Performance Study of A Bench Scale Shale Shaker (PDFDrive)

PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A BENCH
SCALE SHALE SHAKER
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Saeid Ghaniyari Benis

July. 2017

PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A BENCH
SCALE SHALE SHAKER
Saeid Ghaniyari Benis

Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
Adviser Department Chair

Dr. George G. Chase Dr. H. Michael Cheung
Committee Member Dean of the College

Dr. H. Michael Cheung Dr. Donald P. Visco
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

Dr. Graham Kelly Dr. Chand Midha
Committee Member
Dr. Zhenmeng Peng Date
Committee Member
Dr. Mefin Tsige
DEDICATION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving parents Mr. Hassan Ghaniyari Benis
and Mrs. Nahideh Ariyaeifar. My lovely sister Sara Ghaniyari Benis and fantastic brother
in law Foad Mashayekhi, have never left my side and words of encouragement and
push for tenacity ring in my ears.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my amazing brothers and sisters Tim & Judi
Walton, Fike family, Scott & Ashleigh Johnson, Nader& Hoda, Mojtaba &Maryam, and
Todd Schreiner’s family. How could I ever express all my thanks for your true friendship
— truly I have been blessed to have you in my life.
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisor,
Professor Chase for giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable
guidance throughout this research. His patience, vision, sincerity and motivation have
deeply inspired me. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under his
guidance. I am extremely grateful for what he has offered me. I would also like to thank
him for his friendship, empathy, and great sense of humor.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Prof. H. Michael Cheung, Prof.
Zhenmeng Peng, Prof. Graham Kelly, and Prof. Mefin Tsige who have generously given
their time and expertise to better my work. I thank them for their contribution and their
good-natured support.
I

Abstract
The shale shaker has been used in the drilling industry for many years for
removing sand and coarse particles from drilling fluids. The performance envelopes of
most shale shakers were determined empirically. Systematic empirical studies of full
scale shakers are difficult and expensive to conduct due to the high volumetric flow
rates of drill fluid and coarse materials flowing through the shaker. In a recent effort to
reduce the experimental costs, a bench scale shale shaker provided by M-I SWACO
was tested. As an initial performance characterization of the bench scale shaker, the
bench scale shaker was evaluated in the separation of sand from a sand-water slurry. In
a shale shaker operation, the coarse particles form a cake on the screen as the liquid
phase flows through the cake and through the screen. The vibrations move the cake of
solids forward on the screen until the cake falls off the end of the screen.
The operating envelope of the bench scale shaker was developed for separating
2, 4, and 6 % concentrations by mass of sand in water for variations of vibration
frequency, deck angle, and vibration acceleration. The results showed that the flow rate
of liquid leaving at the bottom of screen and velocity of the wet sand cake exiting the
screen decreased with deck angle and increased with acceleration. The cake velocity
increased with the vibration frequency and resulted in in thinner sand cakes on the
screen. The moisture contents of the exiting sand cakes were strongly dependent on
the frequency, moderately dependent on the acceleration, and were weakly dependent
on deck angle.
II

