See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342368554

An Accurate Determination of the Shear Rate for High-Yield-Stress Drilling

Fluids Using Concentric Cylinder Fann 35 Viscometer Data

Article  in  SPE Journal · June 2020

DOI: 10.2118/201238-PA

CITATIONS READS

0 135

2 authors:

Sidharth Gautam Chandan Guria

Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
5 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   930 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of polymeric ultrafiltration membranes for the separation of oily wastewater View project

Accurate estimation of rheological properties of high yield drilling fluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sidharth Gautam on 23 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Page 1 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 An accurate determination of the shear rate for high yield stress drilling fluids
3
4 using concentric cylinder Fann 35 viscometer data
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
rR
23
24
25 Sidharth Gautam and Chandan Guria*
26
ev

27 Department of Petroleum Engineering

28
29 Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad
iew

30 Dhanbad 826 004

31
32 India
33
34
On

35
36
37
38
ly

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 *Correspondence author; E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: +91 3262235411; Fax:
52
53 +913262296632
54
55
56 1
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 2 of 37

1
2 Summary
3
4 Rheology is very important for drilling fluid as it directly influences the cutting transportability,
5
6 hole cleaning ability, lubricity, and filtration loss behavior while drilling. Over the years,
7 concentric cylinder Fann 35 viscometer has been used regularly to monitor the properties of
8
9 drilling fluids due to its simplicity in operations. In Fann 35 viscometer, the dial readings at
10
11 different rotor rotations are converted into shear stress, in contrast, the rotor rotation is
12
13
transformed into the equivalent shear rate using a-priori assumed Newtonian behavior of the test
14 drilling fluids. As the real-life drilling fluids are mostly non-Newtonian with a finite yield stress,
15
16 therefore the applicability of the simple shear rate equation, which is frequently used to monitor
17
18 drilling fluid rheology while, is questionable. For a fluid exhibiting sufficiently high yield stress,
19
and unsheared plug flow region near the vicinity of the cup also complicates the estimation of the
Fo
20
21 shear rate. Besides this, the inaccurate values of true yield stress may also result in a poor
22
estimate of the shear rates at different rotor rotations. In the present study, a comprehensive
rR
23
24
25 mathematical model is developed to estimate the rheology of drilling fluids with high yield stress
26 accounting the fundamentals of the rheology using the Fann 35 viscometer data. A generalized
ev

27
28 difference equation and subsequent Taylor series expansions are employed to obtain the accurate
29
iew

30 wall shear rate equation for the high yield stress non-Newtonian drilling fluids. The true yield
31
stress, an input parameter for the shear rate prediction, is also determined accurately with the
32
33 proposed yield stress model based on the capillary rise method using two different capillaries.
34
On

35 Six different experimental fluids involving aqueous suspension of (i) polyanionic

36
37 cellulose (a salt-resistant filtration loss control agent), (ii) xanthan gum (a viscosifying agent
38 exhibiting the low shear rate viscosity), (iii) carboxymethyl cellulose (a fluid loss control
ly

39
40 additive), (iv) bentonite nano-clay (an additive for filtration and rheology control), and (v) and
41
42 (vi) high-pressure and high-temperature synthetic drilling fluids based on API-grade bentonite
43
44
and alpha-glycol functionalized fly ash, were studied to validate the proposed yield stress and the
45 shear rate model. Finally, the shear rate, apparent viscosity, plastic viscosity, and Bingham yield
46
47 point are predicted using the proposed models and the results are compared with the existing
48
49 shear rate models.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 2
57
58
59
60
Page 3 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 Introduction
3
4 Drilling fluid, in general, is an admixture of several additives involving weighing agent, clay,
5
6 viscosifier, fluid loss control additive, dispersant or thinner, lost-circulation agent, surfactant, etc.
7
8 in the base fluid and exhibits a typical colloidal behavior with complex rheology. As the
9 rheology of drilling fluid directly affects the cutting transportability, hole cleaning ability,
10
11 lubricity and filtration loss behavior, hence it is very much essential to predict the rheology of
12
13 the drilling fluids accurately under the surface as well as subsurface condition while drilling
14
15
(Bourgoyne et al., 1991; Caenn et al., 2011; Gatlin, 1960; Guria et al., 2013). Apparent viscosity
16 (AV), plastic viscosity (PV), Bingham yield point (YP), and gel strength are the API
17
18 recommended rheological properties, and these properties are determined using Fann 35
19
viscometer under the surface condition (API RP 13D). In Fann 35 viscometer, test fluid is kept
Fo
20
21
into a narrow cylindrical space between bob (inner cylinder) and rotor (outer cylinder) of which
22
rR
23 the rotor rotates at a steady speed exhibiting the Couette flow. The dial reading at different rotor
24
25 rotation is used to predict AV, PV, YP and gel strength, and the estimation of above rheological
26
ev

27 properties relies completely on the approximate shear rate equation i.e., 𝛾 (𝑠 ―1) = 1.70𝑁, where
28
N is the rotor rotation in rpm. The above relation between the shear rate and rotor rotation is
29
iew

30 based on a-priori assumption of the Newtonian behavior of the drilling fluids with fixed bob
31
32 diameter (17.25 mm), rotor diameter (18.42 mm) and height (38.0 mm) (Bourgoyne et al., 1991).
33
34 However, the real-life drilling fluids are mostly non-Newtonian and it has the difficulty to
On

35 estimate the shear rate is due to the non-uniformly distributed fluid flow pattern in the
36
37 viscometer. In addition, the Newtonian behavior approximation of the drilling fluid in the Fann
38
ly

39 35 viscometer has been examined by several investigators (Joye, 2003; Kelessidis and Maglione,
40
41
2006; Kelessidis et al., 2007; Kelessidis et al., 2011; Kumar and Guria, 2013; Kumar et al.,
42 2014; Sisodia et al., 2015). Several investigators determined the shear rate in a rotational
43
44 viscometer and most of the studies are based on a-priori selection of a rheological model (e.g.,
45
46 Newtonian, power law, Bingham plastic, Hershel-Beckley, etc.). The details of wall shear rate
47
estimation using rotational viscometer have also been reviewed by Savins et al. (1963), Yang
48
49 and Krieger (1978); Steffe (1996) and Raj et al. (2016).
50
51 Mooney (1931) proposed an approximate solution for the shear rate by expanding the
52
53 fluidity function as a Taylor series with mean stress for a rotating cylinder viscometer. Later,
54 Krieger and Maron (1952) and Krieger and Elord (1953) suggested a methodology to obtain the
55
56 3
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 4 of 37

1
2 shear rate – shear stress curve by taking into account the radii ratio of bob and rotor as an
3
4 independent variable. Moore and Davies (1956) reviewed the work carried out by Mooney
5
6 (1931), Krieger and Maron (1952) and Krieger and Elord (1953) and suggested a fairly accurate
7 estimate of the shear rate for wide range ceramic slips by defining a parameter that determines
8
9 the value of the radial position in between bob and rotor. For a fluid with a finite yield stress,
10
11 Yang and Krieger (1978) proposed an integral equation involving the power-law departure factor
12
13
for the approximate shear rate equation. Several authors also attempted to estimate rheology
14 without considering a-priori assumption of rheological models. Apelblat et al. (1975) suggested
15
16 a shear rate equation for coaxial cylindrical viscometer by converting the basic coaxial cylinder
17
18 difference equation into an ordinary differential equation for a narrow gap system where the ratio
19
of bob and rotor radius is nearly unity. More recently, Kumar and Guria (2013), Kumar et al.
Fo
20
21 (2014) and Sisodia et al. (2015) proposed a wall shear estimation methodology in Fann 35
22
viscometer, and their studies are applicable to drilling fluid exhibiting only power-law fluid or
rR
23
24
25 fluids with low yield stress. The flow behavior of negligible yield stress fluid (e.g., polymeric
26 solution) is usually fitted with the power-law or the Carreau/Cross models (Lam and Jefferis,
ev

27
28 2014, 2015). However, the above studies are unable to determine the wall shear rate in Fann
29
iew

30 viscometer for the drilling fluids with sufficiently high yield stress and complexity arises mainly
31
due to the existence of thick un-sheared plug-flow region near the wall of the rotor (Nguyen and
32
33 Boger, 1987). In addition to low AV, it is desired to maintain the ratio of YP to PV of drilling
34
On

35 fluid in between 1.0 and 2.0 lbf/100 ft2/cP; therefore it is very much essential to manipulate AV,
36
37 YP and PV through the optimal formulation of drilling fluid (Gautam and Guria, 2020). Hence,
38 the development of a comprehensive shear rate equation for the fluids with high yield stress is
ly

39
40 very much required for the accurate determination of AV, PV and YP using Fann 35 viscometer.
41
42 The determination of true yield stress is a challenging task and it completely relies on the
43
44
extrapolation, curve fitting or model prediction using the shear stress versus shear rate plot
45 (called the consistency plot). Depending on the experimental procedure, a significant variation in
46
47 true yield stress is also obtained, which was found to be more than one order of magnitude
48
49 (James et al., 1987; Fernandes et al., 2019). In addition to fluid flow, yield stress has a
50
significant effect on the capillary rise. To obtain a consistent value, a new method is proposed to
51
52 estimate true yield stress based on the capillary rise method using two different sized-capillaries.
53
54 In the present study, a mathematical model is developed for the prediction of an accurate
55
56 4
57
58
59
60
Page 5 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 consistency plot for the drilling fluid with sufficiently high yield stress using dial readings at
3
4 different rotor rotation of rotational coaxial cylinder Fann 35 viscometer using the fundamental
5
6 principle of rheology. The proposed consistency plot was then tested to determine accurately
7 AV, PV and Bingham-YP for six experimental drilling fluids.
8
9
10
11 Development of the rheological model for yield stress fluid
12
13 Wall shear rate. The shear rate in a rotational viscometer depends on the thickness of the
14
15
annular gap between cylinders, rotational velocity and the properties of the fluid i.e., density and
16 viscosity. The gap between two cylinders and angular velocity is adjusted in such a way that the
17
18 flow in the annular space is steady, laminar and tangential in the absence of Taylor vortices with
19
secondary flows. Assuming the isothermal and incompressible behavior of fluid flow, the
Fo
20
21
following equation of motion is used for Fann 35 viscometer (Fig. 1) in terms of shear stress
22
rR
23 (Bird et al., 2002) is expressed as:
24
25
26
𝜌 (
∂𝑣𝜃
∂𝑡
∂𝑣𝜃
+ 𝑣𝑟 ∂𝑟 +
𝑣𝜃∂𝑣𝜃
𝑟 ∂𝜃
∂𝑣𝜃
+ 𝑣𝑧 ∂𝑧 +
𝑣𝑟𝑣𝜃
𝑟 )=― 1∂𝑝
𝑟 ∂𝜃 ― [ 1∂
𝑟2∂𝑟
1∂
(𝑟2𝜏𝑟𝜃) + 𝑟∂𝜃(𝜏𝜃𝜃) + ∂𝑧𝜏𝑧𝜃 ―
∂ 𝜏𝑟𝜃 ― 𝜏𝜃𝑟
𝑟 ]
ev

27 ―𝜌𝑔𝜃  (1a)

28
29 where vz, vr and vθ are the z-, r- and θ-component velocities, respectively, g is the acceleration
iew

30
31 due to gravity in θ-direction, p is the differential pressure,  is the shear stress, ρ is the fluid
32
33
density and t is the time of rotation.
34 ∂𝑣𝜃
Taking the advantage of the steady flow i.e., ( )
=0 , equation of continuity
On

35 ∂𝑡
36
37
38
[i.e., ∂𝑣𝜃
∂𝜃 ( ) = 0], no flow condition along r- and z-direction (i.e., v = 0 and v = 0),
= 0,
∂ ∂𝑣𝜃
∂𝜃 ∂𝜃 r z
ly

