PETROLEUM SOCIETY

PAPER 2007-125

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

New Improvements on
Managed Pressure Drilling
B. DEMIRDAL, J. C. CUNHA
University of Alberta
This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (58th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12 14, 2007. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

shear stresses calculated using Yield Power Law model agrees

with the shear stresses measured by the HPHT rotational
viscometer data.
Pressure losses predictions in pipe and annulus are
determined using rheological parameters measured under
surface conditions and then compared with pressure losses
calculated using Yield Power Law model at actual downhole
pressure and temperature conditions. Effects of using surface
based rheological parameters and different models on
estimating pressure losses in pipe and annulus are shown.

Abstract
One of the advantages of Managed Pressure Drilling
(MPD) is to determine formation pressures and fracture
gradients while drilling. However, in order to determine these
pressures accurately, the rheological model of the drilling fluid
and pressure losses accruing in annulus should be determined
precisely. In addition to the pressure losses in annulus, pressure
losses in pipes should be determined accurately in order to
determine pump sizing requirements for a successful MPD
operation.
Un-weighted n-paraffin based drilling fluid system is
analyzed in this study. HPHT rotational viscometer is used to
determine how rheology of this invert emulsion system changes
under down hole conditions. The fluids are tested in the
temperature range of 40 280 oF and the pressure range of 500
12,000 psig. Three rheological models, Bingham Plastic,
Power Law and Yield Power Law, widely accepted by the
drilling industry, are used to determine rheological
characteristics of the drilling fluid and compared with the
experiments at various pressures and temperatures. It is found
out that, at high shear rates (i.e. > 100 rpm) all models predict
shear stresses accurately. However, at low shear rates only

Introduction
Basically, MPD is a system where wellbore pressure
management is obtained by adjusting the pressures along the
wellbore using a choke valve at the return line in the annulus.
This modern drilling process is preferred over conventional
over balance drilling as well as underbalanced drilling in areas
where pore pressure and fracture gradients are very close (i.e.
deep and ultra deep offshore drilling) or pore pressures are very
low. MPD is indicated in situations where conventional drilling
techniques are not feasible or non economical1-4.

( )T =cons tan t = i exp( X * P ) ........................................ (1)

While MPD provides total wellbore pressure management

and may also allow real time determination of pore pressure and
fracture gradient, the accurate determination of pressure losses
in the annulus is essential for the success of the operation. In
addition, in the planning phase of an MPD operation, pressure
losses inside the drill string should be determined accurately in
order to obtain required operating pressures, pump sizing etc.
Usual industry practice is to either use Bingham Plastic or
Power Law model to define the shear rate shear stress relation
of the drilling fluid considering surface measurements.
Similarly, the density of the drilling fluid system is determined
at surface and used together with surface conditions
rheological parameters to calculate estimated pressure losses in
the well.
This methodology will not induce significant errors while
drilling shallow onshore reservoirs with water based drilling
fluids. However, in deep and ultra deep offshore applications
not only the downhole conditions but also the type of fluid
being used is different than regular onshore drilling. Due to
environmental regulations and operational advantages such as
shale inhibition and high lubricity, synthetic based drilling
fluids are the main choice to drill in these challenging
environments5-7.
Synthetic based drilling fluids are similar to oil base drilling
fluids in terms of operational properties but they are non-toxic
and biodegradable. Investigation on synthetic based drilling
fluids revealed that these fluids rheological properties are more
sensitive to downhole conditions then water based drilling
fluids. This might be the main reason behind the gap between
actual pressure losses measured on the field and theoretical
pressure losses8-11. While there is quite a lot of work regarding
rheological and volumetric characterization of water based and
oil based drilling fluids, there are only few studies focusing on
synthetic based drilling fluids12-13.
This study aims to analyze the importance of estimating
annular and pipe pressure losses using downhole properties
together with appropriate rheological model for synthetic base
drilling fluids. Volumetric and rheological characterization are
combined with hydraulic models available for three widely used
rheological models (Bingham Plastic, Power Law and Yield
Power Law). Pressure loss gradients are calculated and
compared with each at different flow rates for pipe and annular
flow conditions. It is expected that this methodology, by
providing accurate pressure loss determination, will allow better
planning of MPD operations using synthetic drilling fluids.

where,

i (T ) = 5.357 * 10 6 * T 2 + 1.267 * 10 3 * T
+ 8.717
................................................................................................................. (2)

and

X (T ) = 9.452 * 10 11 * T 2 + 1.530 * 10 8 * T .................... (3)

