This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

-of~Gwinf=a

SPE 15416

**Rheology of Oil-Base Muds
**

by O,H. Houwen, Sch/urnberger Cambridge Research,

SPE Members

and T, Geehan, SEDCO FOREX

Copyright 1986, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation al Ihe 61st Annual Technicsl Conference and Exhibition of Ihe Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA October 5-6, 19S6. This paper waa selected for prasentafion by an SPE Program Committee fotlowing review of information confained in an abstract submitfec by (he author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject fo publication review by Editorial Committees of fhe SOciely of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper ia presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833S36, Richardson, TX 760S3-3S36. Telex, 7309S9 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT The theological behaviour of invert emulsion muds has been up to studied at pressures up to 1000 bar and temperatures 240°C. Theological parameters were calculated for the Bingham, Herschel-Bulkley and Cssson theological models. The Iierachel-Bulkley and Cesson modeb both give good fits to the The Cesson model is more reliable experimental rheograms. for extrapolation purposes than the Herschel-Bulkley model. A pair of two similar exponential expressions were found to be able to model the pressure and temperature behaviour of the two parameters of the Casson model. The expressions, which are baaed on the relation for pure liquids derived theoretically by Eyring, contain temperature dependent pressure coefficients. The simplifications inherent in the temperature and pressure model are dkcussed in the light of the temperature and pressure behaviour of the viscosity of common base oils and their constituent hydrocarbons. Field application of the model requires measurement of the rheology of the mud at two or more temperatures and knowledge of the pressure coefficients relating the behaviour of the plastic viscos~ty to that of the yield point, or the Casson high shear visccgity to that of the Casson yield stress. Pressure meaauremer !S or other information are then not required. Applications can be baaed on Caason or Bingham theological meesurements. The relationships between the parameters of the Casson and Bingham models are disussed.

INTRODUCTION Although a great deal has been written about the pressure and temperature behaviour of the viscosity of simple nonNewtonian fluids, and an understanding of this behaviour at the molecular level is emerging, no consensus exists on how to deal with concentrated suspensions. This can easily be understood, considering the widely different nature of nonNewtonian fluids, Invert emulsion muds are suspensions of solids and emulsions at the same time, and as there is no generally accepted theological model that can be applied to emulsions and suspensions, the engineering aspects of invert emulsion muds are not always based on very sound scientific principles, Thus, while it is known that at pressures and temperatures encountered in the wellbore the rheology of the mud will be different from that measured at the surface, lack of the ability to quantify the effects involved has perpetuated the field practice of using theological parameters measured at atmospheric pressure. Traditionally the mud industry has, with a few exceptions, adhered to the uee of the Bingham and power law theological models, which have the advantage that hydraulics calculations are available for fluids obeying these models. Hence, it is not surprising that the existing techniques for prediction of downhole rheology are based on these models. A number of recent publications have dealt with the problem. Combs and Whitmire (1) showed that the change in the viscosity of the continuous phase is the main factor in controlling the change in the viscosity of the mud with pressure. Both yield point and plastic viscosity seemed to be governed by this effect. McMordie et af, (2) concluded that the power law model gives the beat mathematical description of the viscosity of an oil base mud at constant temperature and pressure, They require two sets of constants for shear rates below 200s- 1 and above this value, which suggests that the choice of the power law model is not the best one to be made. They found that the logarithm of the shear stress is proportional to the pressure, giving

References

and illustrations

at end of paper.