39
negligible pressure gradient in θ-direction (i.e., = 0), symmetric tensor (i.e., 𝜏 = 𝜏 ) and g
∂𝑝
40 𝑟𝜃 𝜃𝑟 θ
∂𝜃
41
42 = 0, Eq. (1a) reduces to take the following simplified differential equation:
43
44 1𝑑
𝑟2𝑑𝑟
(𝑟2𝜏𝑟𝜃) = 0  (1b)
45
46
47
where τrθ is the time-independent θ-component shear stress.
48 In Eq. (1a), it is also assumed that wall slippage and extensional flow does not exist during
49
50 rotation of the rotor. On integration and omitting rθ subscript, Eq. (1b) reduces to
51
52 𝑟2𝜏 = constant  (2)
53
54
55
56 5
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 6 of 37

1
2 For a fluid with the fixed yield stress (τ0), the fluid layer nearby to the rotor sleeve (i.e., the
3
4 inside wall of the outer cylinder) will rotate as a solid pad (i.e., un-sheared core) and it continues
5
6 to move up to the critical radius (rc) where τ = τ0. In addition to this, the slippage of fluid layers
7 between the critical radius and bob wall (inner cylinder) occurs due to the viscosity, and it is
8
9 referred to as the sheared core. The velocity profile in the annular space of the Fann 35
10
11
12
viscometer is also presented in Fig. 1. The generalized shear rate i.e., 𝛾 = 𝑑𝑟 ( 𝑑𝑣
) for the moving
13 fluid in rotating Fann viscometer is expressed as (Bourgoyne et al., 1991):
14
15 𝑑𝑣 𝑑𝜔
𝛾 = 𝑑𝑟 = 𝑟 𝑑𝑟 +𝜔 (3) where
16
17
v(r) is the linear fluid velocity at radius r and ω(r) is the angular fluid velocity.
18
19 𝑑𝜔
In Eq. (3), 𝑟 𝑑𝑟 signifies the slippage of fluid layers in between critical radius (rc) and bob radius
Fo
20
21
22
(r1), whereas ω signifies the shear rate in no-slip (i.e., un-sheared) region in between critical
rR
23 radius (rc) and rotor radius (r2). The Eq. (3) is used to predict the wall shear rate of high yield
24
25 stress fluid, and deals with sheared and non-sheared regions in the flow of yield stress fluids also
26
ev

27 called shear banding (Moller et al., 2009). Substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (3), and subsequent
28 simplification reduces to:
29
iew

30 𝑑𝜔 1𝛾 ― 𝜔
=―2  (4)
31 𝑑𝜏 𝜏
32
33
Under a steady-state, the angular velocity (ω2) of the rotor sleeve is constant and the velocity of
34 bob is zero (i.e., ω1 = 0). On the integration of Eq. (4), the following equation is obtained:
On

35
𝜔 1 𝜏 𝛾―𝜔
36 ∫0 2𝑑𝜔 = 𝜔2 = ― 2∫𝜏𝑟2 𝑑𝜏  (5)
37 𝑟1 𝜏

38
In the above equation, the wall shear stress at bob and rotor is denoted by τr1 and τr2,
ly

39
40 respectively. Leibnitz-rule (Bird et al., 2002) is applied to differentiate the above integral
41
2
42 equation with respect to τr1 and substituting 𝜏𝑟2 = 𝜏𝑟1𝑟1 𝑟22 (i.e., Eq. 2), the following simplified
43
44 differential equation is obtained:
45 𝑑𝜔2 1 1 𝜔2
46
𝑑𝜏𝑟1 = 2𝜏𝑟1(𝛾𝑟1 ― 𝛾𝑟2) + 2𝜏𝑟1  (6)
47
48 In Eq. (6), the wall shear rate at bob and rotor is denoted by 𝛾𝑟1 and 𝛾𝑟2, respectively.
49
50 1 𝜔2
The term in Eq. (6) has appeared due to the presence of a non-sheared plug flow region in
51 2𝜏𝑟1
52 𝑑𝜔
53 the viscometer (Fig. 1), where  is constant (i.e., 𝑑𝑟 = 0). Therefore, Eq. (3) in the plug flow
54
55
56 6
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 region is reduced to 𝛾 = 𝜔2 = 𝛾0, where 𝛾0 is connected to the true yield stress of the drilling
3
4 fluid (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). Substituting τr1 = τ and τr2 = s2τ in Eq. (6), results the following
5
6 generalized form, which establishes the generalized relationship between 𝛾 and ω:
7 𝑑𝜔 1 1𝛾0
8 𝑑𝜏 = 2𝜏[𝛾(𝜏) ― 𝛾(𝑠2𝜏)] + 2 𝜏  (7)
9
10 In the above equation, s is defined as bob to rotor radius ratio and varies between 0 and 1.
11
12 Expanding 𝛾(𝑠2𝜏) i.e., 𝛾[𝜏 ― (1 ― 𝑠2)𝜏] using the Taylor series and Eq. (7) reduces to:
13 (1 ― 𝑠2)2𝜏2𝑑𝛾2(𝜏) (1 ― 𝑠2)3𝜏3𝑑𝛾3(𝜏) (1 ― 𝑠2)4𝜏4𝑑𝛾4(𝜏)
14
15
𝑑𝜔
(
1
[2)
𝑑𝜏 = 2𝜏 1 ― 𝑠 𝜏
𝑑𝛾(𝜏)
𝑑𝜏 ― 2! 𝑑𝜏 2 + 3! 𝑑𝜏 3 ― 4! 𝑑𝜏 4 ]
+∙∙∙ + 2 𝜏
1𝛾0

16
17  (8)
18
19
The above series equation is quite general and it is used to predict 𝛾 for the known 0 and p.
Fo
20 Neglecting second and higher derivatives in Eq. (8) yields
21
𝑑𝜔 1 1𝛾0
22
𝑑𝜏 [
= 2𝜏 (1 ― 𝑠2)𝜏
𝑑𝛾(𝜏)
𝑑𝜏 ]+ 2𝜏
 (9)
rR
23
24
25 On integration and subsequent simplification, Eq. (9) reduces to:
26 2𝜔
[ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
ev

27 𝛾 = (1 ― 𝑠2) ― 𝛾 1 + (1 ― 𝑠2)  (10)

0
28
29 It is interesting to note that Eq. (10) reduces to Reiner-Rivlin equation (Bourgoyne et al., 1991)
iew

30 𝜏0
31 after substituting 𝛾0 = 𝜇𝑝 (where 0 is the true yield stress and p is the plastic viscosity adjacent
32
33 2
34 to τ0). Substituting, (1 ― 𝑠2) = 16.26, where s = r1/r2, r1 = 17.25 mm and r2 = 18.42 mm, Eq. (10)
On

35
36 reduces to
37 0.066𝜏0
38 𝛾(𝑠 ―1) = 1.70𝑁 +  (11a)
ly

𝜇𝑝
39
40 where N is the rotor rotation in rpm and 2 = 2N/60.
41
42 Moreover, fluid without yield stress (i.e., 0 = 0), Eq. (10) yields Margules equation for
43
44 Newtonian fluids (Oka, 1960) i.e.,
45
46 𝛾 (𝑠 ―1) = 1.70𝑁 (11b)
47
48
Eq. (11a) represents the variation of shear rate with rotor rotation for Bingham plastic fluid.
49 Omitting the third and higher derivatives in Eq. (8), results in the following equation:
50
𝛽2
51
52
𝜏
[ ]
2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
𝛾 = ― 𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1)∫𝜏 𝜔(𝑥)𝑥 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑑𝑥 ― 𝛾0 1 + 1 ― 𝑠2  (12)
0

53
54 where  = 2/(1s2)
55
56 7
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 8 of 37

1
2 The detailed simplifications and derivations of the above equation are outlined in Appendix A. It
3
4 is interesting to note that Eq. (12) reduces to Reiner-Rivlin Equation [i.e., Eq. (10)] after
5
6 substituting Bingham plastic-type fluid, i.e., 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0), where K is a constant. The
7
8
details of the simplification for Eq. (12) to Reiner-Rivlin equation are also outlined in Appendix
9 A. Substituting, 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 in Eq. (12) and simplification yields
10
11
12
𝛾(𝜏) = 𝛽2
𝜔
𝜏0 𝛽+1[∑ ∞ ( ―𝛽 ― 2)
∁
0 𝑖 (1
𝛽+1+𝑖―𝑚 )] +
0.066𝜏0
𝜇𝑝
 (13)
13 (1 ― ) 𝜏

14
( ―𝛽 ― 1)
15 where ∁(𝑖 ―𝛽 ― 2) = , m and K are the exponent and constant in 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚.
16 ( ―𝛽 ― 𝑖 ― 1)𝑖!
17 In the present work, ω-τ relationship, i.e., 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚] is consistent with the studies by
18
19 Apelblat et al. (1975); Krieger and Elrod (1953); Middleman (1968) and Sisodia et al. (2015).
Fo
20
21 The advantage of using this equation is that it does not require any information about the shear
22
rate to evaluate the constants. The detailed derivation of Eq. (13) is also outlined in Appendix B.
rR
23
24 On the expansion of the summation term in Eq. (13) and substituting the actual value of Fann 35
25
26 viscometer dimension (i.e.,  = 16.26), Eq. (13) reduces to
ev

27

[
𝜏0 2 𝜏0 3

]
28 𝜏0
() ()
1 1 18.28 175.75 𝜏 1186.48 𝜏
29 𝜏
+…
iew

𝛾(𝜏) = 264.38 𝜔 17.26 ― 𝑚 ― 18.26 ― 𝑚 + 19.26 ― 𝑚 ― 20.26 ― 𝑚

30 𝜏0 17.26 𝜏0 𝜏0 2 𝜏0 3

31 (1 ― ) 𝜏
1― 𝜏 (1 ― ) 𝜏 (1 ― ) 𝜏

32 0.066𝜏0
33 + 𝜇𝑝
 (14)
34
On

35 The above equation reduces to Reiner-Rivlin Equation [i.e., Eq. (11a)] after substituting m = 1
36
37 and  = 2N/60, whereas Eq. (14) transforms to the following power law-type non-Newtonian
38
fluid equation for the non-zero value of m and 0 = 0, i.e.,
ly

39
40 27.68
41 𝛾(𝜏) = 17.26 ― 𝑚𝑁  (15)
42
43 In addition, Eq. (14) also reduces to 𝛾(τ) = 1.70N after substituting m = 1 and 0 = 0. To
44
45 increase the accuracy of shear rate estimation further, the first three terms in Eq. (8) are
46 considered and the following differential equation is obtained after integration:
47
48 𝑑2𝛾 𝛾0𝑙𝑛𝜏0
49 𝑑𝑝 2 ― (32𝛽 + 3)𝑑𝑝𝑑𝛾 + (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2)𝛾 + 34𝛽3𝛾0𝑝 = 32𝛽3(𝜔 + 2 )―( 𝛽 3 2
2
3
+ 2𝛽 + 2 𝛾0 )
50
51  (16)
52 where 𝜏 = 𝑒𝑝 and τ > τ0
53
54
55
56 8
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 The detailed derivation of Eq. (16) is outlined in Appendix C. The simplification of the particular
3
4 integral (PI) of Eq. (16) yields the following preferred solution:
5
[𝜔 ―
𝜏0
] ― ( 𝛽 + 𝛽 + 2)
3 3 3 2 3 𝜏0
6 2𝛽 𝜇𝑝𝑙𝑛(𝑠) 2 2 𝜇𝑝
7 𝛾(𝜏) = 𝑚(𝑚 ― 1)𝜏2  (17)
8
(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)2
― (32𝛽 + 3)𝜏 ―𝑚𝜏𝜏0 + (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2)
9
10 The detailed derivation of Eq. (17) is outlined in Appendix C. The above equation also simplifies
11
12 to Reiner-Rivlin Equation [i.e., Eq. (10)] when m = 1 in 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 and the details of
13
14
15
the simplification are also mentioned in Appendix C. Substituting 𝛽 𝑖.𝑒., (1 ― 𝑠2) = 16.26, Eq [ 2
]
16
17 (17) reduces to
18
[
0.066𝜏0
] ― 422.97
𝜏0
6448.41 𝜔 +
19 𝜇𝑝 𝜇𝑝

