, defined by G Coefficient first used by Reed and Pilehvari (1993)
Guo and Liu (2011) used to transform hydraulic diameter to effective
D Inner diameter of the drill pipe/string [m] diameter
Deff Effective diameter defined by Reed and Pilehvari HB Herschel–Bulkley rheological model
(1993) for non-Newtonian flow, i.e., the diameter of K Consistency Index [cp]
a circular pipe that would have the identical pres- KHB Consistency Index in Herschel–Bulkley model flu-
sure drop for flow of a Newtonian fluid with vis- ids [cp]
cosity equal to the apparent viscosity and the same KPL Consistency Index in power-law model fluids [cp]
average velocity as the non-Newtonian flow [m] L Length [m]
Dhyd Hydraulic diameter used for transformation of pipe m Dummy variable equal to reciprocal of N
flow to annular flow equations [m] (dimensionless)
n Flow behavior index in power-law model fluids
(dimensionless)
N Flow behavior index in Herschel–Bulkley model
& Rahman Ashena
ashena.rahman@gmail.com fluids (dimensionless)
P Pressure [Pa]
1
Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation (APU), PHB Dimensionless pressure for the HB model, defined
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time
2 s
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA (2014) PHB ¼ w;HB sy
3
Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria PPL Dimensionless pressure for the HB model, defined
4
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time
s
5
Independent Consultant, Ottawa, ON, Canada (2014) PPL ¼ w;PL
sy

123
626 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

PL Power-law rheological model Introduction

q Mud flow rate or circulation rate [m3/s]
r Radius [m]
rp Radius of plug flow [m]
R Inner radius of the pipe [m]
U Dummy variable used for ‘‘change of variables’’
technique of integration
U Dimensionless velocity defined by Gjerstad et al.
(2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
UHB Dimensionless velocity of the HB model fluid
defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and
Time (2014)
UPL Dimensionless velocity of the PL model fluid
defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and
Time (2014)
V Fluid velocity [m/s]
V Average velocity [m/s]
Vp Fluid velocity at the plug region [m/s]
Vw Velocity of moving drill pipe/string [m/s]
Greek letters
DPHP The difference between the wall shear stress
ratios in the HB and PL models (PHB and PPL ,
respectively) as defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014)
and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
dP=dL Pressure gradient (positive) [pa/m]
DP=DL Pressure gradient, as another notation for dP=dL
to better indicate its positive sign [pa/m]
DP
DL HB
Pressure gradient in HB model [pa/m]
DP
DL PL
Pressure gradient in PL model [pa/m]
/ ‘‘Bingham number,’’ the yield stress divided by
the wall shear stress
r A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and
Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of
pressure drop in the HB fluid
n A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and
Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of
pressure drop in the HB fluid
w A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and
Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of
pressure drop in the HB fluid (for pipe flow only)
c Shear rate [1/s]
cw Shear rate at the pipe wall [1/s]
s Shear stress [Pa]
sHB Shear stress for the HB model [Pa]
sPL Shear stress for the PL model [Pa]
sw Shear stress at the wall of the pipe [Pa]
sy Yield stress/point [Pa]
There are several non-Newtonian rheological models
available in the literature. The most well-known ones are
the Bingham plastic (BP) model; power-law (PL) model;
Herschel–Bulkley (HB) model, also called the modified or
yield power-law model; the Robertson-Stiff (RS) model;
and the Sisko model. The BP model and the PL model are
two-parameter rheological models and are still commonly
used in mechanical, chemical and petroleum industries.
However, some fluids especially drilling fluids, slurries or
suspensions are not well approximated by these two
models. Some modifications to these models may be
applied to increase their prediction accuracy, and an
example is a work done by Ashena et al. (2021) by
applying a correction coefficient; in another example, roles
of different affecting parameters on accuracy were quan-
tified (Ashena et al. 2022). Alternatively, non-Newtonian
fluids can be better represented by the HB model (Hanks
1979) and the RS model (Robertson and Stiff 1976). Both
HB and RS models are 3-parameter rheological models
which are both viscoplastic (with a yield stress before flow
can be initiated) and shear thinning, i.e., their apparent
viscosity reduces with increasing shear rate (Gjerstad et al.
2012). The RS model can be applied to describe behavior
of cement slurries and drilling fluids, but it is slightly less
accurate than the HB model (Mitchell and Miska 2011).
The Sisko model was mentioned in a study by Weir and
Bailey as a recommended model for drilling fluids (Sisko
1958, cited by Weir and Bailey 1996).
Although the HB model was introduced long time ago in
1926 (Herschel and Bulkley 1926), it yields mathematical
expressions which are not readily solvable. Therefore,
several works such as Chin (2012) focused on numerical
estimations. Besides, its semi-analytical pressure drop
equations were not found for long time. Instead, numerical
methods were used to iteratively calculate pressure drops;
Chilton and Stainsby (1998) presented a simpler integra-
tion version of that first presented by Govier and Aziz
(1972). In addition, there was not a consensus on greater
accuracy of HB advantage over the other models. Being
considered a complex model, its use was not widespread
particularly in the drilling industry. A turning point for the
HB model was year 2006 when the American Petroleum
Institute (API) recognized and announced the HB model as
the most accurate rheological model and recommended its
usage for the petroleum industry. This trend change by API
is recognizable by comparing API (2003) with API (2009).
Since then, applications of the HB model increased sig-
nificantly in drilling hydraulics.
Some serious works have been done on the HB model
during decades. Metzner and Reed (1955) and Metzner

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 627

(1957) carried out some pioneering works in 1950s on non- Fluid velocity
Newtonian fluid flow through pipes. They developed a
method called generalized shear rate which provided a way First, a relation between shear stress and pressure drop is
to generalize their results of PL fluids to all time-inde- given for fluid flow through pipes. Mitchell and Miska
pendent non-Newtonian fluids including HB model (cited (2011) have presented a derivation of the equation without
by Whittaker and Staff 1985; Reed and Pilehvari 1993). showing all steps of the derivation. Here, we present the
Govier and Aziz (1972, 2008) and Cheng (1975) presented derivation in a more stepwise and simple manner.
an implicit equation for the HB fluid flow in pipes. Mitchell Assuming a force balance for steady flow (i.e., no accel-
and Miska (2011) and Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad eration), the following balance relation holds between the
and Time (2014) provided the velocity profile of HB model shear force stress (due to shear stress s) and the normal
fluids in laminar flow, but clear stepwise proofs were not force (due to pressure drop dP):
provided. Indeed, explicit pressure drop equations have not
s  2rpðdLÞ ¼ dP  r 2 p
been found in their works yet. Instead, just estimations of
the pressure drop in the laminar flow regime were found. dP
s  2rp ¼  r2 p
Merlo et al. (1995) presented an approximation equation of dL
the HB model’s pressure drop equation, but without pro- r dP
viding any proof. In their paper, they presented the calcu- s¼ ð1Þ
2 dL
lation methodology in a practical example. Their work was
Therefore:
later cited by Guo and Liu (2011). However, again no
Applying Eq. (2) to the radius at which there is an
derivation of their equations was given to prove where they
unsheared portion of the fluid (rp) and also to the radius at
come from. In 2014, using two limiting cases and an
the wall (R):
analogy between the HB and PL models, Gjerstad et al.
(2014) presented another approximation equation for the r p dP
sy ¼ ð2Þ
HB’s fluid pressure drop equation in the laminar flow 2 dL
regime. Their methodology is based on taking limitations R dP
sw ¼ ð3Þ
from special cases without providing proofs to the limits 2 dL
taken. In addition, their methodology is complex and user-
The equation of shear stress versus shear rate for the HB
unfriendly to apply in a real example.
model is:
In summary, previous researchers working on laminar  
equations of HB fluids have not provided stepwise dV N
s ¼ sy þ K  ð4Þ
derivation of pipe flow equations and user-friendly esti- dr
mation methods for pressure drop calculations. These
Combining Eqs. (1) and (4), we have:
matters are indicative of the gaps in the literature filling
 
which is not only important to improve effective learning dV N r dP
sy þ K  ¼ ð5Þ
for engineering students and practitioners, but also to dr 2 dL
provide a clear example procedure guideline useful for
future researchers to reach other more accurate non-New- Rearrangement and using a dummy variable ‘‘m’’
tonian hydraulics models and estimation methods. There- instead of ‘‘1/N’’:
 1  
fore, in this work, the laminar pipe flow equations of the r dP sy N r dP sy m
HB model are derived. The equations consist of fluid flow dV ¼   dr ¼   dr ð6Þ
2K dL K 2K dL K
velocity, flow rate, relative velocity and pressure drop
equations. The simplest mathematical model for use in Integrating from both sides:
Z Z  
numerical solution is provided. Derivation of equations for r dP sy m
estimated pressure drops by Merlo et al. (1995) and Gjer- dV ¼   dr ð7Þ
2K dL K
stad and Time (2014) is provided in a user-friendly manner   
for practical field or academia’s applications. Finally, using 2K 1 r dP sy 1þm
V ¼  þV0
an example, results of pressure drop estimations by the ðdP=dLÞ 1þm 2K dL K
  1þm
different approximation methods are compared with the 2K ðdP=dLÞ1þm 1 sy
numerical solution and the best matching one is identified. ¼ r þV0
ðdP=dLÞð2KÞ1þm 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
It is noted that the forms of equations presented in this
work are in SI units. ð8Þ