+ 4.192 * 10 6

Rheological Characterization
In order to determine the rheological behavior of the drilling
fluid under investigation at various pressure and temperature
conditions, High PressureHigh Temperature (HPHT) rotational
viscometer experiments were conducted. The test matrix of
these experiments are shown in Table-1
Table 1- HPHT Rotational Viscometer Test Matrix
Pressure, psig
Temp.,
500
2,000
4,000
8,000
12,000
o
F
*
40
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
80
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
120
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
200
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
280
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
600-3
*Shear rates: 600 rpm, 300 rpm, 200 rpm, 100 rpm, 6 rpm and
3 rpm
Three rheological models are used to analyze and define the
shear stressshear rate relation of un-weighted n-paraffin base
drilling fluid. These models are Bingham Plastic, Power Law
and Yield Power Law models and were chosen since they are
the most popular models used in the industry. The shear stresses
are calculated with the parameters of each model determined at
each temperature and pressure conditions using 6 dial readings
in the HPHT rotational viscometer. Calculated shear stresses are
compared with experimental ones at each rpm in order to select
the best model that represents the rheological behavior of the
fluid in all shear rates, pressures and temperatures.
Details of these experiments and analysis are given in details
in Ref. 15. Based on the analysis, it is found out that Yield
Power Law estimates experimental shear stresses with higher
accuracy compared to those of Bingham Plastic and Power
Law, especially at lower rpm (i.e. <=100 rpm.)
As a result, it was decided to use the Yield Power Law
model to perform the pressure losses calculations at each
pressure and temperature condition and compare them with the
Bingham Plastic, Power Law and Yield Power Law pressure
loss gradients calculated using density and rheological
parameters calculated under surface conditions.

Fluid Selection, Rheological and

Volumetric Characterization
Un-weighted n-paraffin base synthetic drilling fluid with
surface density of 8.6 ppg is chosen as the drilling fluid to be
tested and characterized in this study.

Volumetric Characterization
Effect of pressure and temperature on drilling fluid density
has been determined experimentally using a mercury free PVT
cell. The details of the experimental set-up, testing procedure
and volumetric characterization are given in Ref. 14.
Based on the experimental results, linear and non-linear
regression techniques were used to model density as a function
of pressure and temperature and a semi-empirical equation
relating n-paraffin base drilling fluid density to downhole
conditions was obtained;

Pressure Loss Estimation Methods

Hydraulic equations widely used to determine frictional
pressure losses of Bingham Plastic, Power Law and Yield

Flow Regime Determination

Power Law fluids are used together with the appropriate

rheological parameters.
For Bingham Plastic models based hydraulic calculations
the method and equations given in Bourgoyne, Millheim,
Chenevert and Young16 were used. In the case of Power Law
model hydraulic calculations, API 13-D17 was used. Merlo,
Maglione and Piattis18 hydraulic model was used to determine
the pressure gradient for Yield Power Law Fluids. The methods
of defining rheological parameters, flow regime determination
and associated pressure losses with each flow regime for each
model are shown below.

Bingham Plastic Model

Flow regime of the fluid was determined using Hanks
turbulence criteria. Hanks turbulence criteria use two
dimensionless groups to determine the flow regime of Bingham
Plastic Fluids. One of these numbers is the well known
Reynolds number.

(N Re )Pipe = 928vP d ..(10)

P

Rheological Parameter Determination

Bingham Plastic Model

and

Bingham Plastic models parameters, plastic viscosity (p)

and yield point (y), were determined using 600 and 300 rpm
readings as follows;

(N Re )Annulus = 757 vAn. (d 2 d1 ) ...(11)

P

P = 600 300 ...................................................................(4)

The other one is called Hedstrom number and can be

determined as follows for pipe and annular flow cases:

Y = 300 P .......................................................................... (5)

Yd
(N He )Pipe = 37100
2

Power Law Model

and

Power Law model parameters, flow behavior index (n) and

consistency index (K), were determined using 600 and 300 rpm
readings for pipe flow and using 100 and 3 rpm readings for
annular flow as follows;

(N He )Annulus = 24700 Y 2(d 2 d1 )

nP = 3.32 log

600
(6)
300

5.11 600
.......(7)
1022n P

100

Y
1
W

N He
..(14)
16800

Once the ratio of yield point to shear wall stress is

determined using successive iteration technique, the critical
Reynolds number is determined as;

(8)

and

Ka =

...(13)

A relation between Hedstrom number and ratio of yield

point and shear wall stress at any flow condition is given as:

na = 0.657 log

...(12)

and

KP =

5.11 3
(9)
5.11na

(N Re )crit.

Yield Power Law Model

4 1
1 Y + Y
3 W 3 W
=

8 Y
W

.. ..(15)

If NRe is higher than (NRe)crit then the flow regime is

turbulent. If NRe is lower than (NRe)crit. then the fluid is flowing
under laminar regime conditions.

Yield Power Law rheological properties are flow behavior

index (n), consistency index (K) and yield stress (o). These
parameters are determined using the program that uses six of
the dial readings and make a non-linear regression fit to
estimate the measured 6 dial readings using the Yield Power
Law formulation.

Power Law Model

O
1
Cc = 1

2n + 1
(3n + 1)QSI
O + K YPL
3

nrSI

Fluid regime is decided using Reynolds number. The

Reynolds number for flow in pipes and annuli are shown as
follows;

(N Re )Pipe

928v P d

( )
Eff

..(16)

Pipe

Equivalent critical Reynolds number in pipe is determined

using Schuh's empirical approach. Hence, critical Reynolds
number is defined as

and

(N Re ) Ann. =

928 v An .( d 2 d 1 )

( Eff )An.