In the second phase of this research, the prior continuum model of the cake is
improved and model calculations are compared with experimental data from a bench-
scale shale shaker (M-I SWACO, A Schlumberger Company).
Few studies have been published on the performance of shale shakers.
Experimental studies of shale shaker performance have been limited for several
reasons, but mainly because they are time consuming and expensive to conduct. The
slurries of fine and coarse particles tend to settle with gravity making consistency of the
solids concentrations very difficult to achieve with the large volumes of fluid required
during the operation of a full scale shale shaker.
To overcome some of the experimental issues of a full scale shaker a custom
made small scale shaker was fabricated and tested. To evaluate the small scale shaker
performance without the variabilities introduced by the presence of clay particles, the
experiments were conducted with sand as the coarse particles and water as the liquid
phase. The small scale shaker reduced the operating time needed to reach steady
state and it reduced the volume of liquid required for the operation. The results of this
work will serve as a baseline for the shaker performance for comparison in future works
with fluids containing fine clays.
III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables VII
List of Figures VIII
CHAPTER.1. Introduction
1.1. Research Statement and Approach 1
1.2. Dissertation Organization 4
1.3. Acknowledgment 5
CHAPTER.2. Drilling Fluid
2.1 . Introduction on drilling fluid 6
2.2 . Classification of drilling fluid 9
2.2.1. Oil-based drilling fluid 9
2.2.2. Water-based drilling fluid 10
2.2.3. Air-based drilling fluid 11
2.2.4. Synthetic-based drilling fluid 12
2.3. Functions of drilling fluid 13
2. 4. Drilling fluid components 16
2. 4.1. Weighing chemicals &salts 16
2. 4.2. Filtration control chemicals 17
2.4.3. Drilling fluid additives &surfactants 19
2.5. Drilling fluid reuse 20
2. 6. Completion process 23
2. 7. Environmental concerns & degradability of drilling fluids 23
IV

CHAPTER. 3. Shale Shaker
3.1. An introduction on the shale shakers 26
3.2. Types of the shale shakers 27
3. 3. Parameters affecting the performance of a shale shaker 28
3. 4. Fundamental parts of a shale shaker 32
3.4.1. Screen 34
3.4.2. Screen parts 36
3.5. Existing technologies using in the filtration of drilling mud 37
3. 6. Principles of screening process 38
3.7. Vibrational motion patterns 39
CHAPTER. 4. Experiments
4.1. Experimental set up 42
4.2. Experiments plan 49
4.3. Accessories and measurements 53
4.4. Acceleration analysis 54
4.5. Hypothesis 64
4.6. Experimental results 65
4.6.1. Operating envelopes of the screens XR 120, XR 200, and XR325 65
4.7. Data analysis for the screens 112
4.8. Conclusion 122
CHAPTER. 5. Continuum Modeling of the Experimental Shale Shaker
5.1. Porous media models 124
5.2. Packed bed systems 126
V

5.3. Vibrating bed models 128
5.4. Hypotheses& Motivation 132
5.5. Filter cake continuum model 133
5.5.1. Development of the cake model 134
5.5.2. Model description 136
5.6. Experiments for the continuum model 147
5.6.1. Model calculations 149
5.6.1.1. Limitations of continuum model 164
5.6.1.2. Pros and cons of the laboratory and industrial shale shakers 165
5.6.2. Experiments for testing the effect of vibration on the capillary force 166
5.8. Chapter summary 175
CHAPTER.6. Conclusions
6.1. Results and Conclusions 179
6.2. Recommendations for Future Work 181
References 183
Appendices
APPENDIX A. FORTRAN codes for Continuum model 191
VI

List of Tables
Table Page
3.1. Drilling mud solids size range 30
4.1. Controlled variables of the experiments 52
4.2. Characteristics of the screens 53
4.3. P-values for quadratic model coefficients based on analysis of variance 118
5.1. Experimental data for the bench scale shale shaker 148
5.2. Physical properties of mud and screen 149
5.3. ANOVA analysis for 15 set of experiments 151
5.4. 48 set of experimental data 154
5.5. ANOVA analysis for 48 set of experiments 156
5.6. Operational conditions and experimental observations for the cake height 164
VII

List of Figures
Figure Page
2.1. A schematic of drilling operation 7
2.2. Typical schematic of a drilling rig in oil industry 8
4.1. Bench scale shaker installed on a support frame 44
4.2. Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up used to evaluate 46

the shaker performance
4.3. The inlet flow to the shaker passes through a T fitting that connects 47
to a bypass line through a valve for controlling the inlet flow rate
4.4. The two motors mounted on the shaker to provide vibration 50
4.5. The vibrator for evaluation of effect of frequency 51
4.6. Rotating masses offset 56
4.7. A schematic of the motor orientations on the bench scale shaker assembly 57
4.8. Accelerations plot for mass offset 40 59
4.12. Flow rate profile (XR 120, 2%, f=60 Hz) 66
VIII