2

RHEOLOGY OF OIL

BASE MUDS

SPE 15416

rise to the exponential law for the pressure dependence that also appeared in the appropriate API Bulletin (3). Again, the choice of the power law model necessitated the use of different constants for high and low shear rat es. De Wolfe et al. (4) studied a number of less toxic oils. They report a close correlation of the results to the Herschel-Bulkley model. Since their results are presented as apparent viscosities, no further inferences can be made as to the manner in which the theological parameters of this model individually depend on temperature and pressure. Politte (5) chose to model the invert muds as Bingham fluids, which they resembled more closely than power law fluids, A multi-term equation with 13 numerical constants was presented to model the viscosity behaviour of diesel oil at pressures over 1000 psi. Politte concluded that the plastic viscosity could be normalized with the viscosity of the oil, The yield point was found to be more of a problem, since it is not a true physical parameter, and much more susceptible to experimental error than the plastic viscosity. It was found to be a weak function of pressure, the effect of pressure decreasing as temperature increases. Bailey et al. (6) used the Bingham model to describe the rheology of low-toxicity oil mud, but noted that at higher temperatures departure occurs from this model. OBJECTIVES We decided to reinvestigate the problem. Our first objective was to find a pressure and temperature dependent model with a wide app!icabilit y. The second objective was to give preference to models which would offer some physical interpretation of the theological phenomena. This would give hope that ultimately a model can be constructed that relates the theological parameters to mud composition and changes thereof (our third objective). It was apparent from previous work that the most elusive part of the prediction of the temperature and pressure behaviour of the viscosity is at the low shear rate end. In order to study this problem under the best conditions we prepared muds with appreciable yield points, so that we were able to anal yse numerical values well above the limits set by experimental precision. EXPERIMENTAL We carried out the investigation with a Haake 1000 bar rheometer, essentially a modern version of the instrument described as the BHC Viscometer (7). The nominal shear rate range is o-1200 s-l, continuously variable. The bob of this rheometer is magnetically coupled to the drive and torque measuring unit, which can measure shear stresses up to about 60 Pa. In our experience an accuracy of about 1 Pain the shear stress readings can be achieved with the system. The shear stress vs. time profile of the rheometer was controlled by a home made system, incorporating a micro computer, which also continuously recorded the shear stress readings. Rheograms thus collected were reformatted and stored in a main frame database system, for later recall and plotting. We also used a more precise thermostated atmospheric Haake RV1OO system with a shear rate range to about 2700 s–l. Muds were prepared in the laboratory, using commercially available products for formulation of a currently popular less toxic invert mud system used in the North Sea, and also used in the study on solids control equipment published from our laboratories (8). Viscosities

were changed by addition of barite or organophilic clay. Great care wrw taken to use only reproducible results, After viscometer runs at elevated temperatures rheograms were re-recorded, to see if any irreversible chemical change had occurred. Generally this started to happen at temperatures above 140°C. As we are then dealing with a problem of a different nature, the irreversible effect of temperature on mud systems which can only be alleviated by chemical treatment, we decided to exclude these measurements from our data set. THEOLOGICAL MODELS An obvious strategy is to decide upol: a theological model and to investigate the pressure and temperature variation of the parameters involved in the model. In order for this strategy to work, it is necessary that this model is applicable with the same degree of accuracy at all pressures and temperatures that are relevant to the rig operations. When the rheograms obtained with the HTHP rheometer were examined, it became imnlediately apparent that they all show curvature. It would thus be a simplification to analyse the rheology of the muds in terms of the Bingham model. The power law model leads to curved rheogranl& but is not applicable either, as can be seen in Figure 1. For a power law fluid a plot of log p vs. log ~ should give a straight line, since ~ = l+, hence, log; =logp=log k+(?t–l)log+. (2) (1)

Figure 1 also shows a remarkable similarity of the curves determined at temperatures between 25°C and 110°C, indicating some invariant feature of the rheology as temperature is changed. The same observation was also made for curves determined at constant temperature and increasing pressure. The modified power law model of Herschel and Bulkley has been advocated (9) as a more realistic description of muds, since it contains a yield stress term:

T = To -i-

k~n.

(3)

In order to make some judgement of the closeness of fit of the experimental data with theological models, a set of 20 shear stresses was extracted from each complete rheogram at preselected ~ values, sampling relatively more points from the initial curved portion of the rheogram than at the high shear rate end. The differences of these experimental shear stress values with the predictions based on the model were calculated. Two numerical techniques were used in order to calculate the Herschel-Bulkley parameters. In the first a variable trial value from all 7 values, and a least squares of TO was subtracted regression performed on the logarithms of the values of (T – TO ) and ~. Maximisation of the correlation coefficient gave the final value of TO. In method 2 the function of TO, k, and n:

(4)

SPF

15AIA

O.H.

.. HOUWEN ANO T,----~FFHAN .

3 .

where i runs over the zo data points extracted from the experimental rheogramwaa minimized, by considering that at the optimum values of TO,k, and n the partial derivatives of E with respect to r., k, and n will be zero. In essence this method does a least squares regression on the 4, r data points directly without having to resort to taking logarithms. A consequence of this difference and the way in which we have spaced out our sampling points is that, if the Herschel-Bulkley model is not the ideal representation of the datapoints, method 2 is expected to give a closer fit than method 1 at the high shear rate end, at the expense of the fit at the low shear rate end. It was possible to fit our experimental rheograms to this model quite well over the whole range of shear rates (O -1200 s-l), Table 1 shows an example of the results obtained by both methods. A similar closeness of fit was observed for all our HTHP rheograms. It is indeed clear that the predicted discrepancy between methods 1 and 2 at high shear rates occurs, method 2 giving an overall better fit except at shear rates below about 15 s-l. The muds were also run in the atmospheric rheometer. A fit was made to the 0- 12005-1 portion of these rheograms. With the fitted parameters an extrapolation was made fro,m 12002700 s-1 (Figure 2). It can be seen that at the highest shear rates the experimental rheograms depart from the HerschelBulkley model, which consistently gives too low values in this range, regardless of whether the Herschel-Bulkley parameters were obtained by method 1 or 2. This is a consequence of the nature of the model which predicts an ever decreasing viscosity With increasing shear rate. However, the behaviour of the log p m, log ~ curves (Figure 1) suggests a leveling off of the viscosity to some constant Newtonian plateau value, as is generally observed for suspensions (10). Thus, while the Herschel-Bulkley model is capable of describing the rheology of the muds in the 1 -1200 s–l range quite adequately, it cannot be used with confidence for extrapolation. Another objection is the fact that the power law index n haa no clear physical interpretation other than being a convenient curve fitting parameter, which would stand in the way of reaching our third objective of relating rheology to mud composition. As an alternative to tlie Herschel-Bulkley model, we decided to investigate the Casson model, which has been claimed by several authors to give a good represen~ation of the rheology Df water based muds (11-15). This is a two-parameter model and can be written as (16)