.....(17)

(N Re )eq.,cri..Pipe

where, (eff) is the effective viscosity of a Power Law system

and it can be defined as the Newtonian viscosity of the fluid,
which will yield the same pressure drop as in the case of Power
Law fluid flowing in a conduit. Effective viscosity is
determined by equalizing the laminar frictional pressure drop
equations of Newtonian fluids and Power Law fluids in pipes
and annuli. Effective viscosity in pipes and annuli are shown
below.

( )
Eff

Pipe

96v P
= 100 K p

( nP 1)

3n P + 1

4
n
P

( )
Eff

An.

( na 1)

and
(18)

z=

na

..(19)
Regime Identification in Pipe Flow
Annulus is treated as a rectangular slot with a width "w" and
gap "c". These parameters are defined as

w = (r1( SI ) + r( SI ) 2 )(23)
and

c = r2 ( SI ) r1( SI ) ...(24)

Yield Power Law Model

Equivalent Reynolds number in the annular section is

defined as:

Regime Identification in Pipe Flow

Again Reynolds number is used to determine the criterion
for laminar or turbulent flow. An equivalent Reynolds number
(NRe,eq.), which relates Newtonian Reynolds number to Yield
Power Law rheology, is defined as follows,

(N Re )eq., Pipe

SIvAnSI. (rSI2 r1SI )

(NRe)eq.,Ann. = 4(2n +1)
n
n
n r2SI r1SI
2n +1

+ KSI 2
O
nCa
vAn.SI
(2n)

SI v P(2(SIn )) rSIn
r
O SI
v P ( SI )

1.75 log n
.
7

If the equivalent critical Reynolds number for the pipe is

lower than the equivalent pipe Reynolds number, the flow is
assumed to be laminar. If the opposite happens, the flow is
assumed to be turbulent.

Using effective viscosity allows the use of Newtonian relations

to determine frictional pressure losses of Power Law fluids
flowing through pipes and annuli under laminar and turbulent
flow regimes. Consequently, if Reynolds number is less than
2100, the flow is laminar and if it is higher than 2100 flow is
turbulent.

3n + 1
= 2

log n + 3.93
50

y=

nP

2n a + 1

3na

4(3n + 1) 1 z
=
.(22)

ny

where

and

144v An.

= 100 K a
d 2 d1

n
(21)

+ K SI 3n + 1
nC

............................................................(25)
n

where

(20)
where
4

1
O
Ca = 1

n +1
2(2n +1) QSI

2
+

K
SI
O
2
n(r2SI r1SI ) r2SI r1SI

dPf

dL

Power Law Model

Laminar Flow
When the flow is laminar, and friction factors in a pipe or
annulus are calculated respectively by:

8(2n + 1) 1 z
(27)
=

ny

fP =

where z and y are again determined as in the case of pipe flow.

If the critical equivalent Reynolds number in the annulus is
smaller than the equivalent Reynolds number in the annulus,
then the flow is laminar. If critical equivalent Reynolds number
in the annulus is smaller than the equivalent annulus Reynolds
number, then the turbulent flow regime is assumed.

(N Re )Pipe

f An. =

(33)

24

(NRe )Ann.

..(34)

Turbulent Flow
Schuh's correlation is used to determine friction factor in the
turbulent regime.

Bingham Plastic Model

Laminar Flow
Frictional pressure losses of Bingham Plastic fluid flowing
in pipes and annuli under laminar flow conditions is determined
by Hanks and Pratt19 as follows,

For pipe flow,

f P ,turb. =

(28)

(N Re )bPipe

(35)

where

and

dPf

dL

16

and

Frictional Pressure Loss Determination

= P P2 + Y
225d
Pipe 1500d

fv An.2

=
...(32)

Annulus 21.1(d 2 d1 )

dPf

dL

The critical equivalent Reynolds number in the annulus is

used to determine whether the flow is turbulent or laminar.
Schuh's empirical correlation, which was developed for pipe
flow, is used for simplicity.

dPf

dL

......(31)

and

........................................................(26)

(N Re )eq.,cri., Ann.

fv P

=
Pipe 25.8d

and

....(29)

b=

Turbulent Flow
Colebrook equation20 [27] is used to calculate a turbulent
friction factor for Bingham Plastic fluids since at high flow
rates the effect of yield point diminishes, and the fluid acts as if
it is Newtonian.

log nP + 3.93
50

a=

P v An.
Y

=
+
2
200(d 2 d1 )
Annulus 1000(d 2 d1 )

1.75 log nP
7

For Annular flow,

f Ann., turb. =

1
= 4 log N Re f 0.395 (30)
f

(N Re )bAnn.

where

Using the method of successive iterations, the friction factor

(f) can be found from this equation.

a=

After friction factor is determined, frictional pressure losses

in pipes and annuli at turbulent flow conditions are determined
by
5

log nAn. + 3.93

50

(36)

and

dPf

dL

1.75 log nAn.

b=
7

where

Once the friction factor is determined for both pipe and

annuli, frictional pressure drop of Power Law fluids flowing
through pipes and annuli under laminar and turbulent regime
conditions can be determined using the Fanning equation.

f v

= P P
Pipe 25.81d

..(37)

where, the turbulent friction factor is defined as follows,

fTur ., Ann. = y (Ca ( N Re )Ann. )

Q2

= f Lam.Pipe 2SI 5
r
Lam., Pipe ( SI )

(45)

The pipe flow values for the parameters y and z are used in this
equation.