 (18)
Fo
20 𝛾(𝜏) = 𝑚(𝑚 ― 1)𝜏2 𝑚𝜏
21 (𝜏 ― 𝜏0) 2 ― 27.39𝜏 ― 𝜏 + 422.97
0
22
rR
23 Eq. (18) represents the most generalized shear rate equation with varying rotor rotation (i.e., 𝜔)
24
25 in the Fann rotational viscometer. To obtain the consistency plot, wall shear stress is determined
26
ev

27 by the dial reading at given rotational velocity and given by (Bourgoyne et al., 1991):
28 𝑘𝜃
29 𝜏 = 2𝜋𝑟2ℎ  (19)
iew

1
30
31 Replacing, r1 = 17.25 mm, h = 38.0 mm, k = 3.87×10-5 N m/scale unit, Eq. (19) reduces to τw =
32
33 0.51θ. Therefore, Eqs. (14), (18) and (19) are the proposed equations for the wall shear rates.
34
On

35
36 True yield stress. A generalized z-component equation of motion in terms of shear stress has
37
38 been employed to determine true yield stress of an experimental incompressible fluid using
ly

39
40 cylindrical capillary (Fig. 2) and the following equation has been used (Bird et al., 2002):
41 ∂𝑣𝑧 ∂𝑣𝑧 𝑣𝜃∂𝑣𝑧 ∂𝑣𝑧
42 𝜌 ( ∂𝑡 + 𝑣𝑟 ∂𝑟 + 𝑟 ∂𝜃 + 𝑣𝑧 ∂𝑧 = ― ∂𝑧 ― ) ∂𝑝
[ 1∂
𝑟 ∂𝑟
(𝑟𝜏𝑟𝑧) + 𝑟∂𝜃(𝜏𝜃𝑧) + ∂𝑧𝜏𝑧𝑧] ―𝜌𝑔  (20)
1∂ ∂

43
44 where vz, vr and vθ are the z-, r- and θ-component velocity, respectively, g is the acceleration due
45
46 to gravity in the z-direction, p is the differential pressure,  is the shear stress, ρ is the fluid
47
48 density and t is the time for the capillary rise.
49 ∂𝑣𝑧 ∂ ∂𝑣𝑧
50 Taking advantage of the equation of continuity [i.e., ∂𝑧 = 0 and ∂𝑧 ( ) = 0] and setting r- and -
∂𝑧
51
52 component velocity zero, Eq. (20) reduces to following simplified equation of motion:
53 ∂𝑣𝑧 ∂𝑝 1∂
54 𝜌 ∂𝑡 = ― ∂𝑧 ― 𝑟∂𝑟(𝑟𝜏𝑟𝑧) ―𝜌𝑔  (21a)
55
56 9
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 10 of 37

1
2 The inertial term in the left-hand side is almost zero as the capillary rise is very slow with
3
4 negligible Reynolds number, particularly with high yield stress fluid. Therefore, Eq. (21) reduces
5
6 to the following equation:
7 ∂𝑝 1∂
8 ― ∂𝑧 ― 𝑟∂𝑟(𝑟𝜏𝑟𝑧) ―𝜌𝑔 = 0  (21b)
9
10 In the phenomena of capillary rise, the pressure gradient in above equation originates from the
11
capillary pressure (: Δpc) and is quantified using the following Young-Laplace equation, i.e.,
12
13 𝑑𝑝 ∆𝑝𝑐 2𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
14 𝑑𝑧 = ℎ(𝑡) = ― 𝑅ℎ(𝑡)
 (22)
15
16 where h(t) is the height of the rising fluid in the capillary at any time, t,  is the surface tension
17
18
of the air-liquid interface,  is the contact angle (Fig. 2).
19 Substituting, Eq. (22) in Eq. (21b) yields:
Fo
20
21 2𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 1∂
𝑅ℎ(𝑡) = 𝑟∂𝑟(𝑟𝜏𝑟𝑧) +𝜌𝑔  (23)
22
rR
23
Therefore, the capillary rise due to capillary (or suction) force is restricted by the combined
24
25 effect of visco-plastic dissipation and gravity. On rearranging and integration of Eq. (23) within
26
ev

27 limits, results in the following:

28 2𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 𝑅 𝑅𝜏 𝑅
29 𝑅ℎ(𝑡) ∫0 𝑟𝑑𝑟 = ∫0 𝑤∂(𝑟𝜏𝑟𝑧) +𝜌𝑔∫0 𝑟𝑑𝑟  (24)
iew

30
31 where 𝜏w is the wall shear stress at r = R.
32
33 On integration and subsequent simplification, Eq. (24) reduces to
34 σcosθ
On

35 h(t) = τw + 0.5ρgR  (25)

36
37 For yield-stress fluid, 𝜏w = 𝜏0 (i.e., true yield stress) when fluid ceases to flow and h(t) = H,
38
ly

39 where H is the final height of the capillary rise. Then Eq. (25) reduces to
40 𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
41 𝐻 = 𝜏0 + 0.5𝜌𝑔𝑅 (26)
42
43 Therefore, substituting the known values of H, , , , R and g in Eq. (26), the value of τ0 may
44
45 be evaluated. To avoid the measurement of  and , two different capillaries of identical material
46
47 with radius R1 and R2 are used to determine τ0. If the capillary rise for the capillaries with radius
48
49 R1 and R2 for the identical yield-stress fluid is H1 and H2, respectively, then Eq. (26) reduces to
50 𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 σcosθ
51 𝐻1 = 𝜏0 + 0.5𝜌𝑔𝑅1 and H2 = τ0 + 0.5ρgR  (27)
2
52
53 Eliminating 𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃, above equations reduce to
54
55
56 10
57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 𝜌𝑔(𝐻2𝑅2 ― 𝐻1𝑅1)
3 𝜏0 = 2 𝐻1 ― 𝐻2
 (28)
4
5 Therefore, τ0 of the drilling fluid with known density may be determined accurately by knowing
6
the capillary rise using two capillaries with different radii using Eq. (28).
7
8
9
10 Experimental
11
12 Materials. Drilling fluid additives like polyanionic cellulose (PAC: MWn- (2.49±0.05)105 Da,
13
14 PDI-1.38±0.05), xanthan gum (XG: MWn- (1.095±0.1)106 Da, PDI-1.58±0.02) and carboxy
15
16 methylcellulose (CMC: MWn-(3.19±0.02)105 Da, PDI-1.46±0.02) were obtained from Gumpro
17
18 drilling fluids, Loba Chem and Central Drug House, India, respectively, where MWn and PDI are
19
the number average molecular weight and polydispersity index, respectively. API-grade
Fo
20
21
bentonite (BEN: Cation exchange capacity: 71.2±2 meq/100 g) was purchased from Alfa Aesar
22
rR
23 (USA), whereas synthesized alpha-glycol functionalized nano fly ash (FNFA: Cation exchange
24
25 capacity-67.9±2 meq/100 g with alpha-glycol content-0.014±0.002 mol/100 g) (Gautam et al.,
26
ev

27 2018) were also used as test fluid additives. PAC grafted copolymer involving acrylamide, 2-
28 acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid and sodium styrene sulfonate (i.e., PAC-g-AAS) was
29
iew

30 used as a high-pressure and high-temperature (HPHT) drilling fluid additive for the preparation
31
32 of water-based synthetic bentonite mud (i.e., p-BEN) and synthetic FNFA mud (i.e., p-FNFA)
33
34
(Gautam and Guria, 2020).
On

35
36
37 Methods.
38
ly

39 Sample preparation. The aqueous solutions of 1.0 wt% XG, 1.5 wt% PAC, 1.0 wt % CMC and
40
7.0 wt% BEN solution was prepared by adding the appropriate quantity of additives in
41
42 demineralized water at 305K separately, and the suspensions were mixed thoroughly using
43
44 Hamilton beach mixer at 8000 rpm, as per API recommended procedure. The freshly prepared
45
46 polymer suspensions are called test fluids and were used for the testing of rheology. Synthetic
47 copolymer-based HPHT drilling fluid involving bentonite and FNFA (Gautam and Guria, 2020)
48
49 was also prepared and the rheology was also tested for these HPHT drilling fluids. The detailed
50
51 formulations test fluids are outlined in Table 1. The density of the aqueous polymeric samples
52
and HPHT drilling fluid was determined using the mud balance apparatus as per the API
53
54 recommended procedure and reported in Table 2.
55
56 11
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 12 of 37

1
2
3
4 Fann viscometry. Fann rotational viscometer (API RP 13B-1: Model 35) based on the Couette
5
6 flow system was used to estimate the rheological properties of test fluids. In Fann 35 viscometer,
7 dial reading is recorded at six different rpms specifically at 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm. The
8
9 dial readings and rpm data were used to predict the wall shear rate (𝛾) and wall shear stress ()
10
11 for generating the consistency plot. 3-rpm and 6-rpm dial readings were also used to determine
12
13 yield stress (API RP 13D). For consistent results, the Fann 35 viscometer experiments were
14 performed in triplicate and average dial readings were reported.
15
16
17
18 True yield stress by capillary rise method. The true yield stress was determined from the
19
capillary rise of the test fluid in capillary tubes of two different sizes with radius 0.360 and 0.285
Fo
20
21 mm. The radius of the capillary tubes was measured using a traveling microscope. The capillary
22
tubes were clamped exactly in a vertical position with the help of a stand and the capillaries were
rR
23
24
25 immersed into the test fluid at an equal depth. The fluid rise in the capillary was also measured
26
ev

by using the traveling microscope as per the standard procedure. To test the accuracy of the
27
28 measurement, the surface tension of demineralized water, methanol and ethanol was measured
29
iew

30 using Jurin’s law from the rise of fluid level in the capillary and the surface tension of the test
31
32 fluids for both the capillaries was found to be almost identical with 72.12±0.21, 21.94±0.15 and
33 22.22±0.18 mN m-1, respectively, at 20°C, which dictates the accuracy of the capillary
34
On

35 measurement. The true yield stress of the test fluids is determined using Eq. (28) by measuring
36
37 the capillary rise in both the capillaries simultaneously.
38
ly

39
40 True yield stress by an air bearing rheometry. Air bearing rheometer is also used to measure
41
42 the true yield stress of the test fluid with cup and bob geometry (Bohlin Gemini-2, Malvern, UK)
43
44 for the comparison of true yield stress measured by capillary rise method. The tests were
45
conducted in control shear stress mode and the shear stress was ramped from 0.01 to 50 Pa
46
47 logarithmically at 20°C. The apparent viscosity and shear stress were plotted in a semilog plot
48
49 and the maxima in the instantaneous viscosity vs. shear stress plot results in the true yield stress
50
51 of the fluid (Sun and Gunasekaran, 2009).
52
53
54 Results and discussion
55
56 12
57
58
59
60
Page 13 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 Estimation of yield stress. The capillary rise using two different sized-capillary with radius
3
4 0.285 mm and 0.360 mm was measured for the test fluids in Table 1. The detailed of the
5
6 capillary rise and their difference for the test fluids are recorded in Table 2. Using the capillary
7 rise difference and the density of the test fluid, yield stress was calculated using Eq. (28) and the
8
9 details are tabulated in Table 2. The accuracy of the calculated yield stress results by capillary
10
11 rise method was verified from the maxima of the instantaneous viscosity vs. shear rate plots
12
13
when the air bearing rheometer is operated under controlled shear stress ramp mode. The results
14 are also compared with low shear yield stress (Column 7 of Table 2). The variations of
15
16 instantaneous viscosity vs. shear stress and corresponding maxima (i.e., true yield stress) are
17
18 shown in Fig 3. The details of true yield stress from the rheometer are also recorded in Table 2.
19
It is noticed that the percent difference between true yield stresses measured by both the methods
Fo
20
21 is found to be less than 5.0%, indicating the accuracy of the capillary rise method. Relatively
22
higher values of yield stress were obtained using API RP 13D method, indicating the inaccuracy
rR
23
24
25 of this method (Fernandes et al., 2019). It is observed from Table 2 that 1.5% PAC and 1.0%
26 CMC exhibit low yield stress, whereas p-FNFA mud shows moderate yield stress. However,
ev