123
628 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

  1þm
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy @
V¼
Km 1þm
r
ðdP=dLÞ=2
þ V0 &( )
ð9Þ
Thus:
Using the boundary condition of V ¼ 0 at r ¼ R:
  1þm
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy
0¼ R  þ V0
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2

Thus:
  1þm
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy
V0 ¼ R  ð10Þ
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
Combining Eqs. (9) and (10), the annular velocity is:
 
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1
V¼
" Km 1þm
1þm  1þm #
sy sy Plug flow
R  r
ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
( )
ð0  r  r p Þ
ð11Þ
It is noted that Eq. (11) holds for ðr p  r  RÞ; however, ( )
there is a constant velocity plug flow or V p in the central
part of the pipe ð0  r  r p Þ as shown in Fig. 1. It is noted
that there is a plug zone in HB fluids as is the case with any
non-Newtonian fluids with yield stress. In this zone, the
fluid moves as solid bodies within sheared flows (Chin
2012). The radius of this zone is:
sy
rp ¼ ð12Þ
ðdP=dLÞ=2 Fig. 1 A schematic of the HB laminar fluid flow through the pipe
Replacing ‘‘r’’ in Eq. (11) with ‘‘r p ’’ from Eq. (12)
gives: V1 ¼ Vp
 " 1þm  " 1þm #
1 sy ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy
V1 ¼ Vp ¼ R ¼ R
1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
 1þm # ð13Þ
sy sy
 
ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2 Comparing Eqs. (10) and (13), it is inferred that
V p ¼ V 0.
Combining Eqs. (11) and (13), the pipe flow velocity
can be generally expressed as follows:

8
m " 1þm #
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ 1 s y
>
< V1 ¼ Vp ¼
>
Km 1þm
R
ðdP=dLÞ=2
ð0  r  r p Þ
" 1þm #
> m   1þm 
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ 1 s y s y
>
: V 2 ðrÞ ¼ R  r ðr p  r  RÞ
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 629

The above equations have been presented by Mitchell

and Miska (2011) with a typo.
Replacing ‘‘m’’ with its equivalent ‘‘1=N’’ in Eqs. (11)
and (13) gives:
8  " 1þ1=N #
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ1=N N sy
> V1 ¼
< R ð0  r  r p Þ
K 1=N Nþ1 ðdP=dLÞ=2
>  
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ1=N N sy 1þ1=N sy 1þ1=N
: V 2 ðrÞ ¼ ð Þ ðR  Þ  ðr  Þ ðr p  r  RÞ
K 1=N Nþ1 ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2

Flow rate and average velocity Taking the constant coefficients out:
 Z R
In this section, we find the flow rate of flow in pipes. We ðdP=dL=2Þm 1
q2 ¼ 2p
know the following relation holds between incremental Km 1þm rp
" 1þm  1þm #
flow rate dq and velocity V:: sy sy
R  r rdr
dq ¼ VdA ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
 
To find the flow rate, we need to integrate the velocity ðdP=dL=2Þm 1
q2 ¼ 2p m
with respect to the flow area as follows: K 1þm
Z Z (Z "  1þm # Z " 1þm # )
R R
sy sy
q ¼ dq ¼ VdA R rdr  r rdr
rp ðdP=dLÞ=2 rp ðdP=dLÞ=2
Z rp Z R ð17Þ
q ¼ q1 þ q 2 ¼ V 1 dA þ V 2 2prdr ð4Þ
0 rp There are two integrals within q2 to solve as follows:
 Z " 1þm #
As the velocity in the plug region (V 1 ) is constant in the ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 R
sy
q21 ¼ 2p R rdr
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
plug flow region, q1 is: rp

Z rp
The solution of q21 is simply:
q1 ¼ V 1 dA ¼ V 1  r p 2 p
 " 1þm # 
0
 " 1þm # q21 ¼ 2p
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1

sy

r 2  R
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy Km 1þm
R
ðdP=dLÞ=2 2  rp
¼ R " #
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dL=2Þm

1

sy
1þm

¼p R R2  rp2
 rp 2 p K m 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
ð15Þ ð18Þ
sy
Replacing r p from Eqs. (12), (13) becomes: Replacing the original term of for r p gives:
ðdP=dLÞ=2
 
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 m  1þm
q1 ¼ p ðdP=dL=2Þ 1 sy
Km 1þm q21 ¼ p R
" Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
1þm # 2 ð16Þ "  2 #
sy sy sy
R R2 
ðdP=dLÞ=2 dp=dL=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
Next, it is essential to evaluate the second component of ð19Þ
the flow rate, q2 :
Zrp  " 1þm  1þm #
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy sy
q2 ¼ R  r  2prdr
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
R
ZR   " 1þm  1þm #
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy sy
¼ R  r  2prdr
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
rp

123
630 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

  1þm
To solve q22 , a minor rearrangement leads to: ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy
q22 ¼ 2p R
ðdP=dL=2Þm

1
Z R 
sy
1þm Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
q22 ¼ 2p r r dr "  2  
Km 1þm rp ðdP=dLÞ=2 1 sy sy
R þ
ð20Þ 3þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
  
Solving q22 is not straightforward and requires using 1 sy
R
change of variables as follows: 2þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
sy ð22Þ
U ¼r
ðdP=dLÞ=2
Using Eqs. (19) and (22), q is found:
sy
The term is the same as the constant r p . We
ðdP=dLÞ=2 q ¼ q1 þ q2 ¼ fq1 g þ fq21 g þ fq22 g
temporarily set it so in the integral to simplify the form of (   1þm  2 )
the integration. Thus: ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy sy
q¼ p R 
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 dp=dL=2
U ¼ r  rp (
m  1þm
ðdP=dL=2Þ 1 sy
! r ¼ U þ rp þ p R
Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
"  2 #)   
Therefore, Eq. (20) is transformed to: 2 sy ðdP=dL=2Þm 1
R  þ 2p m
  ZR ðdP=dLÞ=2 K 1þm
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1    1þm "  2
q22 ¼ 2p U þ rp U 1þm dr sy 1 sy
Km 1þm R R
rp
ðdP=dLÞ=2 3þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
   
  ZR sy 1 sy
þ R
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1  2þm  ðdP=dLÞ=2 2 þ m ðdP=dLÞ=2
¼ 2p m
U þ rp U 1þm dr
K 1þm
rp Rearrangements give:
  1þm
Performing the polynomial integration while using the ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 sy
q¼p R 
equivalent integral limits from r ¼ r p to U ¼ 0, and r ¼ R Km 1þm ðdP=dLÞ=2
( 2 "  2 #
to U ¼ R  r p , we have: sy s y
þ R2 
ðdP=dL=2Þm dp=dL=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
q22 ¼ 2p "
  K 
m
    2  
1 1 1  1 sy sy
3þm 2þm U¼Rr p 2 R þ
U þ rp U U¼0 : 3þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
1þm 3þm 2þm
  