son constants determined in the shear rate interval 1-1200 s-1 was again judged by comparison with rheograms determined between 1 and 2700 s-l (Figure 2). The Casson rheogram remains closer to the experimental curve than the HerschelBulkley rheogram, In fact, if one would compare extrapolated viscosities at much higher shear rates, those calculated from the Herschel-Bulkley parameters are significantly lower than those calculated from the Casson parameters, To put this in perspective, we will summarize here the physical interpretation of the two Casson constants. Squaring both sides of equation 4 gives T = koz + 2kok1-j* + klzi. (6)

Equation 6 shows that for ~ approaching zero, the shear stress becomes equal to k.’. Hence, k.’ is identified = a yield stress. The ko2 parameter, which we will call the Casson yield stress TY, plays much the same role in the Caason model as the field Point (YP) and r. play in the Bingham and Herschel-Bulkley model, respectively, and like these should be reported in Pa (N/m2) or lb/100sqft. It should also be noted that, as Table 1 shows, the experimentally determined values of the Casson yield stress are very close to the Herschel-Bulkley yield stresses. Division of both sides of equation 6 by ~ gives p = ko2~-1 +2kok1~-* + klz. (7)

As ~ goes to infinity, only the last term in this equation remains, Hence, kl 2 is the viscosity of the fluid at infinitely large shear rate, and its interpretation as such makes it similar to the Bingham plastic viscosity (~). If r is measured in Pa, and ~ in s-1, then kl 2 has units of Pas. To make its relationship to the Bingham ~ more apparent, we have multiplied klz by 1000 to give it units of mPas or cp, and call this quantity the Caeson high shear viscosity (PC), As far ea muds are concerned, the Casson yield stress is always smaller than the ~, and the Casson high shear viscosity is always smaller than the ~. See also the Appendix for further comments on the Casson model. HTHP RHEOMETRY RESULTS The Bingham ~ and ~ were calculated from the shear stresses measured at shear rate values of 500 and 1000 see-1, hence at practically the same values as are used in field practice. Casson and Herschel-Bulkley (by methods 1 and 2) parameters were determined from computer fits to the 20 selected data points in the manner described before. Examples of plots of theological parameters as a function of pressure at constant temperature are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The same general trends as observed by previous workers were observed for the ~. Thus, the ~ dropped with rising temperature rmd increased with rising pressure. The hypothesis was tested that the Arrhenius equation p= where T is the absolute tionship Aexp$, (8) (K), and the simple rela(9)

The constants k. and kl can conveniently be evaluated from the experimental data by least squares linearization of the square roots of the r and i values. The closeness of fit of the calculated shear stress values was analysed in the same way as outlined before and a similar analysis as performed for the Herschel-Bulkley model was made. Within the experimental errors of the HTHP rheometer, the Caeson and HerechelBulkley models are seen in Table 1 to give about equally satisfactory results. The reliability of extrapolations based on Cae-

temperature

p = A exp CP,

h

RHEOLOGY OF

OIL BASE MUDS

<PF

75[,IL

ihat had previously been advanced for the pressure behaviour ~f the viscosity of muds (2,3), and in which C is a temperature ndependent constant, would apply tosome of the theological When for this purpose plots of the logarithms >arameterso >f the theological parameters were studied, it appeared that ;he slopes B of the lines relating log ~ to l/T at constant — ?ressure were dependent on pressure. Also, slopes of log PV US.P at constant temperature were dependent on temperature. I’hisbehaviour suggests thateq. 8andeq, 9can recombined n a law of the type

w =

We analyzed the mud data in a similar way, taking as the viscosity parameters both the _ and Casson high shear viscosities. The comparison between these two parameters was made because both should reflect the effect of the continuous phase on the high shear rate viscosity, where inter-particle effects become small, The PV data were taken from our own work, in addition to the data published by Politte (5) and Bailey (6). Casson high shear viscosities were deduced from the literature data by means of the algorithm discussed in the Appendix. We found that a reasonable fit to the data was achieved if we took (a log ~/aP)T and (a log pc/~P)~ to be directly proportional to l/T, with proportionality constants CB and CC, respectively, Analogous behaviour to the ~ and Casson high shear viscosity wss displayed by the YP and Casson yield stress, The slopes of the lines relating the logarithms of these quantities to P at constant temperature were found to be smaller than the corresponding slopes of the ~ and Casson high shear viscosity lines. We found by doing a similar linear regression through the (8 log YP/aP)T or (~ log ry /ap)T us. l/T plots that the pressure dependence of YP and rY can be represented by two equations:

Aexp[~

+ C(T) P],

(lo)

tvhere the pressure coefficient C of eq. 9 is now a function of temperature, yet to be specified. Previous workers have shown that the ~ of invert muds is proportional to the viscosity of the base oil at elevated temperature and pressure (1,5). We therefore turned to viscosity iata for the base oils. An extensive set of measurements on diesel oil is embodied in Figure z of Politte’s paper (5); similar but less detailed figures showing the viscosities of naphthenic and solvent based oils can be found in the paper by De Wolfe et al. (4). We read the experimentally determined viscosities from these graphs, and replotted their logarithms as functions Df pressure. It became clear that (~ log p/dP)~ had a similar of our muds, dependence on T as was displayed by the ~’s k .g-ure 5, where we have plotted (~ log p/8P)zI as a function of (1/2’), shows a least squares fit representing the trend displayed by the oils in this way, including the base oil used for our work. Because of the experimental uncertainty of some of the data, there is still room for the question as to whether this line should go through the origin of the plot, in which case the term C(T) in equation 10 bec~,,:es C/T. We have looked at this question in the light of what ;s known about the bahaviour of pure hydrocarbons, and the experimental data available for muds. The viscosities of some hydrocarbons of interest have been reported at pressures up to several thousands of bars, far exceeding the range over which the available data on invert mud base oils extend, and exceeding the range of wellbore preswres. At that scale of measurement log p us. P isotherms generally are concave towards the P axis. (But as noted by several authors, can also become convex at low temperatures; e.g. Hogenboom et al. (17) show this to occur at pressures of about 2000 to 3000 bar for the 16° C and 38°C isotherms of ci-decalin.) This is of no practical concern to our problem, however; below 1000 bar the isotherms can be represented by straight lines without much harm to the accuracy of the rheoIogical predictions. In this way we have calculated the slopes of the (~ log g/i3P)T isotherms from published data, generally in the 200-1000 bar range. Results are shown in Figure 5 for the straight chain alkanea *octane (22) and whexadecane (16), the naphthenes cyclooctane (22) and cisdecalin (17), and the aromatics butylbenzene (23) and octylbenzene (23), the last three compounds all having 10 carbon atoms. The regression lines for the base oils and the n-alkanes have negative intercepts on the (~ log p/aP)T axis; most of the naphthenes and aromatics have positive intercepts.

~

and

= A’ exp

(

(

B’ YBCBP y+-y-

(11)

)

Ty

=

A“ exp

B/l YCCCP ~+—

T

)

(12)

where YB and YC are multipliers smaller than unity modifying the same pressure coefficients CB and Cc that were found applicable to _ and Casson high shear viscosity. We did not attempt to fit the Herschel-Bulkley parameters to any P, T model. As seen in Figure 4 the three Herschel-Bulkley parameters show less regular behaviour than those belonging to the two-parameter theological models. No doubt this situation could be improved if we would impose the condition that n remain constant over the range of pressure and temperature. The objection against n as a curve fitting parameter remains however. DISCUSSION OF THE P,T MODEL We can rewrite the expressions found for the temperature and pressure dependence of the theological parameters in the following generalized form:

VIS(P, T) = A exp

(

;+=

YvaP )

(13)

Casson high shear viscosIn this equation VIS stands for ~, ity, ~, or Ty. A has the meaning defined before in eq. 8-10. El.2 replaces B in eqs. 8 and 10. Va/R takes the value of CB or . .*c. Y is equal to unity if ~ stands for ~ or Casson high shear viscosity, and is equal to YB or YC if VIS stands for ~ or TY, respectively. (or The values of A will be different for ~ (or PC) and ~ ry ). We also found that the values of E used in the forms of

SPE 15416

O.H.

HOUWEN AND T.