4.24. Velocity profile (XR 120, 2%, f=60 Hz) 72
IX

4.59. Velocity profile (XR 325, 6%, f=120Hz) 89
4.62. Flow rate profile (XR 200 (torn out), 2%, f=100 Hz) 97
4.63. Flow rate profile (XR 200 (torn out), 2%, f=120 Hz) 97
X

4.66. Velocity profile (XR 200 (torn out), 2%, f=100 Hz) 99
4.67. Velocity profile (XR 200 (torn out), 2%, f=120 Hz) 99
4.68. screen XR 120 (moisture content of filter cake for mass offset 60) 103
4.74. Operating envelope of the XR 120 for 2% experiments 108
4.80. Sand particles accumulated on the shaker channel (Plugged) 111
4.81. Moving agglomerated sand particles in form of clumps 111
4.82. Moving agglomerated sand particles in form of filter cake 112
4.83. Main effect plots (XR 120) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture 116
4.84. Main effect plots (XR 325) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture 117
4.85. Interaction plots (XR 120) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture 119
4.86. Interaction plots (XR 325) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture 121
5.1. Schematic of a cake moving on a screen. As the drilling fluid enters 134
5.2. Diagram of filter cake formed on the screen with angle β and pool of depth 135
XI

5.3. A section of the screen of length ∆ , cake height , mud height 137
5.4. Section of the interface between the mud and the cake zones 140
5.5. Comparison between experimental and model results 150
5.6. Comparison between experimental and model results in three 153

different porosities
5.7. Effect of porosity and particle size on the performance of the 157
shale shaker in different operational conditions
5.8. Effect of acceleration and angle on the capacity of the shaker (ɛ=0.45) 159
5.11. Plot of calculated cake height for the three experiment (operational 163
conditions and experimental observations are listed in Table 5.6)
5.12. A photo of set up for testing the effect of vibration on the capillary force 168
5.13. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Nylon membrane 169
5.14. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Al membrane 170
5.15. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Teflon membrane 170
5.16. A graphic generated by MATLAB showing particle tracking while 172

particle collides with the screen
XII

CHAPTER.1
Introduction
1.1. Research Statement and Approach
The purpose of this research is to investigates the performance of the vibrating
screens shaker screen under different operational conditions. A bench scale shale
shaker built by M-I-SWACO was run to study the effects of the operation variables such
as slurry concentration, acceleration, and deck angle on the capacity of the shale
shaker. In the second phase of this research, the prior continuum model of the cake is
improved and model calculations are compared with experimental data from a bench-
scale shale shaker.
The continuum model was developed based on basic principles of transport
phenomena, and fluid mechanics and it was tried to bring as many features of an
industrial shale shaker and drilling mud as possible. This research can be considered as
the first most comprehensive experimental research to fully investigate the effect of
varying the operating conditions on the performance of the shale shakers.
In the first step of this research, a bench scale shaker constructed by M-I
SWACO, with screen sizes approximately 2 by 30 inches was tested. This small scale
shaker has vibration motion similar to full scale shale shakers. The parameters such as
mud flow rate, mud inlet concentration, vibration frequency, vibration acceleration,
screen opening sizes, and deck angle, can be varied.The Velocity of sand cake on
screen ,thickness of sand cake as it exits the screen, mud depth, and moisture content
of sand clusters leaving the channel of the shaker were measured.
1