1 sy
ðdP=dL=2Þm 2þm
R
ðdP=dLÞ=2
q22 ¼ 2p
  Km   
1 1 3þm 1 2þm Multiplying ðdP=dL=2Þ3 by the numerator and denom-
ðR  r p Þ þ rp ðR  r p Þ
1þm 3þm 2þm inator gives:
ð21Þ   1þm
p ðdP=dL=2Þ1þm 1 sy
q¼ m R
Reverting U parameter and constant r p , respectively, K ðdP=dL=2Þ3 1 þ m ðdP=dLÞ=2
sy sy ( " !
back to their originals ðr  ðdP=dLÞ=2 Þ and ðdP=dLÞ=2 : ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2
2 2 2
  sy þ ðdP=dLR=2Þ  sy  2
ðdP=dL=2Þm 1 3þm
q22 ¼ 2p  
Km 1þm ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
"  3þm þsy
1 sy 2þm
R
1þm
3þm ðdP=dLÞ=2 sy
   2þm # Combining ðdP=dL=2Þ1þm into R  ðdP=dLÞ=2
sy 1 sy gives:
þ R
ðdP=dLÞ=2 2 þ m ðdP=dLÞ=2

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 631

 

ð3þmÞ2 ð1þmÞ
p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm 1 with ‘‘ 1
1þm  ð1þmÞ2ð3þmÞ ¼ ð1þm Þð3þmÞ ¼ ð1þmÞð3þmÞ ¼
q¼ m
K ðdP=dL=2Þ3 1þm 1
( " ! ð3þmÞ’’ and some rearrangement:
2
2 ð½dP=dLR=2  s y Þ
sy 2 þ ð½dP=dLR=2Þ  sy 2  2 p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm
3þm q¼
  Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3
ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ (
þsy sy 2 ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 2sy ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
2þm þ þ
1þm 3þm ð1 þ mÞ
1  
Inserting ð1þm Þ into the bracket and multiplying by the ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
right-hand side terms yields: 2sy
ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ
p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm
q¼ Rearrangement of the coefficient for 2sy ð½dP=dLR=2 
Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3
( sy Þ gives:
sy 2 ð½dP=dLR=2Þ2  sy 2
þ p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm
1þm 1þm q¼
!  ) Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3
ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ (
2  2sy sy 2 ½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2
ð1 þ mÞð3 þ mÞ ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ þ þ 2sy ð½dP=dL
1þm 3þm

Adding and subtracting some terms to the right-hand 1 1
R=2  sy Þð 
side: ð1 þ mÞ ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ

p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm
q¼
Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3
( !
sy 2 hð½dP=dLR=2Þ2  2½dP=dLR=2  sy þ sy 2 þ 2sy ½dP=dLR=2  sy 2 sy 2 i ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2
þ 2
1þm ð1 þ mÞ ð1 þ mÞð3 þ mÞ
 
ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
2sy
ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ

1 1 ð2þmÞ1
Factoring ‘‘ð½dP=dLR=2Þ2  2½dP=dLR=2  sy þ sy 2 ’’ Knowing ‘‘ 1þm  ð1þmÞð2þmÞÞ ¼ ð1þmÞð2þmÞ
1þm 1
2
into ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ gives: ¼ ð1þmÞð2þmÞ ¼ ð2þmÞ’’:

p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm

q¼ q¼
Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3 Km ðdP=dL=2Þ3
( ( )
sy 2 ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 ð2sy ½dP=dLR=2  2sy 2 Þ sy 2 ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 2sy ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
þ þ þ þ
1þm ð1 þ m Þ ð1 þ m Þ 1þm 3þm 2þm
!  )
ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ
2  2sy Replacing ‘‘m’’ with its equivalent ‘‘1/N’’ gives:
ð1 þ mÞð3 þ mÞ ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ
pN ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þ1=N
q¼
Factoring the coefficients of ½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 gives: K 1=N ðdP=dL=2Þ3
( )
p ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ1þm ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ2 2sy ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ sy 2
q¼ m þ þ
K ðdP=dL=2Þ3 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
 2  
sy 2 1 2 ð23Þ
þ ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ 
1þm 1 þ m ð1 þ mÞð3 þ mÞ
  Equation (23) is the same equation presented by
ð2sy ½dP=dLR=2  2sy 2 Þ ð½dP=dLR=2  sy Þ Mitchell and Miska (2011). Therefore, this work presented
þ  2sy
ð1 þ mÞ ð1 þ mÞð2 þ mÞ the methodology of reaching this equation in a stepwise
manner.
For ease of notation, we prefer to have a positive sign
for q in the equations and thus we assumed that sy and

123
632 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

‘‘dP=dL’’ are all positive. However, to prevent any chance  1þ1=N

R3 pN sw  sy
of confusion, we prefer to replace ‘‘dP=dL’’ notation with q ¼ 3 1=N
‘‘DP=DL’’:
R K ðDP=DL=2Þ3
( 2   )
sw  sy 2sy sw  sy s2y
pN ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ1þ1=N þ þ
q¼ 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
K 1=N ðDP=DL=2Þ3  1þ1=N
( )
ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ2 2sy ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ sy 2 pNR3 sw  sy
þ þ ¼ 1=N
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 N þ1 K s3w
( 2   )
sw  sy 2sy sw  sy s2y
ð24Þ þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
As Eq. (24) shows, the flow rate q ¼ f ðDP DL ; R; sy ; NÞ
depends on the following four parameters: pipe radius (R), pNR3 ðsw  sy Þ1þ1=N
flow behavior index (n) which is found using laboratory q ¼ 1=N
sw 3
measurements, yield stress (sy ) which is measured at the ( K ) ð26Þ
2
ðsw  sy Þ 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
laboratory, and pressure drop per length (DP
DL ). Normally, the
þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
flow rate will be available together with the geometry
characteristic (radius) and fluid properties (sy and N), with Therefore, the average velocity V is:
pressure drop being the output interesting for engineering
applications. This is possible either numerically or by NR ðsw  sy Þ1þ1=N
V ¼ 1=N
sw 3
approximation methods. ( K ) ð27Þ
2
The average velocity is found by dividing q by the cross- ðsw  sy Þ 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
þ þ
sectional area of the pipe (R2 p): 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
N ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ1þ1=N Note: For purpose of solving the HB’s model numeri-
V¼
K 1=N R2 ðDP=DL=2Þ3 cally, it is beneficial to assume sswy ¼ X where X is consid-
( )
ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ2 2sy ð½DP=DLR=2  sy Þ sy 2 ered as the unknown parameter to be found numerically by
þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 N þ1 a computer. Therefore, we have:
ð25Þ s
1=N ðX  1Þ1þ1=N
y
V ¼ NR
( K X3 )
Flow rate and average velocity expressed in terms 2 ð28Þ
of shear stress ðX  1Þ 2ðX  1Þ 1
þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
Knowing ‘‘½DP=DLR=2’’ is equal to the shear stress at the
Mitchell and Miska (2011) made further modifications
wall sw , we can write Eq. (24) as follows:
in order to write the average velocity in terms of the
pN ðsw  sy Þ1þ1=N s
Bingham number ‘‘swy .’’ We also use their term in a more
q¼
K 1=N ðDP=DL=2Þ3 stepwise manner. To do that, we first factor out a coeffi-
( )
ðsw  sy Þ2 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2 cient of sw 1þ1=n . Next, multiplying by the cross-sectional
þ þ area, the flow rate q is found as:
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1

Next, we convert ‘‘ðdP=dL=2Þ3 ’’ to sw by multiplying

the numerator and the denominator by ‘‘R3 ’’:

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 633

1þ1=N  
3
s
1  swy DP=DL R 1=N
3 ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
pNR q ¼ pNR
q ¼ 1=N s1þ1=N
w n K 2 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þo
K s3w 2
( 2   )  ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 /
sw  sy 2sy sw  sy s2y
þ þ ð31Þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1