GEEHAN

5

eq. 13 describing ~ (~C) ,YP (~Y), or the base oil viscosity are not necessarily equal. If R is the gas constant, then E has the dimension of energy and V@of volume, We have thus obtained a modified form of the equation derived theoretically by Eyring (18) (14) ‘xp(AE”~~+)9

An alternative method is to replace the Casson parameters by Bingham ~ and ~ in steps 2 and 3. Step 5 gives then the Bingham rheology at the desired temperature and pressure. If a rheogram is to be produced, then, before applying equation and ~ by 6, the Caason kl and kO are calculated from ~ the method given in the Appendix. Thus, we have two ways of drawing rheograms based on the C!ssrjonrheologicalmodel. The fhstusesCaasonconstants throughout, that are directly obtained from measurements at surface conditions. The second uses Bingham constants in the initial measurements and the P,T prediction, and then converts these into Casson constants. The question has to be asked if these two routes yield different results, given the rather complicated quadratic equations underlying the conversion. We have applied the two methods using pairs of A and E/R values that were obtained separately for the Bingham constants (determined 500 and 1000 see-l and for the Caason constants (determined by least squares fit to 20 selected points on the input rheograms). Results are shown in Figures 9 and 10. The differences are very small and of the order of the experimental error as can be seen by comparison with the experimental rheograms presented in Figures 7 and 8.

P = #27rmkT)l/2 ‘f

~/3

where AEvia is the activation energy for flow and V~ is the molar volume. We have used the constant A instead of the preexponential factor derived by Eyring, on the grounds that this seemed experimental y justified. Indsed, if for example we define a reduced ~ Pv,ed = Pvexp -() –YvaP ~ , (17)

then plots of log ~r.d vs. l/T (Figure 6), using the appropriate values for Y and Va, are straight within experimental error, and introduction of a more rigorous temperature dependence seems unnecessary. Our numerical choice for Va/R leads to values for the factor n in Eyring’s relation (eq, 14) which are in agreement with n values published for hydrocarbons (18). A different issue raised by our treatment of YP and TY which we implicitly consider to be a f~nction of the base oil viscosity, is the precise nature of this function. Through the introduction of our factors YB and Yc, we make clear that ~ and TY vary less with pressure than PV and the Casson high shear viscosity. The details of the mechanism by which the viscosity Df the base oil governs ~ and rY warrants much more investigation. Firth and Hunter (19) and Van de Ven and Hunter (2o) studied the rheology of mineral suspensions; it is interestng to note that they found a linear relation for the viscosity Df the continuous phase with the Bingham fi. It should also be mentioned that our finding is in qualitative agreement with the work done by Combs and Whitmire (1) and by Politte (5). APPLICATIONS OF THE P,T MODEL We can use equation 13 for predictions of downhole rheology. According to our model it would be sufficient to determine the Arrhenius constants A and E/Rat atmospheric pressure. This requires the following steps. 1. Measure the rheology of the mud with a standard oil field rheometer, at least at two different temperatures. 2. Determine the Casson high shear viscosity PC and Casson yield stress ry by one of the methods given in the Appendix, 3. Plot In WC and In ry as functions of I/T. 4. The slopes of these lines give the values of E/R; the intercepts give the values of A. Two sets of these parameters will result, 5, If Cc and YC are given, equation 13 will give the Casson high shear viscosity and rY at the desired combinations of temperature and pressure, 6. If a rheogram is to be produced, convert Casson high shear viscosity and TY into kl and ko and use equation 6. Of course, these steps can be facilitated by the use of a programmable hand-held calculator or a computer. An example of computer drawn rheograrns and experimentally determined rheograma can be seen in Figures 7 and 8.

CONCLUSIONS We have found a simple model for the description of the rheology of invert emulsion muds under downhole conditions, The model needs as input parameters four constants which are spe cific for each mud. They are two activation energies and two preexponential factors. These can easily be obtained from Arrhenius plots of two theological parameters, measured at the rig site with a conventional rheometer at two or more different temperatures. Also required are a knowledge of the temperiture dependent pressure coefficients, expressed in this paper as the product of the constants Y and C, which are specific for a mud Q’pe” The pressure behaviour of the muds was found to obey an exponential law. The limitations of this conclusion within the realm of pressure dependencies of related hydrocarbons has been discussed, Because base oils are complex mixtures of these classes of hydrocarbons, the pressure behaviour of flifferent oils shows little variation. It is interesting to note thee Politte (5), using a different line of reasoning, also tentatively concluded that two of the oils studied by De Wolfe (4), paraffinic oil and solvent oil, could be modelled by the equation developed by him for diesel oil. Our theory is sufficiently general to allow for radically different oil mixtures in a straightforward manner. The activation volumes would then simply be replaced by other values, and even a constant factor (not dependent on temperature) can be added to the exponential term. This would correspond to abandoning the decision to take the functions (tl log /.t/8P)T to be directly proportional to l/T and to accept that plots of the type presented in Figure 5 have intercepts. The non-Newtonian character of invert emulsion muds can be described by the two parameter Casson model, which by others haa been shown to be applicable to water based muds as well. The two Caason parameters can conveniently be presented as the viscosity at infinitely high shear rate, and the apparent physical yield stress, which play roles analogously to the ~ and ~ of the Bingham model. We have shown in the Appendix that the Caason and Bhgham