Three layered screens are used. All experiments of the screens XR 120 and XR
325 were accomplished successfully while the experiments of the screen XR 200 were
limited to the 2% sand concentration due to being worn out during the 2% experiments.
For each screen, three sand concentrations of the slurry of 2%, 4% and 6% by mass
were evaluated. For each sand concentration and at the mass offsets 40, 60, 80, and
100, the angle of the deck was varied from 3°, 5°, 7°, to 10°. At each deck angle the
vibration frequency was varied from 60Hz to 120Hz by increments of 20Hz.
In the second phase of this research, the continuum theory based on the volume
averaging technique is used to derive the governing equations of the system. The
governing equations are based on classical balance laws of continuum mechanics and
interfacial and boundary conditions.
The shale shaker is modeled as a continuous cake filtration. Cake forms as
particles collect on the cake surface while the vibration move the across the screen. A
continuum model here applies to either Newtonian or Yield Stress fluids. The governing
equations for modeling the flow through the cake and screen are the mass and
momentum balances derived from volume averaging theory for flow through a porous
media. The computer codes were written in FORTRAN.
The model results were validated by comparing the calculated flow rate values
with measured data from 63 new experiments. For 15 experiments, the shaker was
functioned in different operational conditions to give the effects of the parameters
acceleration, frequency, angle, and particle size on the capacity of the shaker. In all
these 15 experiments, the porosity of the filter cake at the outlet of the screen was
measured.
2

Measuring porosity of filter cake leaving the shaker has some difficulties and
measured values are not accurate due to some experimental restrictions. The 48 sets of
experiments were conducted while the cake porosity was not measured though it was
expected to fall in the range, hence; the values of porosity were modified to see the
effects on the calculated parameters.
In the continuum model section, the capillary force is neglected from the
momentum balance over the screen. In this part, it was shown experimentally that in
either low or high wettability surfaces, we can cancel out capillary forces from
equations. For the sake of this purpose, the three membranes Nylon, Aluminum, and
Teflon each with thickness 1/32" were tested.
Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water was studied. The purpose of this
experiment is to show if capillary force is canceled or weaken by vibration. Nylon with
contact angle 52 degree is considered as a high wetting surface which holds water and
does not allow water flowing out of capillary tube freely. So, for this situation, vibration
comes to help to push droplets to move. So here it is assumed there is capillary force
which by applying vibration on liquid in surface with high wettability, the capillary force is
eliminated.
1.2. Dissertation Organization
This dissertation has six chapters and an appendix consist of three sections. The
sequence of the chapters in this dissertation shows the progression of all tasks
accomplished through the course of the research.
3

Chapter 2 describes different types of drilling fluids used in drilling industry. The
drilling fluids and slurries are the most important part in drilling rig operation. Design of
filtration equipment requires us to have a broad knowledge of drilling fluids, so in this
chapter it was tried to give a comprehensive literature study on the drilling fluids
technology and their application.
Chapter 3 gives a full study on the fundamentals of the shale shakers and their
operation in filtration of drilling muds. In this chapter, the mechanical mechanism of the
vibrating screens in solids-liquid separation is discussed.
Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive experimental study on a bench scale shale
shaker built by M-I- SWACO.A shale shaker is one of the most important pieces of
solid-liquid equipment in the drilling industry, but its performance is not well understood
and characterized. Very few studies have been done on the shale shaker, and almost
all of them are either industrial reports or theoretical modeling. In this chapter, the
capacity of a bench scale shale shaker in different operational conditions is
investigated. Flow rate of liquid at the bottom of screen and velocity of wet filter cake
leaving at the end of screen are studied by changing acceleration, frequency of
vibration, and deck angle in sand concentrations. This serves as a foundation for the
shaker performance for comparison in future works with drilling fluids containing fine
clays that modify the rheological properties. The results obtained from experiments are
compared to those obtained from the continuum model.
Chapter 5 presents the continuum model of the performance of a vibrating-
screen shale shaker during flat-cake formation. The model was developed from the
volume averaged continuum theory. The model accounts for the non-Newtonian yield
4

stress rheology of the drilling fluid. In this chapter, the prior continuum model of the
cake is improved and model calculations are compared with experimental data from a
bench-scale shale shaker (M-I SWACO, A Schlumberger Company).
The conclusion of experimental and modeling works is presented in Chapter 6.
The end of this chapter ends with recommendations for future Works. The rest of the
dissertation includes the references and the appendices including the FORTRAN codes
written for continuum model
Acknowledgment
This work was financially and technically supported by M-I SWACO, A
Schlumberger Company. I would like to express my gratitude to Tom Geehan and Brad
Johns from M-I- SWACO for their guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful
critiques of this research work. I would also like to thank Eric Cady, for his help in
offering me the resources in running the experiments.