1þ1=N To find the relative velocity profile, first the average
sy
pNR3 1=N 1  sw velocity of the fluid in the pipe is found by dividing q in
¼ 1=N sw
K s2w Eq. (31) by the cross-sectional area of the pipe ‘‘R2 p’’:
( 2   )
sw  sy 2sy sw  sy s2y NRðDP=DL R
1=N
ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
þ þ K 2Þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1 V¼
ðNnþ 1Þð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ o
2
Allowing application of sw 2 to the parentheses gives:  ð1 þ N Þð1 þ 2N Þ þ 2Nð1 þ NÞ/ þ 2N 2 /

pNR3 sy 1þ1=N ð32Þ

q ¼ 1=N sw 1=N ð1  Þ
K sw
( sy 2 sy s s 2
) ð29Þ
ð1  sw Þ 2 sw ð1  swy Þ ðswy Þ
þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 N þ1 Relative velocity profile
Next, we make a simplification of the form of Eq. (29) First, the velocity equations are essentially expressed in
by using a dummy variable called generalized Bingham terms of shear stress. As the first step, we multiply and
s
number / (Peixinho et al. 2005). Knowing / ¼ swy , we divide Eq. (13) by R1þm :
have:  " 1þm #
R1þm ðDP=DL=2Þm 1 sy
V1 ¼ Vp ¼ 1þm R
pNR3 R Km 1þm ðDP=DLÞ=2
q ¼ 1=N sw 1=N ð1  /Þ1þ1=N 2
1þm 3
( K ) R1þm ðDP=DL=2Þm

1
 R sy
6 ðDP=DL Þ=2 7
ð1  /Þ2 2/ð1  /Þ /2 ¼ 4 5
þ þ Km 1þm R1þm
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
 " 1þm #
RðDP=DLR=2Þm 1 sy
Using the equivalent of ‘‘‘‘½DP=DLR=2’’ for sw gives: ¼ 1 
Km 1þm ðDP=DLÞR=2
 
DP=DL R 1=N
q ¼ pNR3 ð1  /Þ1þ1=N Knowing sy ¼ ðdP=dLÞR=2 and replacing }m} by its
K 2
( ) ð30Þ equivalent ‘‘1=N’’:
ð1  /Þ2 2/ð1  /Þ /2  
þ þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1 NRðsw =KÞ1=N sy 1þ1=N
V1 ¼ ð1  Þ ð33Þ
Nþ1 sw
Factoring ‘‘ðN þ 1) (2N þ 1) (3N þ 1)’’ gives:
 1=N
3 DP=DL R ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
q ¼ pNR
n K 2 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ o
2
 ð1  /Þ ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2/ð1  /ÞðN þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ þ /2 ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ

s
Combining the polynomial terms in the bracket {} Again, using the dummy variable / for swy (i.e., Bingham
gives: number):
 
DP=DL R 1=N ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
q ¼ pnR3
K 2 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
    
 1  2/ þ /2 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2/  2/2 ðN þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ þ /2 ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
 
DP=DL R 1=N ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
¼ pNR3
K 2 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þð3NþÞ1

 ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ /½2ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2ðN þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ þ /2 ½ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ  2ðN þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ þ ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ

123
634 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

h i
NRðsw =KÞm h i NRðsw =KÞ1=N
ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
V1 ¼ ð1  /Þ1þ1=N ð34Þ V1
¼ n
1þN
o
Nþ1 V nRðsw =KÞ1=N ð1/Þ1þ1=N 2 2
ðNþ1Þð2Nþ1Þð3Nþ1Þ  ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N /
Next, the same process above is repeated for V 2 . Thus,
we first multiply and divide Eq. (11) by R1þm : V1 ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
¼ 2
ð37Þ
V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 /

 " 1þm  1þm #

R1þm ðDP=DL=2Þm 1 sy sy
V2 ðr Þ ¼ 1þm R  r
R Km 1þm ðDP=DLÞ=2 ðDP=DLÞ=2
2
1þm
1þm 3
m  R sy sy
ðDP=DL=2Þ 1  r 
6 ðDP=DLÞ=2 ðDP=DLÞ=2 7
¼ R1þm 4 5
Km 1þm R1þm
2
1þm
1þm 3
m   R sy
 r 
sy
ðDP=DL=2Þ 1 6 ðDP=DLÞ=2 ðDP=DLÞ=2 7
¼ R1þm 4 5
Km 1þm R 1þm

V2
  The relative V
is found by:
m
ðDP=DLR=2Þ 1 V 2 ðrÞ
V 2 ðrÞ ¼ R
Km 1þm V
" h 1þ1=N i
1þm  1þm # w =KÞ
ðNRðsNþ1
1=N 
Þ ð1  /Þ1þ1=N  Rr  /
sy r sy
1   ¼
NRðsw =KÞ1=N ð1/Þ1þ1=N
n o
ðDP=DLÞR=2 R ðDP=DLÞR=2 ðNþ1Þð2Nþ1Þð3Nþ1Þ  ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N /
2 2

ð35Þ
V 2 ðrÞ ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
Replacing }dP=dLR=2} with }sw } and }m} with }1=N} ¼ 2
s
V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 /
and swy with /: "   #
! r=R  / 1þ1=N
nRðsw =KÞ1=N r
1þ1=N  1
V 2 ðrÞ ¼ ð1  /Þ1þ1=N  / 1/
Nþ1 R
ð38Þ
ð36Þ
Summarizing Eqs. (37) and (38) for relative velocities
Having simplified and found V 1 and V 2 ðrÞ in terms of /, gives:
we can summarize the relative velocities as follows:
h i
nRðsw =KÞ1=N
V1 Nþ1 ð1  /Þ1þ1=N
¼ DP=DL 1=N n o
V nRð K R2 Þ ð1/Þ1þ1=N 2
ðNþ1Þð2Nþ1Þð3Nþ1Þ  ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 /

8  
> V1 Vp ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
>
> ¼ ¼ 0  r  rp
< V V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ 2 2
" þ2N /  #
1þ1=N
>
> V 2 ðrÞ ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ r=R  /
>
: ¼ 2
1 ðr p  r  RÞ
V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 / 1/

The above equations are presented by Mitchell and

Replacing dP=dL R2 with sw : Miska’s equation 5.123-a and b (2011) with a typo.

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 635

Pressure drop equations The pressure drop equation of a PL fluid DP

DL for pipe flow
is:
There are four important approximation/estimation meth-  
ods in the literature for HB fluids’ pressure drops which are DP 2K PL ð3n þ 1Þ n
¼ V ð40Þ
discussed as follows (with stepwise derivation of the first DL R nR
two ones): The shear stress of the PL fluid sPL is:
 
R dP ð3n þ 1Þ n
Merlo et al. (1995) sPL ¼ ¼ K PL V
2 dL nR
Merlo et al. (1995) and Guo and Liu (2011) presented  
sPL 1=n ð3n þ 1Þ
laminar pressure drop equation of HB fluids for flow in the ¼ V ð41Þ
K PL nR
pipe, but they did not present any derivation. This task is sHB sy 1=N
ð K HB Þ
handled in this work: Therefore, s 1=n is:
ðKPL Þ
Replacing sw with sHB and K with K HB Eq. (27) for the PL
sHB  V 
average velocity in the HB model:
1=N ðsHB sy Þ sy
ð1sHB Þ
2
ð
2sy 1s
sy
Þþ sy 2
sHB sy NR þ ð2Nþ1ÞsHB
3Nþ1 HB ðNþ1ÞsHB 2
K HB
ðsHB  sy Þ1þ1=N
NR
1=n ¼ ð3nþ1Þ
V¼
nR V
sPL
K HB 1=N sHB 3 K PL
( )
ðsHB  sy Þ2 2sy ðsHB  sy Þ sy 2 sHB sy 1=N
þ þ ð K HB Þ
3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
ðKsPLPL Þ1=n
s s 1=N
Using some rearrangements, ð HB K HB Þ
y
is: sHB n 1
 1=N ¼  sy 2 sy

sHB  sy sHB 3 V ðsHB  sy Þ N ð1s Þ 2sy ð1 Þ s 2

¼ n o ð3n þ 1Þ HB
3Nþ1 þ ð2Nþ1ÞssHBHB þ ðNþ1Þs
y
HB
2

K HB ðsHB  sy Þ NR ðsHB sy Þ2 þ 2sy ðsHB sy Þ þ sy 2

3Nþ1 2Nþ1 Nþ1 ð42Þ

Dividing the numerator and the denominator by sHB 2

gives: Case (a) sHB ! ¥ (infinite shear stress and shear
  rate)
sHB  sy 1=N sHB
¼
K HB ðsHB  sy Þ Therefore, when sHB ! 1, the limit is:
V ð39Þ
 sy 2 sy