6

RHEOLOGY OF

OIL BASE MUEJS

SPE 15L16

parameters are linked by a set of quadratic equations. Hence the tworheological parameters required for application of the P,T model can be taken from either of the two models. We have also shown that modelling of the rheology by the HerschelBulkley model gives shear stresses which are quite close to those calculated from the Casson model. The advantage of the Caason model over the Bingham model is that it reproduces the curvature of the rheograme at shear rates above about 1 s-1, It can therefore serve as a mathematical basis for advanced hydraulic programs which are based on as close an approximation of the real non-Newtonian character of the fluid as possible. NOMENCLATURE

A, A’,At’ = Constants B, B’,B” = Constants

c; cc

E + k kO kl P Pc

n

= = = = = . = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

P Pv R T r To

ry YB Yc w

in Arrhenius equation in Arrhenius equation Pressure coefficient in eq. 11, K-bar-1 Pressure coefficient in eq. 12, K- bar-1 Least squares sum Shear rate, s– 1 Consistency index, Pa.sn Casson intercept, Pa1i2 Caason slope, (Pas) 1/2 Newtonian viscosity, Pa,s Casson high shear viscosity, mPa.s Power law index Mud pressure, bar Bingham plastic viscosity mPa.s Gas constant Absolute temperature, K Shear stress, Pa Herschel-Bulkley yield stress, Pa Cssson yield stress, Pa Multiplier in eq. 11 Multiplier in eq. 12 Bingham yield point, Pa

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank their managements for permission to publish this paper. They further thank I. Bratchie of SCR for making a computer program available to calculate HerechelBulkley constants by Method 2, and I. Chalmers, N. Alderman, and H. Ladva for technical assistance. REFERENCES 1. Combs, G.D. and Whitmire, L. D., “Capillary viscometer simulates bottom-hole conditions”, Oil and Gas Journal (Sept. 30 1968) 108. 2. McMordie, W. C., Bennett, R. B., and Bland, R. G., “The effect of temperature and pressure on the viscosity of oil base muds”, SPE 4974 (Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974). 3. API Bulletin on the rhwlogy of oil-well drilling fluids, API BUL 13D, (First ed. August 1980) 21, 4. De Wolfe, R. C., Cofiin, G, B., Byrd, R. V., ‘Effects of temperature and pressure rheology of less toxic oil muds”, SPE 11892 (Aberdeen, Sept. 6-9, 1983). 5, Politte, M. D.,’’Invert oil mud rheology as a function of temperature and pressure”, SPE/IADC 13458 (New Orleans, March 6-8, 1985).

6. Bailey, T. J,, Bern, P. A,, and McEwan, F., “Low-toxicity oil muds: A knowledge of downhole theological behavior assists successful field application” , SPE Dril(ing Engineering (April 1986) 107, 7. McMordie, W, C., “Viscometer tests mud to 650°F”, Oil and Gas Journal (May 19 1969) 81, 8. Froment, T. D., Rodt, G. M., Houwen, O, H., and Titreville, B., ‘A drilling contractor tests solids control equipment”, IADC/SPE 14753 (Dallas, February 10-12, 1986). 9. Zamora, M., and Lord, D, L,, “Practical analysis of drilling mud flow in pipes and annuli”, SPE 4976 (Houston, October 6-9, 1974). 10. Mewis, J., “Rheology of suspensions”, in Rheology, Astarita, G., Marucci, G,, Nicolas, L., eds., Vol. 1, (Proc, 1980), VIII Int. Congr. Rheol., Naples, September (Plenum Press, New York) 149. 11. Lauzon, R. V., and Reid, K. I. G., “New theological model offers field alternative~, Oil and Gas Journal (May 21 1979) 52. 12, Lauzon, R. V., and Short, J. S., “The colloidal interaction of ferrochrome Iignosulfonate with montmorillonite in drilling fluid applications”, SPE 8225, (Laa Vegas, Sept. 23-26, 1979). 13. Zhongying, W. and Songran, T., “Casson theological model in drilling fluid mechanics”, SPE 10564 (Beijing, March 21-23, 1982). 14. Zhongying, W. and Songran, T., ‘The flow effect of mud in annulus and the selection of theological parameters”, SPE 14871 (Beijing, March 17-20, 1986). 15. Wanneng, S., Jianping, C., and Zhenxue, L., “Comparison of theological models in iiigh shear rate range and experimental relationship between penetration rate and high shear viscosities”, SPE 14858 (Beijing, March 17-20, 1986) . 16. Caason, N., ‘A flow equation for pigment-oil suspensions of the printing ink typen, in Rhwlogy of disperse systems, Mill, C. C., cd., (Pergamon, London, 1959) 84. 17. Hogenboom, D. L., Webb, W., Dixon, J. A., “Viscosity of several liquid hydrocarbons as a function of temperature, pressure, and free volume”, J. G’hem. Phys. (1967) 46, 2586. 18. Ghisstone, S., Laidler, K. J., and Eyring, H., The theory of rate processes, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1941) Chapter

Ix.

