Uncertainties quantification and modelling of different rheological models in estimation of pressure losses during drilling operation

  • Authors

    • Anawe P. A. L covenant university
    • Folayan J. Adewale covenant university
    2018-05-10
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.10263
  • Pressure Losses, Drill Pipe, Annulus, Power Law Model, Bingham Plastic Model, Consistency Index Averaging.

  • Abstract

    The determination of pressure losses in the drill pipe and annulus with a very high degree of precision and accuracy is sacrosanct for proper pump operating conditions and correct bit nozzle sizes for maximum jet impact and forestalling of possible kicks and eventual blow outs during drilling operation. The two major uncertainties in pump pressure estimation that are being addressed in this research work are the flow behavior index (n) and the consistency index factor (k). It is in this light that the accuracy of various rheological models in predicting pump pressure losses as well as the uncertainties associated with each model was investigated.

     In order to come by with a decisive conclusion, two synthetic based drilling fluids were used to form synthetic muds known as sample A and B respectively. Inference from results shows that the Newtonian model underestimated the pump pressure by 78.27% for sample A and 82.961% by for sample B. While the Bingham plastic model overestimated the total pump pressure by 100.70% for sample A and 48.17% for sample B. Three different power law rheological model approaches were used to obtain the flow behavior index and consistency factor of the drilling fluids. For the power law rheological model approaches, an underestimation error of 23.5743% was encountered for the Formular method for sample A while the proposed consistency index averaging method reduces the error to 14.9306%. The Graphical method showed a reasonable degree of accuracy with underestimation error of 5.6435%. Sample B showed an underestimation error of 47.8234% by using the power law formula method while the Consistency averaging method reduced the error to 20.7508. The graphical method showed an underestimation error of 0.4318%.

  • References

    1. [1] Sorgun,M, and Ozbayoglu M. E.. (2011). Predicting Frictional Pressure Loss During Horizontal Drilling for Non-Newtonian Fluids. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 33:7, pp 631-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030903226264.

      [2] Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E and Young F.S (1991). Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE, and Richardson, Texas Volume 2.

      [3] Steffe, J. F (1996). Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering. Sixth Edition. Freeman press. East Lansing USA.ISBN 0-9632036-1-4.

      [4] Bingham, E.C. (1922). Fluidity and Plasticity. MC Graw-hill, New York.

      [5] Herschel, W.H. and Buckley,R.(1926.) Konsistenzmessungen von Gummi Benzollosungen. Kolloid Ƶ 39; pp.291-300.

      [6] Casson, M. (1959). The Rheology of Disperse Systems. Pergamon press, London.

      [7] Dodge, D.G., and Metzner, A.B (1959). Turbulent flow of non-Newtonian Systems. AICHE.J. 5,189. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690050214.

      [8] Hanks, R.W., and Pratt, D.R (1967). On the flow of Bingham Plastic Slurries in Pipes and Between Parallel Plates. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. Pp 342-346 https://doi.org/10.2118/1682-PA.

      [9] Robertson R.E., and Stiff, H.A (1976). An Improved Mathematical Model for Relating Shear Stress to Shear Rate in Drilling Fluids and Cement Slurries. Trans, AIME ,26, pp 31

      [10] Sample, K.J and Bourgoyne, A.T, (1978). Development of Improved Laboratory and Field Procedures for Determining the Carrying Capacity of Drilling Fluids. SPE PAPER 7497, Presented at Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Houston.

      [11] Burkhardt J.A (1961). Well Bore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement. Journal of petroleum technology. 595-60 trans AIME 222

      [12] Reiner, M. (1926). Kolloid Ƶ. 39, pp. 80-87

      [13] White,W and Zamora ,M (1997). Downhole Measurements of Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid in an Offshore Well Quantifying Dynamic Pressure and Temperature Distribution.Paper SPE 35057 Presented at the 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers Drilling Conference, New Orleans.

      [14] Hemphill, T.; Campos, W.; and Pilehvari, A (1993). Yield Power Law Model more accurately predicts Mud Rheologyâ€. Oil and Gas Journa,91, pp .34

      [15] Katarin, S (2004). The Role of Different Rheological Models in Accuracy of Pressure Loss Prediction. Vol 16, pp 85-89, Rudarsko-geolosko-naftini Zbornik. Zagreb.

      [16] Folayan, J. A, Anawe, P.A. L, Abioye, P.O and Elehinafe F.B (2017).Selecting the Most Appropriate Model for Rheological Characterization of Synthetic Based Drilling Mud. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. Vol 12. Pp 7614-7629.

      [17] Langlinais, J. P, Bourgoyne, A. T and holden W. R (1983). Frictional Pressure Losses for the Flow of Drilling Mud and Mud/Gas Mixtures. Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper 11993 presented at the annual technical conference, San Francisco.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    P. A. L, A., & Adewale, F. J. (2018). Uncertainties quantification and modelling of different rheological models in estimation of pressure losses during drilling operation. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2), 694-701. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.10263

    Received date: 2018-03-18

    Accepted date: 2018-04-04

    Published date: 2018-05-10