ð1s Þ 2sy ð1 Þ sy 2
NR 3Nþ1 HB
þ ð2Nþ1ÞssHBHB þ ðNþ1Þs HB
2

1=N
sHB sy
KHB
lim
sHB !1 ðKsPL Þ1=n
8
PL
9
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
< s n 1 =
HB
¼ lim   2
2
3
sHB !1> >
> sHB  sy
> N s s >
> 1s y 2sy 1s y s2y >
>
>
> ð3n þ 1Þ 3Nþ1 þ ð2Nþ1ÞsHB þ ðNþ1Þs2 >
4 HB HB
5 >
: HB
;
8 9
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
sHB <n 1 =
¼ lim    lim 2
2
3
sHB !1 sHB  sy sHB !1>
>N s s >
>
>
> 1s y
2sy 1s y >
>
> ð 3n þ 1 Þ 4 HB
þ
HB
þ
s2y
5>>
>
: 3Nþ1 ð2Nþ1ÞsHB ðNþ1ÞsHB ;
2

123
636 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

Knowing lim ðsHBsHBsy Þ ¼ 1, we have: may cause some error in low shear rates, but that has been
sHB !1
8 9 ignored. Therefore, we have:
> > 8 9
>
<n >
= >
> >
>
1 >
>
>
>
>
>
¼ lim  sy 2  >
< >
=
sHB !1> N s
2sy ð11y Þ >
: ð3n þ 1Þ ð3Nþ1
> 11Þ sHB n 1
þ ðNþ1y Þ1 >
s2
þ ð2Nþ1Þ1 ; ¼ lim 2
2
3
N ! 0>
>
>
ðsHB  sy Þ N 1s
sy s
2sy 1s y
>
>
>
8 9 > >
n!0> >
s 2
> ð 3n þ 1Þ4 HB
þ
HB
þ y 5 >
: 3Nþ1 ð2Nþ1ÞsHB ðNþ1ÞsHB 2 ;
<n 1 =
¼ lim h i
sHB !1:N
ð3n þ 1Þ 1 þ 0 þ 0 ; 3Nþ1 Cancelling out ‘‘ðN1 Þ} by ‘‘n’’ and replacement of n and

1=N N equal to zero:
sHB sy  
KHB 3N þ 1 n
8 9
! lim ¼ >
> >
>
sHB !1 ðKsPL Þ1=n 3n þ 1 N >
> >
>
>
> >
>
PL <s þ s 1 =
y PL
¼ lim 2
2
3
N ! 0>
>
>
sPL s
1 y
s
2sy 1s y
>
>
>
>
> 4 sHB þ s2y
5>
>
Case (b) sy ! 0 (zero yield stress) n!0: > ð 0 þ 1 Þ 0þ1
HB
ð0þ1ÞsHB þ ð0þ1ÞsHB ;
2 >

When sHB ! 1, the limit is: sy þ sPL 1

¼  2


1=N sPL ðsHB sy Þ 2sy ðsHB sy Þ s2
sHB sy ð0 þ 1Þ s2HB
þ s2HB
þ s2y
KHB HB
lim
sy !0 ðKsPL Þ1=n sy þ sPL 1 sy þ sPL 1 sy þ sPL
8
PL
9 ¼ ¼ ¼
sPL ðsHB sy þsy Þ2 sPL s2HB sPL
>
> >
> 2 sHB
>
> >
> s2HB
>
> >
>
1=N
<
sHB n 1 = sHB sy
¼ lim   2
2
3 KHB sy þ sPL
sy !0>
> sHB  sy N s s >
> ! lim ¼
>
> 1 y 2sy 1s y >
>
> ð 3n þ 1 Þ4 sHB þ HB
þ
s2y
5>
>
>
N!0 ðKsPL Þ1=n sPL
: 3Nþ1 ð2Nþ1ÞsHB ðNþ1ÞsHB ;
2 PL

8 9
< sHB n 1 = Considering the above limits for the investigated cases
¼ h i (a, b and c), an equation structure can be made for
:ðsHB  0Þ N ð3n þ 1Þ ð10Þ2 þ 20ð10Þ þ 0 ;
3Nþ1 ð2Nþ1ÞsHB ðNþ1Þs2HB
1=N

1=N sHB sy
sHB sy   K HB
KHB 3N þ 1 n

1=n as follows:
! lim ¼ sPL
s
sy !0 ð PL Þ 1=n 3n þ 1 N K PL
KPL

1=N
sHB sy    
K HB 3N þ 1 n
asPL þ bsy Þ
Case (c) N ! 0 (fluid is like solid)
1=n ¼ ð43Þ
sPL 3n þ 1 N csPL þ dsy
K PL
In this imaginary case, N tends to zero. In this case, the
where a ¼ b ¼ c ¼ N þ 1, and d ¼ N. Or:
fluid behaves like a solid with constant shear stress. In this

1=N
case, the limit is: sHB sy    

1=N K HB 3N þ 1 n
ðN þ 1ÞðsPL þ sy Þ
sHB sy
1=n ¼ ð44Þ
KHB sPL 3n þ 1 N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy
lim K PL
N!0 ðKsPLPL Þ1=n
8 9
>
> >
> We already showed in Eq. (41) that for flow through
>
> >
>
1=n
>
> >
>
< s =
¼ lim 
HB

n

2
1

pipes, KsPLPL is:

N!0>
2 3
> sHB  sy N s s >
>
>
> 1 y 2sy 1s y >  1=n
>
> ð 3n þ 1Þ 4 sHB þ HB
þ
s2y
5>>
> sPL ð3n þ 1Þ
: 3Nþ1 ð2Nþ1ÞsHB ðNþ1ÞsHB ;
2
¼ V
K PL nR
With N ¼ 0, we have: sHB ¼ sy þ K and K ¼ sPL . In Therefore:
other words: sHB ¼ sy þ sPL . Next, Merlo et al. (1995)    
sHB  sy 1=N 3N þ 1 n
ðN þ 1ÞðsPL þ sy Þ
have apparently assumed that as the HB’s flow behavior ¼
K HB 3n þ 1 N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy
index tends to zero (N ! 0), the PL model’s flow behavior
ð3n þ 1Þ
index would also tend to zero (n ! 0). This assumption  V
nR

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 637

 
Cancelling out terms: 1 sy
Cc ¼ 1  h iN ð48Þ
    Nþ1 ð3Nþ1ÞV
sHB  sy 1=N 3N þ 1 ðN þ 1ÞðsPL þ sy Þ V sy þ K NR
¼ 
K HB N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R
It is noted that the above equations are in SI units.
Taking both sides to the power of N:
  N Gjerstad et al. (2014)
sHB  sy 3N þ 1 ðN þ 1ÞðsPL þ sy Þ V
¼ 
K HB N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R Similar to Merlo et al. (1995), Gjerstad et al. (2014) used
Therefore, sHB is: comparison of HB model prediction with that of the PL
  N model. However, they first proceeded to non-dimension-
3N þ 1 ðN þ 1ÞðsPL þ sy Þ V alizing the velocity and shear stress parameters in the HB
sHB ¼ sy þ K HB 
N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R model. Next, they related the HB model parameters to the
PL one. Next, having found some limiting cases, a general
Applying ‘‘sHB ¼ sw ¼ ðDP=DLÞR=2,’’ we can find
structure was reached as the pressure drop equation of the
ðDP=DLÞHB as follows:
  (     N )
HB model. The provided equations are not step-by-step and
DP 1 3N þ 1 ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy V straightforward. Therefore, in this section, a stepwise
¼ sy þ KHB 
DL HB R=2 N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R derivation is provided:
(     N )
KHB sy 3N þ 1 ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy V First, the dimensionless forms of two important
¼ þ  parameters of the pressure gradient (DP=DL) and average
R=2 KHB N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R
(     N ) velocity (V) are defined as follows:
2KHB sy 3N þ 1 ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy V
¼ þ 
R KHB N ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy R ðDP=DLÞR=2 sw
P¼ ¼ ðBingham number Þ ð49Þ
sy sy
Some further rearrangements give: K N
8 2 3N 9 U¼ V ð50Þ
  < = s y RN
DP 2K HB sy ð3N þ 1Þ
¼ þ 4 ðNþ1Þs þNs  V 5
DL HB R :K HB N PL y
R ; According to Eq. (27), the average velocity of a HB fluid
ðNþ1ÞðsPL þsy Þ
in terms of shear stress is rewritten as:
ð45Þ ( )
NR ðsw  sy Þ1þ1=N ðsw  sy Þ2 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
Merlo et al. (1995) and Guo and Liu (2011) use the term V ¼ 1=N þ þ
K sw 3 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
ðNþ1Þs þNs
‘‘C c ¼ ðNþ1ÞðsPLPL þsy yÞ.’’ Cc is the circular or pipe correction
Taking V to the power of N:
coefficient. Reed and Pilehvari (1993) called a similar term ( )N
ðNþ1Þs þNs
‘‘2 ðNþ1ÞðsPLPL þsy yÞ R’’ as the effective diameter. N N N RN ðsw  sy ÞNþ1 ðsw  sy Þ2 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
V ¼ þ þ
( K sw 3N 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
   N )
DP 2K HB sy ð3N þ 1Þ V
¼ þ ð46Þ RN
DL HB R K HB NC c R Dividing both sides by K:
( )N
Nþ1
This is the same equation given by Merlo et al. (1995) K N N ðsw  sy Þ ðsw  sy Þ2 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
NV ¼ N sw 3N 3N þ 1
þ
2N þ 1
þ
Nþ1
and Guo and Liu (2011), except that they replaced average R