5

CHAPTER.2
Drilling Fluid
2.1. Introduction on drilling fluid
A typical oil well bore hole is approximately 3-5 km in depth, but wells may have
a depth of up to 10 km or more. In such wells, the drill stem might be damaged due to
high pressure and heat, so a drilling fluid is injected to lubricate and cool down the drill
stem and provide sufficient pressure in the well to keep the hole from collapsing [1, 2].
Drilling fluids are also used in a drilling rig to bring drill cuttings (small particles of sand
and clay) from inside the borehole to the surface of ground [3, 4]. At the ground surface,
the fluid is referred to as ‘mud’ because of the content of the particle in the fluid. A
schematic of a drilling operation in shown in Figure 2.1.
The term ‘rig’ refers to the equipment used to penetrate the sub-surface of the
earth’s crust [5]. Drilling rigs are usually huge machines used to drill water wells, oil
wells, or natural gas extraction wells [6] . There are some types of small drilling rigs that
can be moved manually by one person. Analyses of sub-surface rocks, soil, and
groundwater physical properties are used to select the locations for boreholes as well
as the installations of underground utilities, instrumentation, and tunnels [7, 8]. A
schematic of a drilling rig is shown in Figure 2.2.
Drilling fluid operations cost around 25% of the total oilfield exploitation cost. It
has been reported that In the 1990s, drilling operations in the US cost about $10.9
billion compared with $45.2 billion (API, 1991) for the total cost of US petroleum industry
exploration and production [9]. Depending on environmental considerations, technical
issues, and cost, different types of drilling fluids are used [10].
6

Figure 2.1. A schematic of drilling operation [11]
7

Figure 2.2. Typical schematic of a drilling rig in oil industry [12]
8

2.2. Classification of drilling fluid
Depending on the situation, a mixture of different types of drill fluids can be
injected into the wellbore [13]. The types of drilling fluids used in the typical wellbore
operations can be classified as oil, water, or air based fluids [14]. In liquid-liquid
emulsions the continuous phase may be water or oil. A water emulsion has water drops
dispersed in a continuous oil phase whereas an oil emulsion has oil drops dispersed in
a continuous water phase. A drilling fluid is the prepared fluid that is pumped into a
borehole at the ground surface. A drilling fluid that has gone down into the borehole
and returns to the ground surface carrying drill cuttings (small particles) is referred to as
the drill mud.
2.2.1. Oil-based drilling fluid
Oil-based drilling fluids are prepared with paraffinic fluids, diesel, and olefins
which have high boiling points .One of the most common applications of the high boiling
point oil-based drill fluids is in separation of oil from fine drilling cuttings [9]. Oil-based
fluids are more expensive than the water-based drilling fluids. The base of oil fluids can
be a mixture of a petrochemical agent such as diesel fuel, kerosene, or crude oil; and
water containing emulsifier, surfactants, and a thickening agent [15].
Oil-based fluids are usually mixed with barite to increase density and bentonite is
added as a viscosifier [9, 16]. For controlling pressure and fluid loss, some polymeric
and asphaltic chemicals are added, and oil-wetting compounds are used for keeping the
particles in suspension. Lime is also added to control pH and neutralize the undesirable
creation of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide [17].
9