Pressure Gradients in Pipes

Laminar Flow
For pipe flow frictional pressure losses in the laminar flow
regime are determined using the Fanning expression together
with laminar friction factor, which are defined respectively as:

A 3.5 in OD and 2.992 in ID drill pipe is used to simulate

frictional pressure losses associated with pipe flow. Test flow
rates ranged from 25 gpm to 800 gpm in order to cover both
laminar and turbulent flow regimes. Frictional pressure loss
gradient with flow rate were calculated using Bingham Plastic,
Power Law and Yield Power Law rheological model based
parameters. Effect of temperature, pressure, flow rate and
choice of rheological model on frictinal pressure loss gradients
in pipes are shown in Figures 1-2 for low flow rate and high
flow rate region respectively.

(39)

where

3n + 1
...(40)

(N Re )eq.Pipe n

Pressure Loss in Pipe vs. Flowrate for Different Rheology Models

(Low Rate Section)

Frictional Pressure Loss, inH2O/m

10.00

For annular flow frictional pressure drop is calculated using the

following Fanning expression together with friction factor for
laminar flow conditions.
2
dPf
QSI

= f Lam. Ann. SI
2
2 (r2SI r1SI )(r22SI r12SI )
dL Lam., AnnSI.

9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00

(41)

25

50
BP @ Surface Cond.
BP @ 40 F, 500 psi
BP @ 280 F, 500 psi

where

f Lam., Ann.

(44)

f Ann. v An.

....(38)
=
Ann. 25.81(d 2 d1 )

f Lam., Pipe =

) z....(44)

2
dPf
QSI

= fTurb. Ann. SI
2 (r2SI r1SI ) r22SI r12SI
dL Turb.., AnnSI.

Yield Power Law Model

dPf

dL

...(43)

For Annular Flow the friction factor, used in the turbulent flow
case, is again Schuh's empirical correlation for pipe flow.

For Annular flow,

dPf

dL

fTurb .,Pipe = y Cc * ( N Re )Pipe

For pipe flow,

dPf

dL

Q2

= fTur .Pipe SI 2 SI5

rSI
Tur ., Pipe ( SI )

75

100
125
Flowrate, gpm
PL @ Surface Cond.
PL @ 40 F, 500 psi
PL @ 280 F, 500 psi

150

175

200

YPL @ Surface Cond.

YPL @ 40 F, 500 psi
YPL @ 280 F, 500 psi

Figure 1- Pressure Loss Gradient in Pipes @ Low Flowrates

2n + 1
=

.(42)
(N Re )eq., Ann. n
8

As it can be seen from Figure-1, pressure loss gradients

calculated by all rheological models at low temperatures (i.e. 40
o
F) are higher than pressure losses determined using surface
parameters. This is due to the fact that, fluid is much thicker at
low temperature conditions. The pressure losses estimated by
each model differ from each other more at low temperature and
low flow rate conditions due to the fact that not only fluid is
thicker at these conditions but also flow regime for all models

Turbulent Flow
For Pipe Flow again, the Fanning frictional pressure loss
estimation is used, but the friction factor for turbulent flow is
defined differently by using Schuh's empirical correlation.

are laminar which is dominated mainly by the viscous forces.

This can be better observed when pressure loss gradient at
surface conditions are analyzed. Between 75 gpm to 100 gpm,
all models converted to turbulent flow regime and the
importance of viscous terms decreases in comparison to inertial
forces. As a result, all models converge at late rates of laminar
flow and early rates of turbulent flow regime. In the case of
HPHT flow (i.e. 280 oF and 12,000 psig), due to high
temperature, fluids viscosity is very low. As a result the onset
of the turbulence starts at a lower flow rate and pressure losses
associated with all models are in close agreement.

Percent Difference of Pipe Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and Model @ (P,T)
(Flow Rate = 25 gpm)
1,000

500 psig

2000 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

12000 psig

Percent Difference %

800

Pressure Loss in Pipe vs. Flowrate for Diff. Rheology Models

(High Rate Section)

600
BP
PL
YPL

400

200

Frictional Pressure Loss, inH2O/m

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

100.00

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

75
40

-200

90.00

Temperature, F

80.00
70.00

Figure 3- % Difference of Pipe Pressure Gradient between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T), Flow rate = 25 gpm