velocity ‘‘V’’ with its equivalent ‘‘pRq 2 ’’ and ‘‘R’’ with

Dividing both sides by sy and defining it as U HB :
‘‘D=2.’’
The correction coefficient C c is simplified as follows: K N N N ðsw  sy ÞNþ1
U HB ¼ NV ¼ s
  sy R y sw 3N
ðN þ 1ÞsPL þ Nsy ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy  sy ( )N
Cc ¼  ¼   ðsw  sy Þ2 2sy ðsw  sy Þ sy 2
ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy ðN þ 1Þ sPL þ sy þ þ
  3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
1 sy
Cc ¼ 1  ð47Þ Dividing the numerator and denominator of the right-
N þ 1 ðsPL þ sy Þ
hand side by sy 3Nþ1 :
Replacing the equivalent of sPL using Eq. (41) gives the N
Nþ1 ðsw sy Þ2 2sy ðsw sy Þ sy 2
same equation as in Merlo et al. (1995) or Guo and Liu N N ðsw sy Þ 3Nþ1 þ 2Nþ1 þNþ1
sy 3Nþ1
(2011): U HB ¼ sy sw 3N
sy 3Nþ1

123
638 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

 n  
Simplifying gives: K PL V 3n þ 1 n
PPL ¼ ð54Þ
n oN sy R n
ðsw sy Þ2 2sy ðsw sy Þ s2y
3Nþ1 þ þNþ1
Nþ1
ðsw sy Þ 2Nþ1

sNþ1
 s2N
Knowing the dimensionless U PL :
UHB ¼ N N y y

3N K N
sw U PL ¼ V ð55Þ
sy sy R N
8
2 9N

> s > sw
ðsswy  1ÞNþ1 < swy  1 1 = 2 1
Using equations Eqs. (54) and (55):
sy
¼ NN þ þ  n
ðsswy Þ3N >
: 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 N þ 1>
; P ¼ U 3n þ 1
PL PL
n
sw Or, U PL is:
Multiplying the numerator and the denominator by sy :
 n
Nþ1 ( )N n
sw
sw ð s  1Þ ðsswy  1Þ2 2ðsswy  1Þ 1 U PL ¼ PPL ð56Þ
U HB ¼ N N ð Þ y s 3Nþ1 þ þ 3n þ 1
sy ð sw Þ 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
y

ðsswy 1ÞNþ1 Gjerstad et al. (2014) made an assumption here (without

Inserting the coefficient ‘‘N N ðsswy Þ3Nþ1
’’ into the paren-
mentioning) that K HB ¼ K PL and N ¼ n, and therefore
thesis and replacing ‘‘1/N’’ by ‘‘m’’: U HB ¼ U PL :
8
1þm 2
2 39N
 >< sw sw > U PL ¼ U HB ð57Þ
1 7=
 1  1 sw
sw sy 6 sy 2ð s  1Þ
U HB ¼ N
3þm 4 þ y þ 5
>
sy : sw 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1 >; Thus:
sy  N
N
ð51Þ PPL
3N þ 1
( " #)N
Gjerstad et al. (2014) used dimensionless forms of HB ðPHB  1Þ1þm ðPHB  1Þ2 2ðPHB  1Þ 1
model parameters of PHB and U HB : ¼ PHB N þ þ
PHB 3þm 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1
sw sHB ðDP=DLÞHB R=2 h iN
PHB ¼ or ¼ ð52Þ N
sy sy sy Cancelling out 3Nþ1 on both sides:
(
Therefore: ðPHB  1Þ1þm
PPL ¼ PHB
( " #)N PHB 3þm
ðPHB  1Þ1þm ðPHB  1Þ2 2ðPHB  1Þ 1
U HB ¼ PHB N þ þ  
PHB 3þm 3N þ 1 2N þ 1 Nþ1 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ N
ðPHB  1Þ2 þ þ
ð53Þ 2N þ 1 N þ1
1þm

Next, for the PL model, the following relationship holds Knowing m ¼ 1=N, and taking ðPHB 1Þ
P 3þm
to the power of
HB
for the pressure gradient in laminar flow: N:
  " #N " #N
DP 2K PL ð3n þ 1Þ n ðPHB  1Þ1þm ðPHB  1Þ1þ1=N ðPHB  1ÞNþ1
¼ V ¼ ¼
DL R nR PHB 3þm PHB 3þ1=N PHB 3Nþ1
Therefore, the shear stress in the PL model sw;PL is: ðPHB  1Þ ðPHB  1ÞN
  ¼ 
ð3n þ 1Þ n PHB PHB 3N
sw;PL ¼ ðDP=DLÞR=2 ¼ K PL V
nR N
Therefore, keeping the part ‘‘ðPPHB 1Þ
3N ’’in the parenthesis,
HB
Dividing both sides by sy : while extracting ‘‘ðPHB 1Þ
PHB ’’ as a coefficient outside:
  
sw;PL K PL ð3n þ 1Þ n ðPHB  1Þ ðPHB  1Þ
¼ ðDP=DLÞR=2 ¼ V PPL ¼ PHB
sy sy nR PHB PHB 3
sw;pl
  N
Configuring the dimensionless ‘‘PPL ¼ 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ
sy ,’’ we have: 2
ðPHB  1Þ þ þ
  2N þ 1 Nþ1
sw;PL K PL ð3n þ 1Þ n
PPL ¼ ¼ V
sy sy nR
Multiplications and simplifications:
Or:

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 639

" #N
ðPHB  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ ðPHB  1Þ3
¼ ðPHB  1Þ þ þ lim e ¼ lim
PHB 3 ð2N þ 1ÞPHB 3 ðN þ 1ÞPHB 3 PHB !1 PHB !1 P3HB
2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ2 ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ
Therefore, we can write: þ þ
ð2N þ 1ÞP3HB ðN þ 1ÞP3HB
PPL ¼ ðPHB  1ÞeN ð58Þ P3 2ð3N þ 1ÞP2HB ð3N þ 1ÞPHB
¼ HB
3
þ þ
where PHB ð2N þ 1ÞP3HB ðN þ 1ÞP3HB
2ð3N þ 1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ
ðPHB  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ2 ¼1þ þ
ð2N þ 1ÞPHB ðN þ 1ÞP2HB
e¼ þ
PHB 3 ð2N þ 1ÞPHB 3
2ð3N þ 1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ
ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ ¼1þ þ ¼1þ0þ0¼1
þ ð59Þ ð2N þ 1Þ1 ðN þ 1Þ1
ðN þ 1ÞPHB 3
Therefore:
They defined DPHP as the difference between PHB and
PPL as follows: lim DPHP ¼ lim PHB ð1  eN Þ þ eN
PHB !1 PHB !1
 