19. Firth, B.A. and Hunter, R.J., “Flow properties of coagulated colloidal suspensions III. The elastic floe model”, J. Colloid Interface Sci, (1976) 57,266, 20. Van de Ven, T. G.M., and Hunter, R. J., “The energy dissipation in sheared coagulated SOIS”, Rheol. Acts (1977)

16,534.

21. Speers, A., “Computer aids analysis of drilling fluids”, Oil and

**and Gas Jcurnaf (Nov. 19 1984) 118.
**

22. Gouel, P., “Viscosity of alkanes (C13 to Cle), cycha Bull. Cent. Rech. Ezplor.-Prod. alkyl-benzenes”,

Elf-

Aquitaine (1978)

2, 439.

D., Zhou, H., Boned, C., Peyrehiase, J., 23. Ducoulombier, Saint-Guirona, H., and Xans, P., “Pressure (1-1000 bars) and temperature (20-100 “C) dependence of the viscosity J. Chem. Phys. (1986) 90, 1692. of liquid hydrocarbons”,

5PE

15416

O.tl.

HOUWEN

AND

T. GFFHAN . ----. ..

.

I

APPENDIX CALCULATIONOF THE CASSON CONSTANTS It shouldbe noted that we have adopted a different nomenclature from the one used by Lauzon and Reid (11) and in subsequent papers (13,14,15,21). Our definition ofkl and ko is as given originally by Caason (16). Our use of Casson high shear viscosity and TY is designed to remain numerically and conceptually close to the framework of the Bingham model. If a conventional six-speed field rheometer is used, then the most accurate way is to plot the square roots of the shear stress values against the square roots of the shear rates. The intercept of the line through the data points is k. and kl is the slope. This can best be done by a programmable calculator with a least squares subroutine. Alternatively, but employing only two of the data points and therefore less accurately, Lauzon and Reid’s formulae using the 100 and 600 rpm readings may be used (11). If a two-speed rheometer is used of the conventional type, then the Caason constants can be calculated from the 600 and 300 rpm dial readings by using

and k. = 2.44068:~;

– 1.72588:{;

(A -1)

where kl is in (Prvs) 112 and k. is in Pa]/z. Of course, if only ~ and ~ are given, a simple conversion gives &jOO and 0600, from which the Casson constants are then calculated. [f we calculate the Bingham parameters in the usual way from” 300 and 600 rpm readings, then the following interesting relations hold: ~ = kl(kl + 0.03665kO), —— YP = kO(kO 26.484kl), + (A -2) It can be shown that k. and kl are where YP is in Pa, —— ratio. For example, quadratic functions of the PV/YP

(A -3)

where

$

~ _

0,0183

-13.2+

– W/v

(

175.4+

0.000336

~+——

0.5147

(Pv/YP)

pv/yp

(A -4)

)

.

SPE

15416

TABLE

]

**RNEoLOGICAL MODELS ANo EXPBNIMENTAL itNEOWAltS Sxperi8ent
**

sac’-l’

CASSON Pa Pa 6UD 7:30 8.68 9.83 10.85 11.79 12.67 15.86 lB.25 20.50 22,65 24.71 26.72 28.67 30.58 34.30 37.91 41.43 44.8B 48.27 cliff. O 08 - G: 03 -0.09 0.O6 -0.05 0.02 0.25 0.23 -0.28 -0.08 -0.04 0.05 0.07 0.01 -0.05 -0.10 -0.02 0,05 -0.04 0.07

EBRSCEEL-BUWL8Y (1) BSRSCSIEL-BULKLSY (2) Pa 5 96 7:18 8.58 9.78 10.06 11.85 12.79 16.14 18.62 20.91 23.06 25.11 27,06 28.94 30,76 34.24 37.54 40.70 43.74 46.68 cliff. 0 03 -0:15 0,01 0.10 -0.06 -0.05 0.13 -0.05 -0,64 -0.48 -0.45 -0.35 -0.28 -0.26 -0.23 -0.03 0.35 0,78 1.10 1.67 Pa 6 42 7:41 8.63 9.70 10.68 11.61 12.49 15.72 18.18 20.48 22.68 24.79 26.83 28.80 30.73 34.44 38.01 41.45 44.79 48.04 cliff. 049 :0:08 -0.03 0.19 0,11 0.20 0.43 0.37 -0.20 -0.06 -0.07 -0.03 -0.04 -0.12 -0.19 -0.23 -0!12 0.03 0.05 0.30

500 15:00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 90.00 150. W 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800. 0+3 900.00 1000.00

5 93 7:33 8.60 9.88 10.79 11.81 12.92 16,09 17.98 20.42 22.61 24.76 26.78 28.68 30! 54 34.21 37.89 41.48 44.84 48.34

!i.

