Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin 13 (2009) 7-11

Available online at http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/CERB

PREDICTION OF STAND PIPE PRESSURE USING CONVENTIONAL APPROACH

Received 21 June 2009; received in revised form 19 July 2009

Abstract: In rotary drilling operation, the hydraulic circuit typically consists of stand pipe, rotary hose, swivel, Kelly, drill pipe, drill collar, drill bit, and the annulus between the drillstring and the open hole or the casing. Stand Pipe Pressure, abbreviated as SPP, is dened as the total frictional pressure drop in the hydraulic circuit. SPP, an important drilling parameter in selecting proper mud weight, can be calculated using dierent rheological models. In this paper, the results obtained using the four widely used rheological models namely the Newtonian model, the Bingham plastic model, the Power law model and the Herschel-Bulkley model are presented. The rheological data used are collected by performing circulation test while drilling a vertical well in the Po valley, Italy. The rheological constants associated with each of the four models are calculated using regression analysis, For the three ow rates used during the circulation test, SPP has been predicted with a maximum error of 1.2% when compared with the measured values. The Bingham plastic model produces best SPP estimates for all the three ow rates for the drilling condition considered. Keywords: SPP, rheological models, frictional pressure drop DOI:10.3329/cerb.v13i1.2703 1. Introduction When drilling uid circulates, pressure drop takes place due to friction between the uid and the surface in contact. The pressure that forces the drilling uid to circulate through the hydraulic system is supplied by the mud pump. The mud pump pressure is partly used up in overcoming the friction between the uid, and the open hole or casing or the surface equipment used. The remaining pump pressure is consumed as bit nozzle pressure loss, where the high nozzle speed is assisting in cuttings removal from the bit and its surroundings. The total pressure drop that occurs due to uid friction is termed as Stand Pipe Pressure or SPP. SPP is an important drilling parameter that must be known with sucient accuracy for selecting proper jet bit nozzle size, determining optimum ow rate to ensure ecient hole cleaning and selecting proper mud pump liner. Continuous monitoring of SPP also helps in identifying downhole problems. For example, too low SPP can be caused by washed out pipe or bit nozzle, loose joint or broken drill string, worn pump packing or liner, and lost returns due to formation fracture. On the other hand, too high SPP could indicate a plugged drill bit or an increase in mud density or viscosity. Reliable indication of SPP provides an early warning of circulation problems and thus warns the driller to make corrections avoiding major problems. Rheology, the science of ow and deformation of matter, deals with stress-strain relationships of drilling uid. Dierent rheological models are used for characterization of a drilling uid. Proper determination of rheological constants is necessary for calculating SPP. Okafor and Evers [1] performed an experimental comparison among three rheological models: i) Robertson-Sti, ii) Power law and iii) Bingham Plastic model. They used two types of clay-water drilling uids. They found that the most accurate frictional pressure loss was predicted by Robertson-Sti model. They also observed that Robertson-Sti and Power Law model predicted frictional pressure loss with no signicant dierence at typical oil well circulating velocities of 0.061 to 0.24 m/s. Maglione and Robotti [2] developed a methodology to determine the three constants of the HerschelBulkley model using the data from the circulation test conducted for three ow rates. They calculated SPP for a drilling well located at the Po valley in Italy using the same model. In this paper, the results obtained for four rheological models are presented. The four models used are: i) Newtonian model, ii) Bingham plastic model, iii) Power law model and iv) Herschel-Bulkley model. The models are tested to nd out their ability in providing the best SPP estimate for the water based c Bangladesh Uni. of Engg. & Tech.

Corresponding

author Email: [email protected]

Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin 13(2009) 7-11 / Chowdhury et al. 2.3. Power law model It is used to approximate the pseudoplastic behavior of drilling uids and cement slurries [4]. This model is dened as = K m (3)

drilling uid, drillstring, and the surface equipment geometry used to drill a vertical well in the Po valley of Italy [2]. Even though it is well known that drilling muds do not behave as Newtonian uids, the Newtonian model is chosen to investigate about the theoretical pressure drop if a Newtonian uid were used. The use of Bingham Plastic model and Power law model is a common practice for most oil companies. However, these models tend to represent the drilling uid behavior inaccurately especially at low and medium shear rate ranges [3]. The Herschel-Bulkley model is chosen as it incorporates the nonlinear shear stress-shear rate relationship and the yield shear stress exhibited by most drilling uids. 2. The Rheological Models A rheological model describes the relationship between shear stress and shear rate when a uid ows through a circular section or an annulus. Among the various rheological models, this paper considers the four most widely considered rheological models. 2.1. Newtonian model It describes a uid considering a linear relationship between shear stress () and shear rate (). Graphically this is represented by a straight line passing through the origin with a slope equal to the dynamic viscosity () of the uid. This can be expressed as = (1) This linear relation is valid only as long as the uid ow is laminar [4]. Laminar ow occurs at low shear rates. At high shear rates, the ow pattern changes from laminar to turbulent. For a Newtonian uid, viscosity is constant and is only inuenced by changes in temperature and pressure [5]. 2.2. Bingham plastic model It is used to approximate the pseudoplastic behavior (i.e. decrease of apparent viscosity with increasing shear rate) of drilling uids and cement slurries [4]. The Bingham plastic model is dened as = p + y (2) The above mathematical expression is valid only for laminar ow [4]. The Bingham plastic uid requires the applied shear stress to exceed a certain minimum value so that the uid can ow. This minimum value is called the yield point (y ). Once the yield point is exceeded, changes in shear stress are proportional to changes in shear rate. The constant of proportionality is called the plastic viscosity (p ). The plastic viscosity depends on pressure and temperature. The Bingham plastic model works well for higher shear rates but gives a signicant error at low shear rates. It also may predict a non-physical yield point [6].