27
28 7.0% bentonite, 1.0% XG and p-BEN mud exhibit relatively high yield stress. Among the test
29
iew

30 fluids, 1.5% PAC suspension shows the lowest true yield stress, which is mainly due to the
31
development of weak microstructure comprising of the linear chains among PAC molecules.
32
33 Similarly, 1.0% of CMC polymer has linear molecular chains and forms a weak microstructure.
34
On

35 However, CMC exhibits higher yield stress than PAC, which is due to the higher chain length of
36
37 CMC than PAC. XG is a complex polymer with helix structure and there a large number of
38 hydrogen bonds is present it, which results in a stable microstructure in aqueous state and
ly

39
40 exhibits higher yield stress (Song et al., 2006). The aqueous bentonite suspension is known to
41
42 form a stable colloidal gel structure due to the interlinking among the bentonite platelets and
43
44
results in the development of high yield stress. Similarly, p-BEN and p-FNFA muds also exhibit
45 comparatively higher yield stress due to the presence of thermally stable long-chain PAC-g-AAS
46
47 copolymer (Gautam and Guria, 2020). In the present study, 7.0% bentonite, 1.0% XG and p-
48
49 BEN mud are treated as high yield stress fluid for the determination of shear rates, whereas 1.5%
50
PAC, 1.0% CMC and p-FNFA mud with low and moderate yield stress were used for the
51
52 comparison.
53
54
55
56 13
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 14 of 37

1
2 Estimation of wall shear rate. The dial readings (θ) corresponding to six standard rotor
3
4 rotations (N) were noted for six different fluids using Fann 35 viscometer, and the details are
5
6 shown in Fig. 4a. Using the Fann viscometer readings, the shear rates are calculated using Eq.
7 (11a) for the known true yield stress and μp. Therefore, the predicted 𝛾 in Eq. (11a) is excess over
8
9 0.066𝜏0
over 1.70N. To use Eqs. (14) and (18) for the prediction of 𝛾, the flow behavior parameter,
10 𝜇𝑝
11
12 m, is determined from the slope of ln(ω) vs. ln(τ- τ𝑜) plot for the known values of  (i.e., 2N/60)
13
and τ0 (Table 3). The details of ln(ω) vs. ln(τ- τ𝑜) plot for all test fluids are shown in Fig. 4b and
14
15
16 corresponding m values are reported in Table 3. The coefficient of determinant, R2 i.e., ( 𝑆𝑡 ― 𝑆𝑟
𝑆𝑡 ) is
17
18 calculated by evaluating the total sum of squares of errors (St) and the sum of squares of
19
residuals (Sr) (Chapra and Canale, 2015) and the details are reported in Table 3. It is seen that the
Fo
20
21 value R2 is found to higher than 0.97 for the reported m values. It is possible to improve R2 by
22
rR
23 maintaining the stable Couette flow in the annular gap when the Reynolds number based on the
24
𝜔2𝑟22𝜌
25
26
(
rotor rotation 𝑖.𝑒., 𝜇 ) is less than 50,000 (Bird et al., 2002). The maximum Reynolds number
ev

27
28 in this study was found to be 2016 for 7.0% bentonite suspension at 600 rpm, ensuring the stable
29 Couette flow for the remaining fluids.
iew

30
31 The wall shear rates for all test fluids are also calculated from Eqs. (14) and (18) using
32
33 the value of m listed in Table 3 for the given values for the Fann 35 viscometer reading in Fig.
34
4a. While calculating the shear rate equations, it is essential to determine plastic viscosity
On

35
36 adjacent to true yield point (i.e., μp) and it is determined by the following equation by estimating
37
38 𝛾𝑤 at 6- and 3- rpm, and corresponding dial readings (Bourgoyne et al., 1991):
ly

39
0.51(θ6 ― θ3)
40 𝜇𝑝(cP) = × 1000 …………………………………………………….. (29)
(γw,6 ― γw,3)
41
42 To evaluate μp, the difference between γw,6 and γw,3 using Eq. (14) is evaluated for a fixed value
43
44 of i, then μp is calculated using Eq. (29) for the known values of θ6 and θ3. The calculation of μp
45
46 is continued until the identical values of μp are obtained for two consecutive i-values. The details
47
48 of i-values and corresponding μp using Eq. (14) for all test fluids are reported in Table 3.
49 Similarly, Eqs. (18) and (29) are used to obtain μp and the details of μp for all test fluids are also
50
51 reported in Table 3. In the above cases, μp is calculated by using the Newton-Rapson method
52
53 with an initial guess of μp (Chapra and Canale, 2015) for the known values of θ6 and θ3. Now, the
54
calculated μp values in Table 3 for different test fluids are used to calculate 𝛾𝑤(𝜏) with the help
55
56 14
57
58
59
60
Page 15 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 of Eqs. (14) and (18). The details of the predicted 𝛾𝑤(𝜏) for all test fluids at six different rotor
3
4 rotations are shown in Figs. 5a-5f and the results are also compared with 𝛾𝑤(𝜏), which are
5
6 calculated from Eq. (11a). The predicted 𝛾𝑤(𝜏) from Eqs. (11a), (14) and (18) are also compared
7
8 with the shear rate using Eq. (11b), and the shear rates proposed by Middleman (1965) and
9
Sisodia et al. (2015), the detailed comparison is shown in Figs. 5a-5f. It is noticed that the
10
11 estimated 𝛾(𝜏) using Eqs. (11a). (14) and (18) are relatively higher than 𝛾(𝜏) calculated using
12
13 Eq. (11b). It is also noted that the maximum deviation in 𝛾(𝜏) is occurred using Eq. (11b) , the
14
15 equation that has been used for monitoring the mud rheology in the field while drilling and Eq.
16 (18). The major disadvantage of using Eq. (11b) is that the predicted shear rate remains
17
18 unchanged irrespective of the nature of the test fluid and it depends on the rotor rotation only.
19
Fo
20 Underestimation of the shear rate using the existing equation may cause a serious problem when
21
22
the mud window is narrow where cutting lifting and filtration loss play a dominant role in the
rR
23 safe drilling of wells. As mentioned early that Eq. (11b) is obtained after keeping the first term in
24
25 the Taylor series (Eq. 8) for the fluids with 0 = 0. Therefore, the accuracy of the shear rate
26
ev

27 prediction improves after considering the multiple terms in the Taylor series (Eq. 8), which is
28
29
mainly due to the reduction of the truncation error. It is noted that the truncation error in Eq.
iew

30 (11a) is O(h), whereas the truncation errors for Eqs (14) and (18) are in the order of 𝑂(ℎ2) and 𝑂
31
32 (ℎ3), respectively, where ℎ = 𝜏(1 ― 𝑠2). As the value of (1‒ s2) is fixed at a very low value (i.e.,
33
34 0.123) for the Fann 35 viscometer, therefore the truncation error reduces significantly for the
On

35
36 higher-order terms. Therefore, Eq. (18) may be used for the accurate prediction of shear rates.
37
It is mentioned that the shear rate estimated using Eq. (14) at different N (i.e., 3, 6, 100,
38
ly

39 200, 300 and 600 rpm) depends on the number of terms associated with the series equation.
40
41 Therefore, Eq. (14) is evaluated for the different values of i, where i varies from 0 to . The
42
43 detailed variation of shear rates with i at 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm for all test fluids are
44
shown in Figs. 6a-6f, respectively. It is observed that the larger value of i is essential to obtain
45
46 the stable shear rate at 3 rpm, whereas a relatively smaller value of i is required as rotor rotation
47
48 increases. Details of the stable shear rate and corresponding i-values for all test fluids at six
49
50 different rpms are summarized in Table 4. It is observed from Figs. 6a-6f and Table 5 that the
51 required value of i is comparatively higher for those fluids which have higher yield stress except
52
53 𝜏0
CMC. The convergence to a steady value 𝛾(𝜏) depends on the value of in Eq. (14). Higher
54 𝜏 ― 𝜏0
55
56 15
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 16 of 37

1
2 values of i are required when  is close to 0 and this situation arises at the lower rpm. As 
3
4 is much higher than 0 at higher rpm, therefore the value of i reduces drastically to reach a
5
6 steady value.
7
8 The apparent viscosity (AV), plastic viscosity (PV), Bingham-yield point (YP) and gel
9 strength are usually monitored to achieve the desired performance of drilling fluids under surface
10
11 condition. The proposed shear rate equations are used to calculate AV, PV and Bingham-YP at
12
13 600- and 300- rpm and given by:
14 0.51θ600
15 AV (cP) = γw,600 × 1000 …………………………………………………………...(30)
16
17 0.51(θ600 ― θ300)
18
PV(cP) = (γw,600 ― γw,300) × 1000 ……………………………………….…..…..…..(31)
19 γw,600
Fo
γw,300θ300
― θ600
20
21 Bingham-YP ( lb
100 ft2) = γw,600
―1
……………………………….………….(32)
22 γw,300
rR
23
24
The details of AV, PV and Bingham-YP for all test fluids are reported in Table 5, and
25 corresponding percent deviations with respect to Margules equation (i.e., 𝛾 (𝑠 ―1) = 1.70𝑁) are
26
ev

27 also reported in Table 5. It is interesting to note that the estimated AV, PV and Bingham-YP
28
29 using Eqs. (14) and (18) is less than Margules and Reiner-Rivlin equation. With the reduction in
iew

30
31
AV, the total pressure drop required to push mud also reduces while the circulation in the flow-
32 loop. Similarly, with the decrease in PV values, mud is capable of drilling rapidly because of the
33
34 low viscosity mud accelerates the performance of the drill bit. Similarly, Bingham-YP also
On

35
36 reduces as the accuracy of the shear rate estimation increases and thereby cutting carrying
37
capacity of the fluid reduces. It is also observed from Table 5 that the Bingham-YP and true YP
38
ly

39 3
40
in Table 2 differ significantly from each other. Therefore, the assumption of true YP = 4
41 3
42 Bingham YP is not valid. In the present study, the true YP varies in the following bounds: 100
43
40
44 Bingham YP < True YP < YP and the lower limits are applicable to lower
100Bingham
45
46 Bingham YP, whereas higher limits are applicable to higher Bingham YP. As the predicted
47
48 rheological properties, AV, PV and Bingham-YP using Margules equation are always higher
49
50 than the proposed rheological models; therefore, the care must be taken while preparing the
51 drilling fluid by adjusting appropriate AV, PV and Bingham-YP for efficient control of the wells
52
53 while drilling. Drilling fluids and Bentonite slurries usually form gel if it is left static for a period
54
55 of time and the gel strength is measured after a specified waiting period. The gel strength is
56 16
57
58
59
60
Page 17 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 measured by turning the rotor at a slow speed (i.e., 3 rpm) and noting the dial reading at which
3
4 the gel structure is broken and fluid movement begins near the bob. Though, the accuracy of AV,
5
6 PV and Bingham YP values of drilling fluids and bentonite slurries improved using Eqs. (14) and
7 (18), however, there will be no change in the gel strength measurement. To improve the
8
9 measurement of gel strength, a more accurate prediction of shear stress is essential accounting
10
11 for the effect of the geometry of the viscometer and nature of the drilling fluids.
12
13
14 Summary and Conclusions
15
16 Apparent viscosity, plastic viscosity, yield point and gel strength play a pivotal role in
17
18 controlling wells while drilling and these properties must be predicted accurately. In the
19
conventional method, rotor rotations and corresponding dial readings of Fann 35 viscometer are
Fo
20
21
used to monitor the rheology of the drilling fluid through a-priori assumption of the Newtonian
22
rR
23 fluid. However, there is an error in the prediction of shear rates as most of the drilling fluids are
24
25 non-Newtonian, and this error magnifies for the high yield stress fluids. Therefore, an accurate
26
ev