I

,!:

,[:,

,:. . .: ,

I

I

1

10

100

1000

Shear

Fig. l-Vlecoslty

Rate,

s“’

VS. shear rate at 800 bar and (from top WIbottom) 25, 50, 80, and 11O°C.

q

W

15416

0

I

0

250

500

750

1000 1260 1500

1750

200022502500

Shear Rate, s-’

Fig. 2—Comparlscmof theological models with experimental rheogram.

**CASSON MODEL High Shear Viscosity
**

q q

BINGHAM MODEL Plastic Viscosity

25*C

50”C

q

O

80”C o !.10”C

b

q

——

b q s q s q s m s 0 0 0 0

I

s

q

m

s 0 n

1

0

0 0 •1 0 0

0 D

1

c1

u

1

0

,,, , 2004006008001000

I

I

I

I 10

20040060080010

Pressure (Bar)

Fig. 3–Prnsw9

qd

Pressure (Bar)

temperature Lmhsviorof Casson qnd Rlnghsm parmnetemt

**HERSCHEL - B(JLKLEY MODEL
**

o 0 0 v0 0

Consistency index

q

Power Law index

Yieid Stress

‘q 2: gg y:

m o 0 m o o * :

a O

u

25°C 50°c 80”C llo”c

m

0:

0

s q I m

w

s

q 0

q q

0: c .

q q

?y .] o–

q c1 0 8 u n $

m =

0 0 m o o.

04

‘L

0

w

o– . c1

o

I

m

0

0

o

o

0 0

9

s D

El

q : 0 .

I I 1 I

OQ

0 I

0

I

I

0

200400600

8001(

D

0

2004006006001

o

2004006008001000

Pressure (Bar)

Pressure (Bar)

F4f, 4—Pre8sum and temperature bhsvior of Hemchel.hlkley pammetcm.

Pressure (Bar)

(y

~ octylbenzene [

2.4

o

i

2.5

1

2.6

I

2.7

I

2.8

1

2.9

I

3

I

I

I

I

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

: .5

1000/T (K)

F~.

S–lm-re

dqwxlmccof pressure coeftlclcat

for Imu 0118 nd hydrocarbons. q

10

4–

:-

Co g &_

m

5

0

q2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

1000/T F@. 6-FMUCNI 1, 200, 400, WO, BOO,qd PV at

(K)

at MCh Pr~ura.

0

100

200

300

400

500

800

700

800

900

10001100

Shear Rate, s-’

Fig. 7-PrediCted and experimental dWOgMM$ at 400 bar qnd (frOM top to bottom) 25, 50, 80,

1,000 ban four tmnpemlur=

and 11OQC.

ti

s: u)

5 %

o

j

o :

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 800 900 10001100

Shear Rate,

Fig. O-PmdktOd hr.

S-’

and expwlmental ttDOWramsat M-C and (from bottom to top) 200,400,400,800, and 1,000

$~

15416

100

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 000 10001100

Shear R@e, s-’

Fig. 9-Comparlbon of modellng vla Elngham q nd Cas80n pmmetem, conditions of Fig. 7.

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1“

Shear

F@

Rate,

S-l

10-ComparisC+I of mod.llng via Bingham qnd CmaOn pamm.lem at E(I”G 200 qnd 1,000 Imr.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Mud Rheology Test
- 02 Mud Types,Mud Data Hydraulics
- All About Mud
- OBM
- Mud
- Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD)
- Drilling Fluids Presentation
- 106218846 Schlumberger Dowell Lab Manual
- ECD Explained
- Oil Base Drilling System
- CCD_doc
- Mud Contaminant
- Drilling Mud Hydraulics Optimization - Adv - Part 3
- FE 02-09 Intro to Drilling Fluids
- Wellbore Hydraulics
- DRILLING FLUID Presentation -Topshot
- drilling fluids selection
- Chapter 7 Oil Base Muds
- AADE-06-DF-HO-16
- Crude Oil Emulsions a State-Of-The-Art Review
- MI Swaco Prod Chems.ppt
- Drilling Mud Calculations
- Drilling Tech Hydraulics
- MUD CHEMISTRY BOOK
- Drilling Fluids W181
- mud facts (2)
- Herschel–Bulkley
- 9 - Solid Control PTM_Handout
- MUD VISCOCITIES AND OTHER RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
- Drilling Fluids
- Rheology of Oil Base Mud