This model uses two parameters for uid characterization- the consistency index (K ) and the ow behavior index (m). When m = 1, the above equation reduces to the Newtonian model. Besides, the Power law model can be used to represent a pseudoplastic uid (m < 1) and also a dilatant uid (m > 1). K describes the thickness of the uid and is analogous to apparent viscosity of the uid. Large values of K mean that the uid is very thick. The value of m indicates the degree of Non-Newtonian behavior of the uid. The shortcoming of Power law model is that it underestimates the shear stresses at medium and low shear rate ranges [3]. The Power law model is also known as the Ostwald-de Walle model. 2.4. Herschel-Bulkley model It is also known as the yield Power law model, as it is a hybrid of the Bingham Plastic and the Power law models [7]. The Power law model does not consider the yield point while the Herschel-Bulkley model takes the yield point into account. This model is dened as = y + K m (4)

The Herschel-Bulkley model is reduced to the Power law model when y = 0 and to the Bingham plastic model when m = 1. It is to be noted that this model can yield mathematical expressions that are not readily solved analytically but can be solved using non-linear regression [7]. A graphical representation of the four rheological models is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Graphical comparison of the four rheological models

Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin 13(2009) 7-11 / Chowdhury et al. 3. Field Data and Operational Conditions SPP has been measured for three dierent ow rates while performing a circulation test in the 17 1 /2 " section of the well at a depth of 798 m. During the test, the following conditions are maintained: The drilling uid is circulated with the bit o bottom while making a run in hole trip. During the test, the drill string is not rotated. The mud logging unit monitored the stand pipe pressure readings. The mud sample used for rheological measurement is taken from the shale shaker outlet during the circulation test. Figure 2 shows the geometrical dimensions of the cased and open hole sections. The casing and hole dimensions, the mud rheology measurements, the drillstring dimensions, and the measured SPPs alongwith the corresponding ow rates are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the Appendix and adopted from Maglione and Robotti [2]. 4.1. Determination of the rheological constants

The initial estimates of the rheological constants are determined using the eld approach. In this approach, the Fann viscometer readings for 600 and 300 rpm are used. These intial estimates are then used for getting the nal values of the rheological constants using regression analysis. The regression analysis is performed over all the six readings of the Fann viscometer. For regression analysis, MS Excel has been used. A detail of the approach used can be found in literature [8]. 4.2. Prediction of SPP A Fortran 95 code is developed to predict SPP for the drilling condition under consideration. SPP is predicted using the frictional pressure drop relations developed for the four rheological models considered. This phenomenon is well explained in the literature [913]. 5. Results and Discussion The rheological constants obtained and the predicted SPP by the four models are presented in Table 5 and 6 respectively in the Appendix. It can be seen that the Newtonian model produces the worst estimate for each of the three ow rates. It is quite logical, since drilling muds are Non-Newtonian uids. Among the other three models, the Bingham plastic model produces the best estimate for each ow rate with a maximum absolute error of less than one bar. For the Power law model, the highest absolute error found is approximately 16 bars at 3270 liter/min while it is approximately 13 bars for the Herschel-Bulkley model at the same ow rate. The predictions made by the Power law model and the Herschel-Bulkley model are considerably close to each other with a maximum discrepancy of 2.9 bars. The absolute error in predicted SPP by the Bingham plastic model, the Power law model and the Herschel-Bulkley model is shown in Figure 3. The gure shows the large amount of error in predicted SPP by the Power law model and the Herschel-Bulkley model at the two higher ow rates. One interesting observation is made. As indicated by Figure 4, the best rheogram is produced by the Herschel-Bulkley model with an R2 value of 0.999. However, the Bingham model with an R2 value of 0.945 produces the best SPP estimates for all the ow rates considered. The R2 value for the Power law model is 0.996. In this gure, Fann indicates the actual rheological measurements obtained by the Fann viscometer. There are two major limitations of this work. First, the results obtained are limited to the single water based mud used during the circulation test and the drilling scenario considered. Second, the frictional

Figure 2: Casing and hole dimensions

4. SPP Prediction The following steps are used for predicting SPP for the three ow rates used during the circulation test:

10

Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin 13(2009) 7-11 / Chowdhury et al. the conventional one dimensional frictional pressure drop relations. The Bingham plastic model is found to produce SPP estimates considerably close to the measured values for the drilling data considered. However, it should be kept in mind that the conventional approach of SPP prediction is based on a number of simplifying assumptions which are not completely valid in real life. There is scope for further work. The conventional approach of SPP prediction can be tested with Fann viscometer data collected using dierent types of mud samples, borehole geometries and surface equipment dimensions. References
[1] Okafor M and Evers J, Experimental Comparison of Rheology Models for Drilling Fluids, in SPE Western Regional Meeting, 1992 [2] Maglione R and Robotti G, Field Rheological Parameters Improve Stand Pipe Pressure Prediction While Drilling, in SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 1996 [3] De Sa C, Martins A and Amaral M, A Computer Programme for Drilling Hydraulics Optimisation Considering Realistic Rheological Models, in European Petroleum Computer Conference, 1994 [4] Bourgoyne Jr A, Millheim K, Chenevert M and Young Jr F, Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 2, SPE, Richardson, TX, 2003 [5] Rabia H, Oilwell drilling engineering: principles and practice, Graham & Trotman, London, 1985 [6] Aadny B and Ravny J, Improved pressure drop/ow rate equation for non-Newtonian uids in laminar ow, Journal of petroleum science & engineering, 1994. 11(3):pp. 261266 [7] Islam A, Drilling Fluid Rheology Note, Lecture Note, IPT, NTNU, Trondheim, 2008 [8] Chowdhury D, Hydraulic Pressure Losses in Drilling Fluid, MSc Project Report (for the course TPG 4520), IPT, NTNU, Trondheim, 2008 [9] Skalle P, Compendium: Drilling Fluids and Borehole Hydraulics, Tapir Akademisk Forlag, Trondheim, 2005 [10] Graves W and Collins R, A New Rheological Model for NonNewtonian Fluids, Paper SPE, 1978. 7654 [11] Whittaker A, Theory and application of drilling uid hydraulics, Reidel, Boston, 1985 [12] Modi PN and Seth SM, Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics Including Hydraulic Machines, Standard Book House, New Delhi, 14th edition, 2002 [13] Chilingarian GV and Vorabutr P, Drilling and Drilling Fluids, Elsevier, Amsterdam, updated text book edition, 1983 [14] Harris O and Osisanya S, Evaluation of Equivalent Circulating Density of Drilling Fluids Under High Pressure/High Temperature Conditions, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2005 [15] Chowdhury D, Prediction of Standpipe Pressure Using Real Time Data, MSc Thesis Report (for the course TPG 4920), IPT, NTNU, Trondheim, 2009

Figure 3: Absolute error in predicted SPP by the three NonNewtonian models

Figure 4: Rheogram for the non-Newtonian models

pressure drop relations used are based on a number of simplifying assumptions, such as concentric annular and circular sections, non-rotating drillstring, isothermal conditions in the bore hole and steady state axial ow. These simplifying assumptions are not completely valid in real life [4]. The eect of pipe eccentricity, pipe rotation, and temperature and pressure variations can have signicant eect on frictional pressure drop in the annulus. The computational complexity in determining the eects of these parameters on SPP may not be justied sometime for simple vertical wells drilled onshore. However, their eects are signicant while drilling deviated holes in complex formations where the mud window is narrow. They also need to be taken into consideration for High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) wells where high temperature conditions cause the uid in the wellbore to expand and high pressure conditions cause uid compression [14]. These limitations of the conventional approach have led to the development of alternative methods for SPP prediction. One such method known as instance-based reasoning, a machine learning method, is discussed by Chowdhury [15]. 6. Conclusion and Recommendations Four rheological models are tested to nd out their ability of predicting SPP with sucient accuracy using

Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin 13(2009) 7-11 / Chowdhury et al. Appendix

11

Casing Size (in) OD ID 20 19

Depth (m) From To 0 598 598 798

Open Hole (in)

171 /2

Table2: Mud rheology measurements at standard conditions

Rotor Speed (rpm) 600 300 200 100 6 3

Fann Dial Reading (degree) 38 26 22 15 5 4.5

Table 3: Drillstring dimension

Type Stand Pipe Rotary Hose Swivel Kelly Drill Pipe Heavy Wate Drill Collar Drill Collar Bit

Length (m) 20 20 3.5 12 513.6 137 70 77 0.4

OD ID (in) (in) 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 5 4.28 5 3 9 3 11 1 /4 3 Nozzles : 3 15/32"+ 1 14/32"

Table 4: Measured SPP for dierent ow rates

Pump Rate (liter/min) 1640 2460 3270

SPP (bar) 46.6 103.3 176.3

Table 5: Rheological constants

Newton = 0.022 Pas

Bingham plastic y = 3.57 Pa p = 0.0167 Pas

Power law k = 0.671 m = 0.482

Herschel-Bulkley y = 1.15 Pa k = 0.362 m = 0.565

Table 6: Predicted SPP

Flow rate (liter/min) 1640 2460 3270

Measured SPP (bar) 46.6 103.3 176.3 Newton 493.24 1027.99 1721.75

Predicted SPP (bar) Bingham plastic Power law 47.14 45.32 102.34 94.92 176.6 160.25

Herschel-Bulkley 45.95 96.49 163.15