27 estimation of the drilling fluid rheology is very much essential for the efficient control of wells
28 while drilling. In the present study, a better method of estimating shear is proposed for the high
29
iew

30 yield stress fluids using dial readings and rotor rotation data of Fann 35 viscometer and tested
31
32 using six different test fluids. Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be
33
34
drawn for the accurate prediction of the drilling fluid rheology:
On

35  The proposed shear rate equation is established on the basis of a difference equation
36
37 and subsequent Taylor series expansion, which is valid for the high yield stress fluids
38
ly

39 and given by
40
[
0.066𝜏0
] ― 422.97
𝜏0
6448.41 𝜔 +
41 𝜇𝑝 𝜇𝑝

42 𝛾(𝜏) = 𝑚(𝑚 ― 1)𝜏2 𝑚𝜏

.
43 2
(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)
― 27.39𝜏 ― 𝜏 + 422.97
0
44
45  The true yield stress in the above shear rate equation is also proposed and determined
46
47 by the capillary rise method using two different capillaries, which is given by
48
49 𝜌𝑔(𝐻2𝑅2 ― 𝐻1𝑅1)
50 𝜏0 =
2 𝐻1 ― 𝐻2
51
52
53
54
55
56 17
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 18 of 37

1
2  The predicted shear rates using the proposed equation are always higher than the
3
4 conventional Margules equation, a shear rate equation that has been used frequently to
5
6 calculate AV, PV and Bingham-YP while drilling.
7
 AV, PV and Bingham-YP are calculated based on the predicted shear rate equation and
8
9 found to be always less than the conventional driller’s method. The percent reduction
10
11 of rheological properties of the test fluids using the proposed equation over the
12
13 conventional Fann 35 viscometer equation is found to be in the following range, i.e.,
14 AV: 3.03 – 21.92 %; PV: 2.95 –20.18 % and YP: 0.06 – 2.31 %.
15
16  The calculated true YP of the test fluids are found to vary within the following limits:
17
3 40
18
100Bingham ― YP < True YP < 100Bingham ― YP
19
Fo
20 The proposed equations for 𝛾(𝜏) and τ0 are quite general and may be used to predict the rheology
21
22 of the drilling fluids very correctly.
rR
23
24
25
26 Acknowledgment
ev

27
Partial financial support as institute assistantship and instrumental facility from IIT(ISM),
28
29 Dhanbad is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the
iew

30
31 referees for helpful comments.
32
33
34
Nomenclature
On

35
36 A, B constant in Eq. (C4) in Appendix C
37
38 ∂
D in Eq. (C.4) in Appendix C
ly

39 ∂𝜏
40
g acceleration due to gravity, m s-2
41
42 h bob height, m
43
44 H1,2 height of capillary 1 and 2, m
45
46 i integer defined in Eq. (13a)
47 K constant in 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 equation, rad Pa-n s-1
48
49 m exponent 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 equation
50
51 N rotation of rotor, rpm
52
53 p defined in Eq. (C.5) in Appendix C
54
55 p pressure used in Eq. (1a) and (20)
56 18
57
58
59
60
Page 19 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 r radial coordinate in Fann 35 viscometer and capillary tube
3
4 r1 bob radius, m
5
6 r2 rotor radius, m
7 R1,2 radius of capillary 1 and 2, m
8
9 R2 coefficient of determination
10
11 rpm number of rotation per minute, min-1
12
13
s bob to rotor radius ratio (= r1/r2)
14 x shear stress in Eq. (12), Pa
15
16 Greek symbols
17
18 β 2/(1s2) in Eq. (12)
19
𝛾 shear rate, s-1
Fo
20
21 p plastic viscosity, cP
22
rR
23 ρ density of test fluid, kg m-3
24
25 τ shear stress, Pa
26
ev

27
τ0 true yield stress, Pa
28 θ dial reading of bob, °
29
iew

30 ω rotational velocity of rotor, rad. s–1

31
32 σ surface tension, mN m–1
33
34
On

35
36 References
37
API RP 13B-1, Recommended Practice for Field Testing Water-based drilling fluids, 5th edition
38
ly

39 2019. Washington, DC: API

40
41 API RP 13D, Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-well Drilling Fluids, 7th edition 2017.
42
43 Washington, DC: API
44 Apelblat A., Healy, J.C., and Joly, M. 1975. Shear rate in the Couette viscometer with a narrow
45
46 annular gap between cylinders. A new approximate formula. Rheol. Acta 14, 976-978.
47
48 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01516300
49
50
Bird, R.B., Stewart, W., and Lightfoot, E. 2002. Transport Phenomena. Second edition. New
51 York: John Wiley & Sons.
52
53
54
55
56 19
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 20 of 37

1
2 Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr., Chenevert, M.E., Millheim, K K., and Young, F.S., Jr. 1991. Applied
3
4 Drilling Engineering, Vol. 2, Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum
5
6 Engineers.
7 Bush, John W. M., 2010. Interfacial Phenomena Fall 2010 (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of
8
9 Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare, https://ocw.mit.edu/ (accessed 02 December 2019)
10
11 Caenn, R., Darley, H.C.H., and Gray, G.R. 2011. Composition and Properties of Drilling and
12
13
Completion Fluids. Seventh edition. Cambridge, United States: Gulf professional publishing.
14 Chapra, S.C., and Canale, R.P. 2015. Numerical Methods for Engineers, Seventh edition 7th ed.
15
16 USA: McGraw-Hill.
17
18 Fernandes, R.R., Turezo, G., Andrade, D.E.V., Franco, A.T., Negrão, C.O.R., 2019. Are the
19
rheological properties of water-based and synthetic drilling fluids obtained by the Fann 35A
Fo
20
21 viscometer reliable? J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 177, 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.063
22
Gatlin, C. 1960. Petroleum Engineering: Drilling and Well Completions. Englewood Cliffs, New
rR
23
24
25 Jersey,USA: Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
26 Gautam, S., Guria, C., Rajak, D.K., and Pathak, A.K., 2018. Functionalization of fly ash for the
ev

27
28 substitution of bentonite in drilling fluid. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 166, 63–72.
29
iew

30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.02.065.
31
Gautam, S. and Guria, C. 2020. In press Optimal synthesis, characterization and performance
32
33 evaluation of high-pressure high-temperature polymer-based drilling fluid: The effect of
34
On

35 viscoelasticity on cutting transport, filtration loss and lubricity. SPE J. SPE-200487-PA.

36
37 Guria, C., Rajesh, K., Mishra, P. 2013. Rheological analysis of drilling fluid using Marsh Funnel.
38 J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 105, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.03.027.
ly

39
40 James, A.E., Williams, D.J.A., and Williams, P.R. 1987. Direct measurement of static yield
41
42 properties of cohesive suspensions. Rheol. Acta 26, 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/
43
44
BF01333844
45 Joye, D.D. 2003. Shear rate and viscosity corrections for a Casson fluid in cylindrical (Couette)
46
47 geometries. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 267, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2003.07.035
48
49 Kelessidis, V.C. and Maglione, R. 2006. Modeling rheological behavior of bentonite suspensions
50
as Casson and Robertson-Stiff fluids using Newtonian and true shear rates in Couette
51
52 viscometry. Powder Tech. 168, 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2006.07.011
53
54
55
56 20
57
58
59
60
Page 21 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 Kelessidis, V.C., Tsamantaki, C., and Dalamarinis, P. 2007. Effect of pH and electrolyte on the
3
4 rheology of aqueous Wyoming bentonite dispersions. Appl. Clay Sci. 38, 86–96.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2007.01.011
7 Kelessidis, V.C., Dalamarinis, P., and Maglione, R. 2011. Experimental study and predictions of
8
9 pressure losses of fluids modeled as Herschel–Bulkley in concentric and eccentric annuli in
10
11 laminar, transitional and turbulent flows. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 77, 305-312.
12
13
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2011.04.004
14 Krieger, I. and Maron, S. 1952. Direct determination of the flow curves of non-Newtonian fluids.
15
16 J. Appl. Phys. 23, 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1701961
17
18 Krieger, I.M. and Elrod, H. 1953. Direct determination of the flow curves of non-Newtonian
19
fluids. II. Shearing rate in the concentric cylinder viscometer. J Appl. Phys. 24, 134–136.
Fo
20
21 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1721226
22
Kumar, R., Kumar, V., Rajak, D.K., and Guria, C. 2014. An improved estimation of shear rate
rR
23
24
25 using rotating coaxial-cylinder Fann viscometer: A rheological study of bentonite and fly ash
26 suspensions. Int. J. Miner. Process. 126, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2013.11.004
ev

27
28 Kumar, V. and Guria, C. 2013. An improved shear rate estimation using rotating coaxial cylinder
29
iew

30 Fann viscometer. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 110, 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.09.001

31
Lam, C., and Jefferis, S.A., 2014. Interpretation of Viscometer Test Results for Polymer Support
32
33 Fluids, Paper presented at Geo-Shanghai 2014: Tunneling and Underground Construction,
34
On

35 Shanghai, China. 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413449.043

36
37 Lam, C., and Jefferis, S.A., 2015. An investigation of possible yield stress and thixotropy in
38 polymer excavation-support fluids, Paper presented at XVI European Conference on Soil
ly

39
40 Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and
41
42 Development, Edinburgh, Scotland. 3183–3188. https://doi.org/10.1680/ecsmge.60678.vol6.497
43
44
Middleman, S. 1968. The flow of high polymers. New York: Interscience Publishers.
45 Mooney, M. 1931. Explicit formulas for slip and fluidity. J. Rheol. 2, 210–222.
46
47 https://doi.org/10.1122/1.2116364
48
49 Moller, P., Fall, A., Chikkadi, V., Derks, D., Bonn, D., 2009. An attempt to categorize yield
50
stress fluid behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 367, 5139–5155.
51
52 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.0194
53
54
55
56 21
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 22 of 37

1
2 Moore, F. and Davies, L.S. 1956. The consistency of ceramics slip. Trans. J. Brit. Ceram. Soc.
3
4 55, 313–338.
5
6 Nguyen, Q.D. and Boger, D. V. 1987. Characterization of yield stress fluids with concentric
7 cylinder viscometers. Rheol. Acta 26, 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01333734
8
9 Oka, S. 1960. Principles of Rheometry. In Rheology, Principles and Applications, ed. F R Firich,
10
11 Chap. 2, 17-82. New York: Academic Press.
12
13
Raj, A., Rajak, D.K., Gautam, S., Guria, C. and Pathak, A.K. 2016, May. Shear rate estimation:
14 A detailed review. Paper presented at Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA,
15
16 2- 5 May. OTC-27180-MS https://doi.org/10.4043/27180-MS
17
18 Reiner, M., 1934. The theory of Non-Newtonian liquids. J. Appl. Phys. 5, 321–341.
19
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1745217
Fo
20
21 Savins, J.G., Wallick, G.C., and Foster, M.R. 1963. The differentiation method in Rheology: III.
22
Couette Flow, SPE J. 306, 14-18. SPE-306-PA https://doi.org/10.2118/306-PA
rR
23
24
25 Sisodia, M.S., Rajak, D.K., Pathak, A.K., and Guria, C. 2015. An improved estimation of shear
26 rate for yield stress fluids using rotating concentric cylinder Fann viscometer. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
ev