DPHP ¼ PHB  PPL ð60Þ ¼ lim PHB 1  eN þ lim eN
PHB !1 PHB !1
Combining Eq. (58) and Eq. (60): ¼ 1 ð 1  1Þ þ 1 ! 1  0 þ 1
DPHP ¼ PHB ð1  eN Þ þ eN ð61Þ The first part of the above limitation has the indeter-
minate form. First, we convert the indeterminate form from
Gjerstad et al. (2014) took limitations from Eq. (61) for
the following cases: ‘‘1  0’’ to ‘‘00’’ so that we can later use the L’Hopital’s
rule of limitation (Thomas and Weir 2004):
Case (a) Flow Initiation (sw ! sy orP HB ! 1)   ð1  eN Þ 0 0
lim PHB 1  eN ¼ lim 1
¼ 1 ¼
PHB !1 PHB !1
PHB 1
0
First, we know that the limit of e is:
Now, the L’Hopital’s rule of limitation is applied by
ðPHB  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ2 taking derivation from both the numerator and the
lim e ¼ lim þ
PHB !1 PHB !1 PHB 3 ð2N þ 1ÞPHB 3 denominator:
ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ
þ  
d ð1eN Þ d ð1eN Þ
ðN þ 1ÞPHB 3 N dPHB

¼ lim dPHB
lim PHB 1  e ¼ lim
ð1  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1Þð1  1Þ2 PHB !1 PHB !1
d 1 PHB !1  1 2
PHB
¼ þ PHB
1 ð2N þ 1Þ  1 dPHB
ð3N þ 1Þð1  1Þ d ð1eN Þ
þ The derivative is:
ðN þ 1Þ  1 dPHB
N N
¼0 d ð1  e Þ d ð1  e Þ de de
¼  ¼ NeN1 
dPHB de dPHB dPHB
Therefore:
de
The derivative is found as:
lim DPHP ¼ lim PHB ð1  eN Þ þ eN ¼ 1ð1  0Þ þ 0 dPHB
PHB !1 PHB !1
¼1 de d ðPHB  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ2
¼ þ
dPHB dPHB PHB 3 ð2N þ 1ÞPHB 3
In short: 
ð3N þ 1ÞðPHB  1Þ
lim DPHP ¼ 1 ð62Þ þ
PHB !1 ðN þ 1ÞPHB 3
3ðPHB  1Þ2 PHB 3  3PHB 2 ðPHB  1Þ3 2ð3N þ 1Þ
¼ þ
Case (b) Very High Flow Rates PHB 6 ð2N þ 1Þ
(sw ! ¥ orPHB ! ¥ ) 2ðPHB  1ÞPHB 3  3PHB 2 ðPHB  1Þ2 ð3N þ 1Þ
 þ
PHB 6 ð N þ 1Þ
First, we know that the limit of e is: PHB 3  3PHB 2 ðPHB  1Þ

PHB 6

Therefore, using the above derivative, the limit is found

as:

123
640 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643

 
limPHB !1 PHB 1  eN of their equations is presented in a stepwise manner as
N
dð1e Þ follows:
dPHB
¼ lim ¼ lim Step-1: Calculate the dimensionless pressure in PL
PHB !1  12 PHB !1
PHB
  model, PPL (using the average velocity V):
de n 
P2HB  NeN1 KV 3n þ 1 n
dPHB PPL ¼ ð64Þ
2 s y Rn n
¼ lim PHB  NeN1
PHB !1
" Step-2: Calculate the transition parameter PT , and f 0 :
3ðPHB  1Þ2 P3HB  3P2HB ðPHB  1Þ3
 PT ¼ ½1 þ 45ðN þ 1Þ5:4   104 ð65Þ
P6HB

1=N
2ð3N þ 1Þ 2ðPHB  1ÞP3HB  3P2HB ðPHB  1Þ2 PPL
PT
þ  f0 ¼ ð66Þ
ð2N þ 1Þ P6HB
1=N
 1þ PPL
ð3N þ 1Þ P3HB  3P2HB ðPHB  1Þ PT
þ 
ð N þ 1Þ P6HB Step-3: Calculate f YP :
2 "  w #
Cancelling out PHB , knowing already that lim e ¼ 1, N r
PHB !1
and expanding the terms in the parentheses: f YP ¼ 1 þ 1n  DPHP ð67Þ
2N þ 1 r þ PpL
¼ lim fN  1
PHB !1
" where
3ðPHB  1Þ2 ðPHB 3  PHB 3 þ PHB 2 Þ 2ð3N þ 1Þ
 þ n ¼ 0:97  0:1N  0:11N 2
PHB 4 ð2N þ 1Þ
r ¼ 0:2 þ 0:45ðN  0:5Þ2 ð68Þ
2PHB 4  2PHB 3  3PHB 4 þ 6PHB 3  3PHB 2 ð3N þ 1Þ 3
 þ w ¼ 0:82 þ 0:8N
PHB 4 ð N þ 1Þ

PHB 3  3PHB 3 þ 3PHB 2 Step-4: Calculate PHB :
 g
PHB 4 PHB ¼ ðPPL þ fYP Þf0 ð69Þ
DP
Some simplifications: Step-5: Calculate DL :

   4  
3 PHB  2P3HB þ P2HB 2ð3N þ 1Þ 2P4HB  2P3HB  3P4HB þ 6P3HB  3P2HB ð3N þ 1Þ P3HB  3P3HB þ 3P2HB
¼ lim N  þ  þ 
PHB !1 P4HB ð2N þ 1Þ P4HB ðN þ 1 Þ P4HB
  4 4 3

3PHB 2ð3N þ 1Þ 1PHB ð3N þ 1Þ PHB
¼ lim N  þ  4 þ 
PHB !1 P4 ð2N þ 1Þ PHB ðN þ 1Þ P4HB
  HB   
2ð3N þ 1Þ ð3N þ 1Þ 1 3ð2N þ 1Þ  6N  2 N
¼ lim N  3  þ  ¼ N ¼
PHB !1 ð2N þ 1Þ ðN þ 1 Þ 1 ð2N þ 1Þ 2N þ 1

Therefore, lim DPHP is:

PHB !1 DP 2sy
  ¼ PHB ð70Þ
lim DPHP ¼ lim eN þ lim PHB 1  eN DL R
PHB !1 PHB !1 PHB !1
N
¼1þ
2N þ 1
Generalized shear rate method
In brief:
N Metzner and Reed (1955) and Metzner (1957) introduced
lim DPHP ¼ 1 þ ð63Þ the ‘‘Generalized Shear Rate’’ method based on the effec-
PHB !1 2N þ 1
tive diameter concept in order to expand PL models to non-
Finally, using the limits of DPHB found in cases (a) and
Newtonian models. The mathematical background behind
(b), Gjerstad et al. (2014) found an approximation equation
this model is trivial, and it is simply using analogy to the
structure which meets the limits. The equation structure
PL model. The effective diameter for non-Newtonian pipe
had some constants (n, r and w). Next, they performed
flow is the diameter of a circular pipe that would have the
tuning and found the constants of the equation. A summary
identical pressure drop for flow of a Newtonian fluid with
viscosity equal to the apparent viscosity and the same

123
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 641

Table 1 Summary of the HB model’s flow equations for pipe flow. It is noted that the abbreviation ‘‘Gen.’’ indicates the ‘‘Generalized Shear Rate
Method’’
Pipe flow
8  
Velocity >
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ1=N N sy 1þ1=N
< V1 ¼ ð Þ ðR  Þ ð0  r  r p Þ
K 1=N N þ1 ðdP=dLÞ=2
 
>
>
> ðdP=dL=2Þ1=N N sy 1þ1=N sy 1þ1=N
: V 2 ðrÞ ¼ ð Þ ðR  Þ  ðr  Þ ðr p  r  RÞ
K 1=N Nþ1 ðdP=dLÞ=2 ðdP=dLÞ=2
n o
Flow rate ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ1þ1=N ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ2 2s ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ sy 2
q ¼ KpN
1=N
ðDP=DL=2Þ3 3Nþ1 þ y 2Nþ1 þ Nþ1
1þ1=N
n o
Average velocity N ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ2 2s ð½DP=DLR=2sy Þ sy 2
V ¼ K 1=N R2 ðDP=DL=2Þ3 3Nþ1 þ y 2Nþ1 þ Nþ1
8
Relative velocity > V1 Vp ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ
>
> ¼ ¼ ð0  r  r p Þ
< V V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ"1Þ/ þ 2N 2 /
2
#
>
> V2 ¼ ð2N þ 1Þð3N þ 1Þ r=R  / 1þ1=N
>
: 2
1ð Þ ðr p  r  RÞ
V ðN þ 1Þð2N þ 1Þ þ 2NðN þ 1Þ/ þ 2N 2 / 1/
s
/ ¼ swy
 h iN 
DP Merlo 2K HB sy ð3Nþ1Þ V
ðDP
DL ÞHB ¼ R K HB þ NC c R