60.00
50.00
40.00

First of all the pressure loss gradient analysis at low flow

rate conditions is analyzed. Low flow rates represent the
pressure losses occurring during drill string running in or out of
the hole, pipe connection and flow initiation in a static well.
As shown in Figure-3, pressure loss gradients at surface
conditions determined by Bingham Plastic Model are higher
than the ones calculated by Yield Power Law model while
Power Law model calculations are lower.
Inaccuracy of Bingham Plastic model is mainly due to the
inability of the model to represent the behavior of drilling fluid
at low shear rates. On the other hand, the inaccurate pressure
gradient determination of Power Law model arises from the fact
that this model fails to represent any kind of yield point.
At temperatures below surface conditions, all models
underestimate actual pressure gradients since they fail to see the
effect of temperature on viscosity and density. Since Bingham
Plastic model overestimates pressure gradient at surface
conditions, it gives the least error at low temperature. As it can
be seen, pressure has little effect on pressure gradient at low
temperatures. As temperature is increased, the fluid system gets
thinner and pressure gradients calculated at surface properties
overestimates the actual ones.
Error on pressure loss gradient is the highest with Bingham
Plastic approach and range from 80 % to 900 % based on
calculation based on actual downhole conditions. Pressure
gradients determined by Power Law model give better results
even though the percent error between calculated and actual
pressure losses still ranges between 1% and 250 %.
Secondly, the pressure gradient differences at moderate
flow rates are analyzed for the pipe flow case (Figure-4). At low
temperatures, all the models underestimate the actual pressure
loss gradients by about 15 45 % depending upon the pressure
used.
It should be noted that at this flow rate turbulent regime
dominates the flow for temperatures in the range of 80 280 oF,
regardless of the pressure being imposed. At high pressure and
high temperature conditions, all models agree with each other
and there are fewer differences between pressure losses
calculated at surface and downhole conditions. This is mainly
due to the fact that in this case there is less viscous effect
dominancy on pressure loss gradient determination.
In the case of low pressure and high temperature conditions,
there are 40 60 % difference between actual gradients and
gradients determined at surface conditions. This is caused by
the turbulent flow at these conditions while surface parameter

30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
200

300
BP @ Surface Cond.
BP @ 40 F, 500 psi
BP @ 280 F, 500 psi

400

500
Flowrate, gpm
PL @ Surface Cond.
PL @ 40 F, 500 psi
PL @ 280 F, 500 psi

600

700

800

YPL @ Surface Cond.

YPL @ 40 F, 500 psi
YPL @ 280 F, 500 psi

Figure 2- Pressure Loss Gradient in Pipes @ High

Flowrates
As the flow rate is increased above 200 gpm, pressure loss
gradients determined with all flow rates and rheological models
are under turbulent flow conditions. As mentioned before, at
turbulent flow, inertial forces are the main component of the
flow. For that reason, pressure losses determined by each model
are in close agreement, stating that the choice of rheological
model loses its importance at high flow regimes.
It should be noted that the pressure losses determined using
low temperature conditions is still higher than surface condition
and HPHT condition based pressure loss calculations for all
three models. This is due to the shrinking of drilling fluid
volume at low temperatures, which in turn increases the density
of the fluid system. Since, turbulent flow pressure loss gradient
is dependent on density of the fluid, such behavior is expected.

Model Comparisons at Various Pressure

and Temperature Conditions - Pipe Case
As mentioned before, normally in the oil industry it is used
surface measured properties of viscosity and density to
determine frictional pressure losses in pipes and annuli. In
addition, use of two parameter models such as Bingham Plastic
or Power Law is preferred. This part of the study aims to depict
the difference in pressure loss gradients if one of these models
with surface properties is used to determine pressure loss
gradients instead of Yield Power Law parameters measured at
each particular pressure and temperature conditions. This
analysis is carried out for each flow rate in order to analyze the
effect of flow regime on estimating pressure losses using
different hydraulic models based on the three rheological
models mentioned earlier.

temperatures, gradients determined at surface conditions

converge to actual pressure gradients since density increases
with pressure.

based gradients are in laminar regime. Consequently, the error

increases exponentially. It should be also noted that the
difference between surface and downhole based pressure
gradient is much smaller in comparison to 25 gpm case. This is
mainly due to reaching turbulent flow in which the viscous
parameters loose their importance while inertial forces become
dominating factors for the flow. Hence the difference is much
lower in all conditions.

Pressure Gradients at Annuli

In order to simulate flow in annuli, 9.95 in ID casing and 6 in
OD drill collar condition is simulated. It is aimed to determine
whether it is possible to reach turbulent flow in annulus under
this configuration. Similar to the case for pipes, pressure loss
gradients were determined for surface conditions based on three
rheological models coupled with hydraulic calculations. It
should be noted that, different than the pipe flow case, two
Power Law models, one using low shear rates and one using
high shear rates were created and compared with the actual
pressure loss gradients determined at different downhole
conditions. Combined effect of flow rate, temperature and
pressure are shown in Figures 6-7.