27
28 125, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.027
29
iew

30 Song, K., Kim, Y., and Chang, G. 2006. Rheology of concentrated xanthan gum solutions:
31
Steady shear flow behavior. Fibers Polym. 7, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02908257
32
33 Steffe, J.F. 1996. Rheological Methods in Food Engineering Process, Second edition. East
34
On

35 Lansing, USA: Freeman Press.

36
37 Sun, A. and Gunasekaran, S., 2009. Yield stress in foods: Measurements and applications. Int. J.
38 Food Prop. 12(1), 70-101 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10942910802308502
ly

39
40 Yang, T.M.T. and Krieger, I.M., 1978. Comparison of methods for calculating shear rates in
41
42 coaxial viscometers. J. Rheol. 22, 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.549483.
43
44
45 Appendix A: The details of shear rate estimation (Eq. 12)
46
47 The differential equation obtained by introducing the first three terms of the Taylor series, i.e.,
48
49 (Eq. 8) is given by
50 (1 ― 𝑠2)2𝜏2𝑑2𝛾
51
52
𝑑𝜔
𝑑𝜏 = 2𝜏 [
1 (1 ― 𝑠2)𝜏𝑑𝛾
1! 𝑑𝜏 ― 2! 𝑑𝜏 2 ]+ 𝛾0
2𝜏
 (A.1)
53 2
54 Substituting 𝛽 = (1 ― 𝑠2) in above equation, we get the following simplified differential equation
55
56 22
57
58
59
60
Page 23 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 𝑑𝜔 𝑑𝛾 𝑑2𝛾 𝛾0
3 𝛽2 𝑑𝜏 = 𝛽𝑑𝜏 ―𝜏𝑑𝜏2 + 𝛽22𝜏  (A.2)
4
5 ( 𝑑𝛾)
𝑑 𝜏𝑑𝜏 𝑑𝛾 𝑑2𝛾
6 Again substituting, 𝑑𝜏 = 𝑑𝜏 +𝜏𝑑𝜏2 in Eq. (A.2) we get
7
8 𝑑𝜔 𝑑𝛾 ( 𝑑𝛾)
𝑑 𝜏𝑑𝜏 𝛾0
9 𝛽2 𝑑𝜏 = (𝛽 + 1)𝑑𝜏 ― 𝑑𝜏 + 𝛽22𝜏  (A.3)
10
11 Integrating, A.3 within the limits and substituting τr2/τr1 = s2, the following equation is obtained
12 𝑑𝛾 (𝛽 + 1) 𝜔 (𝛽 + 1) 𝛾0
13
𝑑𝜏 ― 𝜏 𝛾 = ― 𝛽2 𝜏 + 𝜏 𝛾0 +𝛽2 𝜏 𝑙𝑛(𝑠)(A.4)
14
(β + 1)
15 ∫― dτ
16 Multiplying e τ on both sides of Eq. (A.4) and subsequent integration leads to the
17
18
following equation for shear rate
19 𝑑
[𝛾𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1)] = ―𝛽2𝜔(𝜏)𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 2) + (𝛽 + 1)𝛾0𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 2) + 𝛽2𝛾0𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑙𝑛 (𝑠)
Fo
20 𝑑𝜏
21
22 (A.5)
rR
23 On integration within the limits, Eq. (A.5) written as
24
𝜏 𝜏
25
26 𝛾𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1)
= ―𝛽 ∫𝜔(𝑥)𝑥
2 ― (𝛽 + 2)
𝑑𝑥 + ∫[(𝛽 + 1)𝛾 𝑥 0
― (𝛽 + 2)
+ 𝛽2𝛾0𝑥 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑙𝑛(𝑠)]𝑑𝑥 ― 𝛾0𝜏0― (𝛽 + 1)
ev

27 𝜏0 𝜏0
28
29  (A.6)
iew

30 𝛽 1
31 Large value of, 𝛽+1 ≈ 1 and 𝜏(𝛽 + 1) ≈ 0, then Eq. (A.6) reduces to
32 0

33 𝛽2
34
𝜏
[ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
𝛾 = ― 𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1)∫𝜏 𝜔(𝑥)𝑥 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑑𝑥 ― 𝛾0 1 + 1 ― 𝑠2  (12)
On

0
35
36 Substituting 𝜔(𝑥) = 𝐾(𝑥 ― 𝜏0) in Eq. (12) and subsequent integration as well as simplification,
37
38 the following equation is obtained:
ly

39 𝛽𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝜏0 𝛽𝜏0 ― (𝛽 + 1)
40
41
𝐾𝛽
[
𝛾 = 𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1) 𝜏 ― (𝛽 + 1) ― (𝛽 + 1) ]― 𝜏
𝐾𝛽
― (𝛽 + 1) [𝜏 0
― (𝛽 + 1)
― (𝛽 + 1) ] ― 𝛾 [1 +
0
2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
1 ― 𝑠2 ] (A.7)
42 𝛽
43 Assuming 𝛽 + 1→1 and rearranging, Eq. (A7) reduces to the following Equation:
44
45
46
[ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
𝛾 = 𝛽𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0) ― 𝛾0 1 + 1 ― 𝑠2  (A.8)
47
48
Again re-substituting 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0), Eq. (A8) reduces to Reiner-Rivlin Equation i.e.,
49
50
2𝜔
[ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
𝛾 = (1 ― 𝑠2) ― 𝛾0 1 + (1 ― 𝑠2)  (10)
51
52
53
54 Appendix B: The details of shear rate estimation (Eq. 13)
55
56 23
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 24 of 37

1
2 To evaluate the integral in Eq. (12), we assume, Integral = ∫𝜏 𝜔(𝑥)𝑥 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑑𝑥 , and
𝜏
3 0

4
5 substituting 𝜔(𝑥) = 𝐾(𝑥 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 , the Integral reduces to
6 𝜏
7 Integral = 𝐾∫𝜏 (𝑥 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 𝑥 ― (𝛽 + 2)𝑑𝑥 (B.1)
0
8
9 Substituting, α = -(β+2) and (x-τ0) = y, we get
10 𝑦
11 Integral = 𝐾∫0(𝑦)𝑚 (𝜏0 + 𝑦)𝛼𝑑𝑦  (B.2)
12
13 On the expansion of (𝜏0 + 𝑦)𝛼, the above equation reduces to the following form, i.e.,
14
𝑦 ∞
15 Integral = 𝐾∫0∑𝑖 = 0∁𝛼𝑖𝑦𝑚𝜏0𝑖𝑦𝛼 ― 𝑖𝑑𝑦 (B.3)
16
17 ( ―𝛽 ― 2) ( ―𝛽 ― 1)
18
where ∁𝛼𝑖 = ∁𝑖 =
( ―𝛽 ― 𝑖 ― 1)𝑖!
19
On integration Eq. (B.3) and subsequent simplification reduces to
Fo
20
21 𝜏0𝑖𝑦𝑚 + 𝛼 ― 𝑖 + 1
22 Integral = 𝐾∑𝑖 = 0∁𝛼𝑖
∞
( 𝑚+𝛼―𝑖+1 ) (B.4)
rR
23
24 Again re-substituting (τ-τ0) = y and 𝜔(𝑥) = 𝐾(𝑥 ― 𝜏0)𝑚, Eq. (B.4) reduces to
25
26 𝜏0𝑖(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝛼 ― 𝑖 + 1
( ) (B.5)
ev

∞
27 Integral = 𝜔∑𝑖 = 0∁𝛼𝑖 𝑚+𝛼―𝑖+1
28
29 Substituting Eq. (B.5) in Eq. (12), the shear rate equation reduces to the following form i.e.,
iew

30
𝜏0𝑖(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝛼 ― 𝑖 + 1
31
32
𝛾(𝜏) = ― 𝛽 𝜏2 (𝛽 + 1) ∞
𝜔∑𝑖 = 0∁𝛼𝑖 ( 𝑚+𝛼―𝑖+1 ) ― 𝛾 [1 + 0
2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
1 ― 𝑠2 ] (B.6)
33
34 After rearrangement, Eq. (B.6) reduces to
On

35 𝑖

[ ( ) (𝜏 ― 𝜏 )
)]
𝜏0
𝛼+1
36
( 𝜏 ― 𝜏0 0
37
38
𝛾(𝜏) = ― 𝛽2𝜏(𝛽 + 1)𝜔
∞
∑𝑖 = 0∁𝑖 𝛼
𝑚+𝛼―𝑖+1 [ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
― 𝛾0 1 + 1 ― 𝑠2  (B.7)
ly

39
40
41 Substituting, α = -(β+2) and simplifying, the above equation reduces to Eq. (13a)
42

(
𝜏0 𝑖
43
44
45
46
𝛾(𝜏) = 𝛽2
𝜔
𝜏0
(1 ― ) 𝜏
∞
∑ ( ―𝛽 ― 2)
𝛽 + 1 𝑖 = 0∁𝑖 𝛽+1+𝑖―𝑚
1 ()
(1 ― )
𝜏

𝜏0 𝑖
𝜏
) [ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
― 𝛾0 1 + 1 ― 𝑠2  (13a)

47
48
49 Appendix C: The details of shear rate estimation (Eq. 16)
50
51 The differential equation is obtained by introducing the first four terms of the Taylor series, i.e.,
52
53 (Eq. 8) is given by
54
55
56 24
57
58
59
60
Page 25 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 (1 ― 𝑠2)2𝜏2𝑑𝛾2(𝜏) (1 ― 𝑠2)3𝜏3𝑑𝛾3(𝜏)
3
4
𝑑𝜔 1
( [ 2)
𝑑𝜏 = 2𝜏 1 ― 𝑠 𝜏
𝑑𝛾(𝜏)
𝑑𝜏 ― 2! 𝑑𝜏 2 + 3! 𝑑𝜏 3 ]+ 1𝛾0
2𝜏
 (C.1)

5 2
6 Substituting 𝛽 = (1 ― 𝑠2) in above equation, we get the following simplified differential equation
7
8 𝑑3𝛾 3 𝑑2𝛾 3 𝑑𝛾 3 𝛾0 3 3𝑑𝜔
𝜏2𝑑𝜏3 ― 2𝛽𝜏𝑑𝜏2 + 2𝛽2𝑑𝜏 + 4𝛽3 𝜏 = 2𝛽 𝑑𝜏
 (C.2)
9
10
11
Substituting 𝜏 ― 𝜏0 = 𝑦, above equation reduces to the following differential equation, i.e.,
12 𝑑3𝛾 3 𝑑2𝛾 3 𝑑𝛾 3 𝛾0 3 3𝑑𝜔
13 (𝑦 + 𝜏0)2𝑑𝑦3 ― 2𝛽(𝑦 + 𝜏0)𝑑𝑦2 + 2𝛽2𝑑𝑦 + 4𝛽3(𝑦 + 𝜏 ) = 2𝛽 𝑑𝑦
 (C.3)
0
14
15 On integration within the lower and upper limits, Eq. (C.3) reduces to the following second-order
16 differential equation, i.e.,
17
𝑑2𝛾 𝑦 + 𝜏0
(𝑦 + 𝜏0)2𝑑𝑦2 ― 2(2𝛽 + 2)(𝑦 + 𝜏0)𝑑𝑦 + (2𝛽2 + 2𝛽 + 2)𝛾 + 4𝛽3𝛾0𝑙𝑛
3 3 𝑑𝛾 3 3 3
18
𝜏0
19
Fo
20 3 3
21 + ( 𝛽2 +
3
2
3
2𝛽 + 2 𝛾0 = 2𝛽 𝜔)
22
rR
23 (C.3)
24
25 Assuming, 𝑦 + 𝜏0 = 𝑒𝑝 and τ > τ0, Eq. (C.3) reduces to the following second-order differential
26
ev