1 s
whereC c ¼ 1  ðNþ1 Þ 8ð3Nþ1
y
ÞV
N
sy þK NR

Gjerstad DP 2sy
DL ¼ R PHB
wherePHB ¼ ðPPL þ f YP Þf 0
n  
3nþ1 n
PPL ¼ sKV
yR
n
n

w 
N r
f YP ¼ 1 þ 2Nþ1 1  n rþP pL

withn ¼ 0:97  0:1N  0:11N 2 ; r ¼ 0:2 þ 0:45ðN  0:5Þ2 , w ¼ 0:82 þ 0:8N 3

1=N
PPL
PT 5:4
f0 ¼
1=N withPT ¼ ½1 þ 45ðN þ 1Þ   104
PPL
1þ PT

 
Gen DP
DL ¼ D4eff sy þ Kðcw ÞN

wherecw ¼ D8Veff
Deff ¼ D 3Nþ1
G withG ¼ 4N

average velocity as the non-Newtonian flow (Reed and DP 4  

Pilehvari 1993). ¼ sy þ Kðcw ÞN ð74Þ
DL Deff
The procedure of this method is as follows:
where N is the HB model’s flow behavior index.
Step-1: Calculate constant G:
3N þ 1
G¼ ð71Þ
4N
Results and discussion
Step-2: Calculate the effective diameter Deff :
D Table 1 shows the summary of HB’s model equations for
Deff ¼ ð72Þ pipe and annular flow, as derived in this work.
G
Step-3: Calculate the wall shear rate c:
8V Conclusions and future work
cw ¼ ð73Þ
Deff
Stepwise derivation of laminar flow equations and esti-
DP
Step 4: Calculate the pressure gradient DL : mation methods of Herschel–Bulkley (HB) fluids through
pipes are not available in the literature. Therefore, this

123
642 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643
work was focused on finding and presenting step-by-step
derivation procedures in order to contribute to effective
learning for engineering students and practitioners in
addition to providing a clear example derivation guideline
for future researchers to reach other more accurate non-
Newtonian hydraulics models and estimation methods.
The following conclusions were taken:
1. Stepwise and detailed mathematical derivation of the
HB fluid flow velocity, average velocity, relative
velocity and flow rate was presented.
2. Different approximation methods of HB laminar flow
pressure drop were presented in forms of user-friendly
procedures applicable to field and academic use.
3. In a future work, these estimation methods will be
compared in some case studies to find the most
accurate one.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funding This research work had no fund.
References
API RP 13D (2003) Recommended practice on the rheology and
hydraulics of oil-well drilling fluids, 3rd edn. American
Petroleum Institute
API RP 13D (2009) Recommended practice on the rheology and
hydraulics of oil-well drilling fluids, 4th edn. American
Petroleum Institute
Ashena R, Hekmatinia A, Ghalambor A, Aadnoy B, Enget C, Rasouli
V (2021) Improving drilling hydraulics estimations—a case
study. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13202-021-01203-4
Ashena R, Bahreini H, Ghalambor A, Sahraei E, Ahmad Loi Darab M
(2022) Investigation of parameters controlling equivalent circu-
lating density ECD in managed pressure drilling MPD. Paper
presented at the SPE international conference and exhibition on
formation damage control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. https://
doi.org/10.2118/208869-MS
Bourgoyne AT, Millheim Jr, KK, Chenevert ME, Young Jr FS (1991)
Applied drilling engineering, SPE textbook series, vol 2. ISBN:
978-1-55563-001-0
Cheng DCH (1975) The Chem Eng (Lond) 301, 525, 302, 587
Chilton RA, Stainsby R (1998) Pressure loss equations for laminar
and turbulent non-Newtonian pipe flow. J Hydraul Eng
124(5):522–529
123
Chin WC (2012) Chapter 5—more steady flow applications, managed
pressure drilling. Gulf Professional Publishing, pp 183–266.
ISBN 9780123851246. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
385124-6.00005-8
Crespo F, Ahmed R, Enfis M, Saasen A, Amani M (2012) Surge-and-
swab pressure predictions for yield-power-law drilling fluids.
SPE Drill Compl 27(2012):574–585. https://doi.org/10.2118/
138938-PA
Gjerstad K, Time RW, Bjorkevoll KS (2012) Simplified explicit flow
equations for Bingham plastics in Couette-Poiseuille flow—for
dynamic surge and swab modeling. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech
175–176:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2012.03.002
(ISSN 0377-0257)
Gjerstad K, Ydstie BE, Time RW, Bjorkevoll KS (2014) An explicit
and continuously differentiable flow equation for non-newtonian
fluids in pipes. SPE J 19(1):78–87
Gjerstad K, Time RW (2014) Simplified explicit flow equations for
Herschel-Bulkley fluids in Couette-poiseuille flow-for real-time
surge and swab modeling in drilling. SPE J 20:1–18
Govier GW, Aziz K (1972) The flow of complex mixtures in pipes.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York
Govier G, Aziz K (2008) The flow of complex mixtures in pipes.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson. ISBN: 978-1-
55563-139-0. https://store.spe.org/The-Flow-of-Complex-Mix
tures-in-Pipes-Second-Edition-P24.aspx
Guo B, Liu G (2011) Applied drilling circulation systems. Gulf
Professional Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-12-381957-4. https://doi.
org/10.1016/C2009-0-30657-1
Haciislamoglu M, Langlinais J (1990) Non-Newtonian flow in
eccentric annuli. ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol.
112(3):163–169. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2905753
Hanks RW (1979) The axial laminar flow of yield-pseudoplastic
fluids in a concentric annulus. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev
18(3):488–493. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260071a024
Herschel WH, Bulkley R (1926) Measurement of consistence as
applied to Rubber-Benzine solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2th
annual meeting of the American society of testing materials.
American Society of Testing Materials, Atlantic, pp 621–633
Merlo A, Maglione R, Cesare P (1995) An innovative model for
drilling fluid hydraulics. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
oil and gas conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. https://doi.org/
10.2118/29259-MS
Metzner AB, Reed JC (1955) Flow of non-Newtonian fluids-
correlation of the laminar, transition and turbulent flow regions.
AICHE J 1(4):434–440
Metzner AB (1957) Non-Newtonian fluid flow. Ind Eng Chem
49(9):1429–1432
Mitchell RF, Miska SZ (2011) Fundamentals of drilling engineering.
SPE textbook series no. 12. ISBN: 978-1-55563-207-6
Peixinho J, Nouar C, Desaubry C et al (2005) Laminar transitional
and turbulent flow of yield stress fluid in a pipe. J Non-Newton
Fluid 128(2–3):172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2005.
03.008
Rabia H (1985) Oilwell drilling engineering, principles and practices.
Published by Graham and Trotman, University of California.
ISBN: 9780860106616
Reed TD, Pilehvari AA (1993) A new model for laminar, transitional,
and turbulent flow of drilling muds. Paper presented at the SPE
production operations symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
https://doi.org/10.2118/25456-MS
Robertson RE, Stiff HA Jr (1976) An improved mathematical model
for relating shear stress to shear rate in drilling fluids and cement
slurries. SPE J 16(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.2118/5333PA
(SPE-5333-PA)
Sisko AW (1958) The flow of lubricating greases. Ind Eng Chem
50(12):1789–1792
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology (2023) 13:625–643 643

Thomas GB, Weir MD (2004) Thomas’ calculus. Published by
Addison Wesley Longman, 11th edn., 1380pp. ISBN:
978-0321185587
Weir IS, Bailey WJ (1996) A statistical study of rheological models
for drilling fluids. SPE J 1:473–486. https://doi.org/10.2118/
36359-PA
Whittaker A, Staff E (1985) Theory and application of drilling fluid
hydraulics. International Human Resources Development Corp,
Boston (ISBN 10: 0887460453)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

123