Percent Difference of Pipe Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T)
(Flow rate = 200 gpm)
70.0

2000 psig

500 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

12000 psig

60.0
50.0

30.0
20.0

BP
PL
YPL

10.0

Pressure Loss in Annulus vs. Flowrate for Different Rheology Models

(Low Rate Section)

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

-10.0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

0.0
75
40

-20.0

5.00

-30.0

4.50
Frictional Pressure Loss, inH2O/m

Percent Error. %

40.0

-40.0
Temperature, F

Figure 4- % Difference of Pipe Pressure Gradient between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T), Flow rate = 200 gpm

Percent Difference of Pipe Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T)
(Flow rate = 800 gpm)

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Flowrate, gpm
80.0

500 psig

2000 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

12000 psig

60.0

20.0

BP
PL
YPL

PL (Ann.) @ Surface Conditions

YPL @ Surface Cond.

BP @ 40 F, 500 psi

PL (Pipe) @ 40 F, 500 psi

PL (Ann.) @ 40 F, 500 psia

YPL @ 40 F, 500 psi

BP @ 280 F, 500 psi

PL (Pipe) @ 280 F, 500 psi

PL (Ann.) @ 280 F, 500 psi

YPL @ 280 F, 500 psi

In the range of 25 to 200 gpm, regardless of the downhole

conditions and model selected, the drilling fluid system under
investigation is under laminar regime. While the general trend is
similar to pipe flow in a sense that, pressure loss gradients
determined at low temperature low pressure conditions are
higher than pressure loss gradients determined at surface or at
HPHT conditions. However, it is observed that the pressure loss
gradients determined using Power Law model coupled with low
shear parameters are lower than other models in all cases. Such
behavior is expected since, low shear based flow behavior index
is highly non-Newtonian with values smaller than 0.6 in most
operating conditions. Comparing the pressure losses obtained
from annular flow with pipe flow reveals that the pressure
losses in annuli are much smaller than the ones in pipes.
Annular flow performance of drilling fluid at high flow rates
are shown in Figure-7. At high flowrates fluid is still under
laminar flow regime apart for the case of high pressure high
temperature condition. At low pressures and low temperatures,
pressure loss gradients determined by different models started
to converge as flowrate is increased. At high temperature high
pressure conditions, the pressure loss gradients are almost the
same for all pressure and temperature conditions. It is also
observed that at high temperature high pressure conditions,
since fluid is under turbulent flow conditions, it agrees with

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

40

0.0
75

PL(Pipe) @ Surface Cond.

Figure 6- Pressure Loss Gradient in Annulus @ Low

Flowrates

40.0
Percent Error. %

BP @ Surface Cond.

-20.0

-40.0

-60.0
Temperature, F

Figure 5- % Difference of Pipe Pressure Gradient between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T), Flow rate = 800 gpm
As the third and last analysis, a 800 gpm flow rate case was
analyzed (Figure-5). At 800 gpm, both pressure gradients
measured at surface and downhole are under the influence of
turbulent flow regime. Regardless of the operating pressure,
pressure gradients determined by surface properties by all
models underestimate the actual pressure gradients at
temperatures between 40 oF to 120 oF in the range of 10 to 40 %
error.
At high temperature conditions, all the models overestimate
pressure loss gradients. Power Law model gives the most
accurate pressure loss gradients in these temperatures due to
modeling thinning behavior of the drilling fluid much better
than all other models. As pressure is increased at high
8

surface condition based pressure loss gradients as flow rate is

increased.

Pressure Loss in Annulus vs. Flowrate for Different Rheology Models

(High Rate Section)

Frictional Pressure Loss, inH2O/m

7.50

6.00

4.50

Percent Difference of Annular Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T)
(Flow Rate = 200 gpm)

3.00

1.50

1000

0.00
200

300

400

500

600

700

2000 psig

500 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

12000 psig

800

800

BP @ Surface Cond.

PL(Pipe) @ Surface Cond.

PL (Ann.) @ Surface Conditions

YPL @ Surface Cond.

BP @ 40 F, 500 psi

PL (Pipe) @ 40 F, 500 psi

PL (Ann.) @ 40 F, 500 psia

YPL @ 40 F, 500 psi

BP @ 280 F, 500 psi

PL (Pipe) @ 280 F, 500 psi

PL (Ann.) @ 280 F, 500 psi

YPL @ 280 F, 500 psi

Percent Difference %

Flowrate, gpm

Figure 7- Pressure Loss Gradient in Annulus @ High

Flowrates

600
BP
PL-Pipe
PL-Ann.
YPL

400

200

2000 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

40
80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0
80
12
0
20
0
28
0

12
0
20
0
28
0

0
40
80

At low flow rates flow is laminar for all temperature and

pressure analyzed. Bingham Plastic based pressure loss
gradients calculated at surface overestimate the pressure losses
the most when all models are compared. This is mainly due to
the fact that Bingham Plastic models have higher viscous
properties compared to other models. Percent error of low shear
based parameter Power Law model is slightly higher than Yield
Power Law model. Higher viscous properties calculated are the
main reason for such behavior.
On the other hand, high shear based parameter Power Law
model predictions in surface are in good agreement with the
pressure gradients in downhole conditions. Lower viscous
characteristics correlate very well with shear thinning effect of
temperature as well. It should be noted that, at low
temperatures, pressure gradients determined by Yield Power
Law model and low shear based Power Law agrees with actual
gradients.
At moderate flow rates, flow is still dominated mainly by
laminar regime for all cases. In general percent errors of all
models while estimating pressure gradients is less than the case
of 25 gpm since as flow rate is increased the relative effect of
viscous parameters, hence rheological effects, decrease.
Again the Bingham Plastic model estimations are the ones
with the most percent error. While, still high shear rate based
Power Law model estimate the actual pressure loss gradients
with the least percent error, the error is more compared to the
case of low flow rates. This is due to using higher flow rates. It
should be noted that low shear rate base Power Law parameters
still gives the least error since they show higher viscous
properties similar to low temperature cases.