27 equation with constant coefficients after simplification, i.e.,

28 𝑑2𝛾 𝛾0𝑙𝑛𝜏0
29 ― ( 𝛽 + 3)
3 𝑑𝛾
+ ( 𝛽2 +
3 3
2𝛽 )
+ 2 𝛾 = 2𝛽3 𝜔 +
3
( )―( 𝛽 3 2 3
)
+ 2𝛽 + 2 𝛾0 ― 4𝛽3𝛾0𝑝
3
iew

𝑑𝑝2 2 𝑑𝑝 2 2 2
30
31  (16)
32
33 Therefore, the auxiliary equation of Eq. (16) is written as
34
( 𝛽 + 3)𝐷 + ( 𝛽2 +
3 3 3
)
On

35 𝐷2 ― 2 2 2𝛽 + 2 = 0  (C.4)
36
37 3(𝛽 + 2) 15𝛽2 ― 12𝛽 ― 4
38 The roots of Eq. (C4) are: D = A ± iB for 0 < s < 1; where 𝐴 = 4
and 𝐵 = 4
ly

39
m
40 To find the particular integral, we assume 𝛾 = 𝐶(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 or γ = C(ep ― τ0) and the following
41
42 steady-state solution is obtained:
43
44
3 3
2β [ω ― γ ln ] ― ( β
1
2 0
τ
τ0
3 2
2
3
+ 2β + 2 γ0 )
45 γ(τ) = m(m ― 1)τ2  (C.5)
46 (τ ― τ0) 2 ― (32β + 3)τ ―mττ0 + (32β2 + 32β + 2)
47
48 where 𝑝 = ln(𝜏).
49
𝜏
50 Substituting 𝜏0 = 𝑠2, the following steady shear rate equation is obtained:
51
52 3 3
[ ― 𝛾0𝑙𝑛(𝑠)] ― (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2)𝛾0
2𝛽 𝜔
53 𝛾(𝜏) = 𝑚(𝑚 ― 1)𝜏2  (C.6)
54 ― (32𝛽 + 3)𝜏 ―𝑚𝜏𝜏0 + (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2)
55 (𝜏 ― 𝜏0)2
56 25
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 26 of 37

1
2 Equation (C.6) describes the generalized shear rate equation with varying  for high yield stress
3
4 fluid and re-written in the following form:
5
[𝜔 ―
𝜏0
] ― ( 𝛽 + 𝛽 + 2)
3 3 3 2 3 𝜏0
6 2𝛽 𝜇𝑝𝑙𝑛(𝑠) 2 2 𝜇𝑝
7 𝛾(𝜏) = 𝑚(𝑚 ― 1)𝜏2  (17)
8
(𝜏 ― 𝜏0) 2 ― (32𝛽 + 3)𝜏 ―𝑚𝜏𝜏0 + (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2)
9
10 𝜏0
11 where 𝛾0 = 𝜇𝑝
12
13 For m = 1 (i.e., Bingham-plastic type fluid), Eq. (17) may be simplified to:
14
[𝜔 ―
𝜏0
] ― ( 𝛽 + 𝛽 + 2)
3 3 3 2 3 𝜏0
15 2𝛽 𝜇𝑝𝑙𝑛(𝑠) 2 2 𝜇𝑝
16 𝛾(𝜏) =  (C.7)
17 (32𝛽2 + 32𝛽 + 2) ― (32𝛽 + 3)𝜏 ―𝜏 𝜏0
18
19 Rearranging Eq. (C.7), one may get
Fo
20 3 3
𝛽 [𝜔 ― 𝛾0𝑙𝑛(𝑠)]
21 2 𝜏0
―𝜇
22 3 2 3
𝛽 + 𝛽+2 𝑝
2 2
 (C.8)
rR
23 𝛾(𝜏) = 3
24 2
𝛽+3
𝜏
1―
25 3 2 3
𝛽 + 𝛽+2
𝜏 ― 𝜏0
2 2
26
ev

27 𝜏
28
Further rearrangement of Eq. (C.8) and substituting 𝜏0 = 𝑠2, results the following:
29
iew

3 2

[
3 2
30
31
32
βω3
2
β
2
β

2+3 +2
2
β
τ0
― μ 1 + βln(s)
p
2
β

3 2 3
2
β + β+2
2
]
γ(τ) = 3  (C.9)
33 2
β+3
s2
34 1+ 3 2 3 1 ― s2
On

β + β+2
35 2 2

36 Further simplification of Eq. (C.9) reduces to

37
3 2

[
3 2
38 β τ0 β

]
ly

2 2
39 βω3
2 3
― μ 1 + βln(s)
p 3 2 3
β + β+2 β + β+2
40 2 2 2 2

41 γ(τ) = 3 3  (C.10)

β ― 3β
42 1+3
4
3 3 2
43 2
β + β + 2β
2
44
2
45 where 𝛽 = (1 ― 𝑠2).
46
47
48
For narrow gap rotational viscometer (i.e., for the large value of ), Eq. (C.10) also reduces to
49 Reiner-Rivlin Equation, i.e.,
50
51
52
2𝜔 𝜏0
[ 2𝑙𝑛(𝑠)
]
𝛾 = (1 ― 𝑠2) ― 𝜇𝑝 1 + (1 ― 𝑠2)  (10)
53
54
55
56 26
57
58
59
60
Page 27 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 Author Biographies
3
4 Sidharth Gautam is a research scholar in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at IIT(ISM)
5
6 Dhanbad, India. His major research interest includes drilling fluid design & analysis, polymer
7 synthesis, characterization techniques and drilling fluid rheology. Gautam holds a Master’s
8
9 degree in Petroleum Engineering from IIT(ISM) Dhanbad and a Bachelor’s degree in
10
11 Mechanical Engineering from Magadh University, Bodhgaya, India. Gautam is a member of
12
13
SPE.
14 Chandan Guria is an Associate Professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Indian
15
16 IIT (ISM) Dhanbad with more than 20 years of experience in teaching and research. He holds a
17
18 PhD and a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering from IIT, Kanpur, India and IISc,
19
Bangalore, India, respectively. Before academia, Guria has served as R & D and Process
Fo
20
21 Engineer at Fertilizers and Petrochemical industries, respectively. Guria’s research interest lies
22
mainly in the field of drilling fluid, reservoir fluid thermodynamics, biomass and bioenergy, CO2
rR
23
24
25 sequestration, oxidation of fatty acids, membrane separation and multi-objective optimization of
26 Petroleum and Chemical processes. Guria has published over 45 research papers in these areas in
ev

27
28 peer-reviewed international journals. Guria is a member of SPE.
29
iew

30
31
32
33
34
On

35
36
37
38
ly

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 27
57
58
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 28 of 37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Constant
19 ω line
20
21
Fo

22 r2
23
24
rR

25 r1
26 ω2
27 rc Bob ω=0
28
ev

29 Sheared
Rotor
ω < ω2
30 region
31
iew

32 Un-sheared
ω = ω2
33 region
34
35
36
On

37
38
39
40 Fig. 1 Schematic representation of the angular fluid velocity distribution in the annular space
ly

41
42 of the rotational viscometer using high yield stress fluid (Reiner, 1934)
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

27
Page 29 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (b)
11 (a)
σ
12
ϴ
13
14
15 R R
16
17 H
18 h(t)
𝑣𝑧 = 𝑧
19
P P P P
20
21
Fo

22
23
24
rR

25
26
27
28
ev

29
30
31 Fig. 2 Schematic representation of the dynamics and height of capillary rise (a) fluid up to
iew

32
33
height h(t) with velocity profile in the capillary and (b) fluid up to height H at equilibrium
34
35
36 condition (Bush, 2010)
On

37
38
39
40
ly

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

28
 SPE Journal Page 30 of 37

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 1000 2.0
10 1.5% PAC 1.0% XG
11
0.02 1.5% PAC
1.0% CMC

Instantaneous visocity (h : CMC), Pa s

12
h, Pa s

7.0% BEN
Instantaneous viscosity (h), Pa s

13 800 0.01 p-BEN

14
p-FNFA 1.5
15
16 0.00
17 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

18 600 t, Pa
19
20 1.0
21
Fo

22 400
23
24
rR

25
0.5
26
200
27
28
ev

29
30
31 0 0.0
iew

32 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

33
34 Shear stress (t), Pa
35
36
On

37
38
39
40 Fig. 3 The variation of the instantaneous viscosity with a steady increase in shear stress to
ly

41
42 measure the true yield stress
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

29
Page 31 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2
3
4 1.0% XG
100 1.5% PAC
(a)
5
1.0% CMC
6
7.0% BEN
7
p-BEN
8 80
p-FNFA
9

Dial reading, q,(°)

10
11 60
12
13
14
40
15
16
17
18 20
19
20
21 0
Fo

22 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

23 Rotor rotation, N (rpm)
24
rR

25
26
27 0 2 4 6 8 10
5
28
ev

1.0% XG
29 1.5% PAC (b)
30 4 1.0% CMC
31 7.0% BEN
iew

32 p-BEN
33 3 p-FNFA
34
35 2
36
ln w

On

37
38 1
39
40
0
ly

41
42
43 -1
44
45
-2
46
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
47
48 ln (t - to)
49
50
51
52
53
54 Fig. 4 (a) Fann 35 viscometer dial reading (θ) vs. rotor rotation (N) using test fluids in Table
55
56 1 and (b) determination of K and m for the rheological model:
57
58
59
60

30
 SPE Journal Page 32 of 37

1400 1400
Margulus equation Margulus equation
1 Middleman (1968)
(a) 1.0% XG Middleman (1968) (b) 1.5% PAC
2 1200
Sisodia et al., (2015)
1200 Sisodia et al., (2015)
Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a) Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a)
3 Eq. 14 Eq. 14
4 1000
Eq. 18
1000
Eq. 18
50
5 50

Shear rate (g), s-1

Shear rate (g), s-1

6 40
40
800 800
7 30
30
g, s-1

g, s-1
20
20
9 600 600
10
10 10

11 400
0
3 6 400 0
3 6
12 N, rpm
N, rpm
13 200 200
14
15
0 0
16 3 6 100 200 300 600 3 6 100 200 300 600
17
Rotor rotation (N), rpm Rotor rotation (N), rpm
18 1400 1400
19 Margulus equation Margulus equation
Middleman (1968) (c) 1.0% CMC Middleman (1968) (d) 7.0% BEN
20 Sisodia et al., (2015) Sisodia et al., (2015)
1200 1200
21 Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a) Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a)
Fo

Eq. 14 Eq. 14
22 Eq. 18 Eq. 18
23 1000
50 Shear rate (g), s-1 1000 50
Shear rate (g), s-1

24
rR

40 40
25 800 800
26 30 30
g, s-1

g, s-1
27 600
20
600
20
28
ev

10 10
29 0
400 400
30 3 6 0
3 6
N, rpm
31 N, rpm
iew

32 200 200
33
34 0 0
35 3 6 100 200 300 600 3 6 100 200 300 600
36 Rotor rotation (N), rpm Rotor rotation (N), rpm
On

37 1400 1400
Margulus equation
Margulus equation
38 Middleman (1968) (e) p-BEN Middleman (1968)
(f) p-FNFA
39 1200
Sisodia et al., (2015)
Sisodia et al., (2015)
Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a) 1200
40 Eq. 14
Reiner-Rivlin equation (Eq. 11a)
Eq. 14
ly

41 Eq. 18 Eq. 18
1000 1000
42 50 50
Shear rate (g), s-1

Shear rate (g), s-1

43 40 40
800
44 30
800
30
45
g, s-1

g, s-1

46 600 20
600 20
47 10
10
48 400 0 400
49 3 6 0
3 6
N, rpm
50 N, rpm
200
51 200

52
53 0
0
3 6 100 200 300 600 3 6 100 200 300 600
54
55 Rotor rotation (N), rpm Rotor rotation (N), rpm
56
57 Fig. 5 Comparison of predicted shear rate of the test fluids using the proposed shear rate
58 equations with Margulus equation, Reiner-Rivlin equation and the shear rate equation
59
60 proposed by Middleman (1968) and Sisodia et al. (2015)