2,000

Percent Difference %

28

Figure 9 - Percentage in Difference of Annular Pressure

Gradient between Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T),
Flow rate = 200 gpm

12000 psig

1,500

BP
PL-Pipe
PL-Ann.
YPL

1,000

20

Temperature, F

Percent Difference of Annular Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T)
(Flow Rate = 25 gpm)

500 psig

12

75
-200

As mentioned earlier, accurate determination of pressure

losses in the annulus is even more critical since it is the method
of
controlling formation pressures
while
drilling.
Underestimating pressure losses might result in having bottom
hole pressures smaller than formation pressure causing influx
from formation to the wellbore. If not treated properly, this
might lead to dangerous kick situations. On the other hand,
overestimating pressure losses in annulus might result in outflux conditions which are, causing fluid losses to the formation
or even fracturing the formation. If not treated, this might force
to set numerous casings before reaching the target depth.

2,500

40
80

Model Comparisons at various Pressure

and Temperature Conditions Annulus
Case

500

0
75 40 80 120 200 280 40 80 120 200 280 40 80 120 200 280 80 120 200 280 80 120 200 280
-500

Temperature, F

Figure 8 Percentage in Difference of Annular Pressure

Gradient between Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T),
Flow rate = 25 gpm

Acknowledgements

Percent Difference of Annular Pressure Loss between

Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T)
(Flow Rate = 800 gpm)
120.0

500 psig

2000 psig

4000 psig

8000 psig

The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and

Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for
sponsoring part of this research. We also thank Petrobras for
donating the synthetic based drilling fluid, US DOE and
University of Tulsa for sponsoring experimental phase of the
study, Baker Hughes for HPHT rotational viscometer tests.
Authors would like to extend their gratitude to Dr. Stefan Miska
for his guidance and valuable comments. His expertise always
moves us to the right direction.

12000 psig

100.0

60.0
40.0

BP
PL-Pipe
PL-Ann.
YPL

20.0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0

80
12
0
20
0
28
0
40

0
20
0
28
0
40

12

-20.0

40
80

0.0

75

Percent Difference %

80.0

NOMENCLATURE

-40.0

Eff
P

-60.0
-80.0

Temperature, F

Figure 10 - Percentage in Difference of Annular Pressure

Gradient between Model @ Surface and YPL @ (P,T),
Flow rate = 800 gpm

i
o

w
Y

In the case of 800 gpm, the portions with the most significant
error are low temperature conditions and high temperature, low
pressure conditions. Both of these conditions might exist in the
well depending on the location of the fluid. All models
underestimate pressure loss gradients at low temperatures while
overestimate at high pressure and temperature conditions.
Percent error for all models decreased in great extend since this
flow rate represent late portion of laminar flow or early region
of turbulent flow for all downhole conditions tested. At low
temperatures Bingham Plastic model predictions are the most
accurate ones while at high temperatures, high shear rate
dependent Power Law model gives the highest accuracy.

c
Ca
Cc
d
d1
d2
f
K
L
NHe
NRe
(NRe)crit
n
P
P
Q
r1,SI
r2,SI
T
v
w
X:
y
z

Conclusions
Precise estimation of pressure losses in pipes and annuli
during drilling fluid circulation is critical for the success of a
Managed Pressure Drilling Operation. Use of surface based
rheological models and parameters together with density
measured at surface conditions might lead to huge errors while
determining frictional pressure loss gradients.
Difference between pressure gradients measured at surface
conditions and actual pressure gradients might be even as high
as 1000% depending on flow rate conditions. This study shows
that disagreement between actual and surface parameter based
pressure gradients increases as flow rate decreases. This might
lead to huge well control and fluid loss problems in operations
such as tripping, running casings, liners etc.
Analysis here shows which models might be used
depending upon downhole conditions and flow rate in pipes or
annuli. Validation of the trends seen in this study will be tested
with other type of synthetic based drilling fluids to come up
with a wide range correlation system. This will be shown in a
future article.
By using this method it can be concluded that Bingham
Plastic model with surface parameters would estimate pressure
gradients with the least error at low temperature conditions.
Power Law model parameters determined at high shear rate
conditions (600 and 300 rpm) estimate actual pressure losses in
pipes and annuli with the highest accuracy.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Effective viscosity [cp]

Plastic viscosity [cp]
Constant Pi, 3.14
Rotational viscometer dial readings
Density of the fluid [ppg]
Density correlation parameter [ppg]
Yield point of Yield Power Law [Pa]
Shear stress at the wall [Pa]
Yield Point of Bingham Plastic [lbf/100ft2]
Gap of rectangular slot [m]
Correction factor for the Annulus
Correction factor for the pipe
Diameter of pipe [in]
Outer diameter of inner pipe in annulus [in]
Inner diameter of outer pipe in annulus [in]
Fanning friction factor
Consistency Index [eqcp]
Length of pipe or annular section [ft]
Hedstrom Number
Reynolds Number
Critical Reynolds Number
Flow Behavior Index
Pressure, [psig]
Pressure difference between two points
Volumetric flowrate [gpm]
Inner pipes outer radius in annulus [m]
Outer pipes inner radius in annulus [m]
Temperature [oF]
Average velocity [ft/sec]
width of rectangular slot
Density correlation parameter
Schuhs 1st constant
Schuhs 2nd

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

10

Santos, H., Leuchtenberg, C. and Shayegi, S., MicroFlux Control: The Next Generation in Drilling Process
for Ultra-deepwater; OTC 15062, 2003 Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, May 2003
Stone, C.R., Medley, G.H., Moore, D.D. and Fontenot,
K., Blending Technologies Can Eliminate Casing
Strings; Drilling Contractor, September/October 2004
Fossil, B. and Sangesland, S., Managed Pressure
Drilling for Subsea Applications; Well Control
Challenges in Deep Waters, SPE/IADC 91633, 2004
SPE/IADC Underbalanced Technology Conference and
Exhibiton, Houston, TX, USA, October 2004
Miller, A., Boyce, G., Moheno, L., Arellano, J., Murillo,
J., de la Serna, M.A.A., Lopez, A.U. and Corona, A.M.,
Innovative MPD Techniques Improve Drilling Success
in Mexico; SPE 104030, 1st International Oil

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Cancun, Mexico,

September 2006
Peresich, R.L., Burrel,B.R. and Prentice, G.M.,
Development and Field Trial of a Biodegradable Invert
Emulsion Fluid; SPE/IADC 21935, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, March 1991
Carlson, T. and Hemphill, T., Meeting the Challenges of
Mexico Drilling with Non-Petroleum Ester-based
Drilling Fluids, SPE 28739, SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico,
Veracruz, Mexico, October 1994
Zevallos, M.A.L., Candler, J., Wood, J.H. and Reuter,
L.M., Synthetic Based Fluids Enhance Environmental
and Drilling Performance in Deepwater Locations; SPE
35329, SPE International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibiton of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, March
1996
White, W.W., Zamora, M., Svoboda, C.F., Downhole
Measurements of Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid in
Offshore Well Quantify Dynamic Pressure and
Temperature
Distributions;
SPE/IADC
35057,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA,
March 1996
Minton, R.C. and Bern, P.A., Field Measurement
Analysis of Circulating System Pressure Drop with Low
Toxicity Oil Based Drilling Fluids; SPE/IADC 17242,
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, March
1988
Zamora, M. and Lord, D.L., Practical Analysis of
Drilling Mud Flow in Pipes and Annuli, SPE 4976, 1974
Moises, A.S. and Shah, S.N., Friction Pressure
Correlations of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids
Through Concentric and Eccentric Annuli; SPE 60720,
SPE/ICTA, Houston, TX, April, 2000
Galperin, I., Rheological Properties of Synthetic Based
Muds at Low Temperatures and High Pressures; M.Sc.
Thesis, Texas A&M Univeristy, College Station, TX,
1999
Demirdal, B. and Cunha, J.C., Importance of Fluid
Rheological Characterization on Managed Pressure
Drilling Operations; CIPC Paper No. 2005-163, 6th
Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
AB, June 2005
Demirdal, B., The Study of Flow of Paraffin Based
Synthetic Drilling Fluid at Elevated Pressure and
Elevated Temperature (EPET) Conditions; M.Sc. Thesis,
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, May 2001
Demirdal, B., Miska, S., Takach, N. and Cunha, J.C.,
Drilling
Fluids
Rheological
and
Volumetric
Characterization Under Downhole Conditions; SPE
108111, 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, April 2007
Bourgoyne Jr., A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E.
and Young Jr., F.S., Applied Drilling Engineering; 1st
Edition, Society of Petroleum Engineers Text Book
Series, Richardson, TX, 1986
Recommended Practice on Rheology and Hydraulics of
Oil-Well Drilling Fluids; API Recommended Practice
13D, 3rd Edition, June 1995
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., Piatti, C., An Innovative
Model for Drilling Fluid Hydraulics; SPE 29259, SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, March 1995
Hanks, R.W. and Pratt, D.R., On the Flow of Bingham
Plastic Slurries in Pipes and Between Parallel Plates;

Soc. Pet. Eng. Journal, 240, pp. 342- 346, December,

1967
20. Colebrook, C.F., Turbulent Flow in Pipes, with
Particular Reference to the Transition Region Between
the Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws; J. Inst. Civil Engs.,
London, 1938-1939

11