31
Page 33 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2 1.4x1011
80
1.0% XG 1.0% XG
3 (a) 3 rpm 1.5% PAC 1.0% CMC

4 1.2x1011 1.0% CMC

60 p-BEN

½½, (s-1)
5 7.0% BEN 40
p-BEN
6 1.0x1011
Shear rate, ½½, (s-1) p-FNFA 20
7
8 8.0x1010 0
100 120 140 160
9 60
i

10 6.0x1010
1.5% PAC
7.0% BEN
11 40
p-FNFA

½½, (s-1)
12 4.0x1010
13 20

14
2.0x1010
15 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
16 i
0.0
17
18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
19
No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)
20
21
Fo

22 9.0x108
1.0% XG 80
23 (b) 6 rpm 1.0% XG
1.5% PAC 1.0% CMC
24 8.0x108
1.0% CMC
60 p-BEN
rR

25
½½, (s-1)
7.0% BEN
7.0x108 40
26 p-BEN
27 p-FNFA
Shear rate, ½½, (s-1)

20
6.0x108
28
ev

0
29 5.0x108 40 60 80 100
i
30 4.0x108
60
1.5% PAC
7.0% BEN
31
iew

p-FNFA
40
32 3.0x108
½½, (s-1)

33
2.0x108 20
34
35 1.0x108 0
36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
i
On

37 0.0

38
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
39
40 No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)
ly

41
42 500
1.0% XG
43 (c) 100 rpm 1.5% PAC 400
44 2.5x105 1.0% CMC
½½, (s-1)

300
45 7.0% BEN
46 p-BEN 200

2.0x105 p-FNFA
Shear rate, ½½, (s-1)

47 100
1.0% XG
1.0% CMC

48 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
p-BEN
30 35
49 1.5x10 5 i
50 500

51 400

52 1.0x105
½½, (s-1)

300

53 200

54 100
1.5% PAC
5.0x104 7.0% BEN
55 0
p-FNFA

56 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i
57 0.0
58 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
59
No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)
60

32
 SPE Journal Page 34 of 37

70000
1 1.0% XG 700

2
(d) 200 rpm 1.5% PAC 600
60000 1.0% CMC 500
3

½½, (s-1)
7.0% BEN 400
4 p-BEN 300

5 50000 p-FNFA 200 1.0% XG

Shear rate, ½½, (s-1)

100 1.0% CMC
6 0
p-BEN

7 40000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i
8 700
9 30000 600

10 500

½½, (s-1)
400
11 20000 300
12 200 1.5% PAC
7.0% BEN
13 10000
100
p-FNFA
0
14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
i
15
0
16
17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

18 No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)

19
1.0% XG 1000
20 (e) 300 rpm 1.5% PAC
21 750
Fo

30000 1.0% CMC

22

½½, (s-1)
7.0% BEN
500
23 p-BEN
p-FNFA
24
Shear rate, ½½, (s-1)

250 1.0% XG
1.0% CMC
rR

25 0
p-BEN

20000 0 5 10 15 20 25
26 i
1000
27
28
ev

750

29
½½, (s-1)

500
30 10000
31 250 1.5% PAC
iew

7.0% BEN
32 0
p-FNFA
0 5 10 15 20 25
33 i
34 0
35
0 5 10 15 20 25
36
No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)
On

37
38 20000
1500
1.0% XG
39 (f) 600 rpm 1.5% PAC 1250
40 1.0% CMC 1000
½½, (s-1)

ly

41 7.0% BEN 750

42 15000 p-BEN
500
p-FNFA 1.0% XG
Shear rate, ½½, (s-1)

43 250 1.0% CMC

44 0
0 5 10 15
p-BEN
20 25
45 i
1500
46 10000
1250
47 1000
½½, (s-1)

48 750
49 500
5000
50 250
1.5% PAC
7.0% BEN

51 0
p-FNFA
0 5 10 15 20 25
52 i
53
0
54 0 5 10 15 20 25
55
No. of terms, i (Eq. 14)
56
57
58
Fig. 6 The variation of shear rate estimated using Eq. (14) with i at different speed of rotor
59 rotation with N = 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm
60

33
Page 35 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2
Test Fluid Composition
3
4 1.0 % XG 5.0 g xanthan gum (XG) and 500 mL water
5 1.5 % PAC 7.5 g poly anionic cellulose (PAC) and 500 mL water
6 1.0 % CMC 5.0 g carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) and 500 mL water
7 7.0 % BEN 35.0 g bentonite and 500 mL water
8 p-BEN 20.0 g bentonite, 3.0 g PAC grafted copolymer, 3.0 g XG and 500 mL
9
water (Gautam and Guria, 2020)
10
p-FNFA 20.0 g functionalized fly ash (FNFA), 3.0 g PAC grafted copolymer, 3.0 g
11
12 XG and 500 mL water (Gautam and Guria, 2020)
13
14
15 Table 1—Composition of the test fluids for rheological analysis
16
17
18 Test Fluid Density,  Fluid rise in first Fluid rise in second Yield stress (o), Pa
(kg m-3) capillary (r1 = 0.360 capillary (r2 = 0.285
19 mm) h1 (mm) mm) h2 (mm)
Two-capillary Air bearing API RP 13D
Fo
20 rise method rheometer method (2010)
1.0 % XG 1009 3.60 3.88 3.362 3.294 7.15
21
22 1.5 % PAC 1006 18.64 23.0 0.176 0.175 0.26
rR
23 1.0 % CMC 1007 24.6 28.76 0.783 0.742 1.53
24 7.0 % BEN 1041 31.9 34.66 2.971 2.951 8.94
25 p-BEN 1031 2.0 2.14 3.980 8.69
3.782
26
ev

p-FNFA 1025 3.12 3.52 1.492 1.398 4.60

27
28
29 Table 2—Yield stress of test fluids determined by (a) capillary rise method using two capillaries
iew

30
31 and (b) steady shear viscosity method using air bearing rheometer
32
33
34
On

35 Test fluids o (Pa): Capillary m k (rad s-1 Pa-n ) R2 μp (Pa s)

36 rise method Eq. (11a) i Eq. (14) Eq. (18)
37
1.0 % XG 3.362 2.60 0.00417 0.9995 0.30 149 0.25482 0.25281
38
ly

1.5 % PAC 0.176 1.64 0.35870 0.9965 0.15 24 0.14369 0.14298

39
40 1.0 % CMC 0.783 1.38 0.24750 0.9965 0.10 143 0.09548 0.09478
41 7.0 % BEN 2.971 4.05 0.00023 0.9749 0.10 70 0.07233 0.07364
42 p-BEN 3.980 3.11 0.0015 0.9744 0.25 158 0.19994 0.19813
43
p-FNFA 1.492 3.12 0.00191 0.9775 0.40 38 0.33853 0.33766
44
45
46
47 Table 3—Evaluation of the rheological parameters for the model, 𝜔(𝜏) = 𝐾(𝜏 ― 𝜏0)𝑚 using Fig.
48
49 4 and o (Table 2)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 34
59
60
 SPE Journal Page 36 of 37

Test fluid Value Rotor rotation in Fann 35 viscometer (rpm)

1 of i 3 6 100 200 300 600
2 1.0% XG i 149 86 22 17 15 15
and 𝛄
3 γ 7.19 13.19 195.27 386.69 577.81 1150.27
4 1.5% PAC (s
i )
-1
24 14 7 5 5 5
5 in
γ Eq. 5.51 10.84 177.79 355.23 532.57 1064.67
6 1.0% CMC i14 143 67 10 7 7 6
7 γ 6.05 11.39 175.97 349.98 524.41 1047.65
8 7.0% BEN i 70 63 31 24 21 18
9 γ 9.95 17.00 227.55 445.28 661.58 1306.13
10 p-BEN i 158 103 35 28 23 18
γ 8.12 14.50 208.14 409.56 609.42 1202.60
11
p-FNFA i 38 24 15 13 11 10
12
γ 6.53 12.56 200.69 398.34 595.91 1186.79
13
14
15 Table 4—The steady values of shear rate at 3, 6, 100, 200, 300 and 600 rpm, and corresponding i
16 values in Eq. (14)
17
18 Test fluids Rheological Rheological properties using
19 properties Margules equation: Reiner-Rivlin Present study: Present study:
Fo
20 𝛄 (𝒔 ―𝟏) = 𝟏.𝟕𝟏𝑵 Equation: Eq. (11a) Eq. (14) Eq. (18)
21 1.0 % XG AV, cP 42.50 42.22 37.69 37.50
22 Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.66 ‒11.32 ‒11.76
rR
23 PV, cP 17.0 16.90 15.15 15.07
24 Δ(PV), % * 0 ‒0.59 ‒10.88 ‒11.35
YP (lbf/100 ft2) 51 50.98 50.84 50.86
25
Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.04 ‒0.31 ‒0.27
26
ev

1.5 % PAC AV, cP 23.00 22.86 22.04 21.93

27 Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.61 ‒4.17 ‒4.65
28 PV, cP 15.00 14.91 14.38 14.31
29 Δ(PV), % * 0 ‒0.60 ‒4.13 ‒4.60
iew

30 YP (lbf/100 ft2) 16 16.00 15.99 15.99

31 Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.00 ‒0.06 ‒0.06
32 1.0 % CMC AV, cP 49.50 49.19 48.19 48.00
Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.63 ‒2.65 ‒3.03
33
PV, cP 30.50 30.32 29.73 29.60
34 Δ(PV), % * 0 ‒0.59 ‒2.52 ‒2.95
On

35 YP (lbf/100 ft2) 38 37.97 37.93 37.96

36 Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.08 ‒0.18 ‒0.11
37 7.0 % BEN AV, cP 26.50 26.29 20.69 20.93
38 Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.79 ‒21.92 ‒21.02
ly

39 PV, cP 11.00 10.94 8.70 8.78

40 Δ(PV), % * 0 ‒0.55 ‒20.91 ‒20.18
YP (lbf/100 ft2) 31 30.96 30.71 30.77
41
Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.13 ‒0.94 ‒0.74
42
p-BEN AV, cP 39.00 38.73 33.08 33.02
43 Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.69 ‒15.18 ‒15.33
44 PV, cP 24.50 24.36 21.06 21.01
45 Δ(PV), % * 0 0.57 ‒14.04 ‒14.24
46 YP (lbf/100 ft2) 29 28.95 28.33 28.37
47 Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.17 ‒2.31 ‒2.17
48 p-FNFA AV, cP 32.00 31.81 27.50 27.44
Δ(AV), % * 0 ‒0.59 ‒14.06 ‒14.25
49
PV, cP 17.50 17.40 15.10 15.07
50 Δ(PV), % * 0 ‒0.57 ‒13.89
‒13.71
51 YP (lbf/100 ft2) 29 28.99 28.85 28.86
52 Δ(YP), % * 0 ‒0.03 ‒0.52 ‒0.48
53 * % deviation with respect to Margules Equation, i.e., γ (s ) = 1.70N
―1

54
55 Table 5—Estimation of AV, PV and YP using proposed shear rate equations and comparison
56
with the shear using 𝛾 (𝑠 ―1) = 1.70𝑁 (Bourgoyne et al., 1991)
57
58 35
59
60
Page 37 of 37 SPE Journal

1
2
3 Copyright© 2020 Society of Petroleum Engineers
4
5 Original SPE manuscript received for review 28 January 2020. Revised manuscript received for review 29 March
6
7 2020. Paper (SPE 201238) peer approved 5 April 2020.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
rR
23
24
25
26
ev

27
28
29
iew

30
31
32
33
34
On

35
36
37
38
ly

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

View publication stats