An oil-based drill fluid decreases pipe torque and differential sticking and
increases lubricity and shale inhibition [18, 19]. Shale inhibition is one of the advantages
of the oil-based fluids which are mixed with calcium brine solutions to prevent shale
from hydrating and swelling [20]. The use of oil-based fluids has two primary
disadvantages. The first problem is the need to dispose of drilling cuttings in the field
and the second issue is that the oil-based fluid cannot be distinguished from formation
oil [19]. Oil-based fluids are used when borehole situations require high lubricity and
inhibition of shale and clays [14].
2.2.2. Water-based drilling fluid
Water-based drilling fluids are the most widely used [21]. Straight, unmodified
fresh or sea water, brine, saturated brine, or a formate brine can be used. However,
commonly the water is modified with the addition of a gel such as bentonite clay,
calcium carbonate, or other polymer or chemical additive to change the properties from
Newtonian to yield stress [22].
Chemical additives to the water based fluids are used to control fluid-loss,
increase hole-cleaning, and inhibit corrosion [23]. Some thickeners such as xanthan
gum, glycol, carboxymethylcellulose, starch, and polyanionic cellulose are used to
control fluid viscosity. Anionic polyelectrolytes such as tannic acids, acrylates,
polyphosphates, and lignosulfonates are added to reduce viscosity of clay-based drilling
fluids [24, 25].
For shale inhibition and salt formation, saltwater drilling fluids are used. These
fluids are injected into the wellbore for restraining hydrate formation. Saltwater fluids
control the accumulation of solids in the top of boreholes and pipelines [26]. In the
10

drilling industry, brines such as zinc bromide or calcium chloride are added to low-solids
raw fluids to modify the density of the fluid system [27].
In a non-dispersed water-based fluid, there is no bentonite and some polymeric
foams are used to separate fine particles from drilling fluid and control viscosity [28].
Polymers added to the fluid are designed for high temperature and pressure conditions
to prevent gelation. Drilling fluids containing small amount of colloids are enclosed and
altered to undergo additional treatment at the drilling rig and to reduce the cost of the
dilution unit [29]. Dispersed water-based fluids are modified by plasticizers to disperse
suspended solids in the viscous drilling fluids [20].
The fluid properties can change with time due to the entrainment of micron sized
particles and chemicals from the rock formation. One of the problems of water-based
fluids is that they transform to the gel if the fluid is not pumped [30, 31]. When fluid is
being pumped, chemicals such as potassium formate are injected into the tank to
control viscosity and to improve the rate of drilling. Oil-based fluids are used in high-
temperature wells and their lubricity and hole stabilizing characteristics are higher than
water-based fluids. The biggest advantage of using an oil bas liquid over a water-based
liquid is its ability to set up an osmotic potential between the liquid and shale to remove
water uptake into the shale [32].
2.2.3. Air-based drilling fluid
Air-based drilling fluids are another type of drilling fluid used in the drilling
industry. The air typically contains either water or some polymeric particles solutions to
control viscosity and heat production. In pneumatic-drilling fluids, a compressed air is
used to extract solids out of well. These kinds of fluids can be in form of foam, gas or
11

aerated liquids. Using pneumatic fluids prevent lost circulation and evolve cuttings for
the hydrocarbons [33]. It has been shown that using pneumatic fluids result in small
formation damage and higher penetration rates in hard-rock formations [34]. The most
common air-based liquid comprises classical liquid with nitrogen or aqueous foams. The
air-based liquid are used when their pressure is lower than that exerted by the
petroleum inside the pores of the rock formation [9, 35].
2.2.4. Synthetic-based drilling fluid
Synthetic-based drilling fluid also known as invert-emulsion systems, is a type of
fluid whose based fluid is a synthetic oil which plays the role of continuous phase and
water is dispersed phase. Synthetic-based fluids were developed to eliminate the
environmental effects of the oil-based fluids. Industrial reports show that the synthetic-
based drilling fluids in which diesel and mineral-oil-based fluids are used show better
performance [36, 37].
Brine is used as the internal phase. Synthetic fluid is composed of some
chemically-produced polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which are fairly nontoxic and are
capable of being biodegraded. Different physical processes such as hydro-processing,
fractionating, and distillation are used for producing synthetic fluids [38].
Synthetic-based liquids increases the penetration rate and lubricity and
decreases the stability of borehole [39]. In the drilling fields which oil-based liquids
usage are prohibited, synthetic liquids should be used but they cost more than oil-based
liquids. Synthetic liquids are modified by alphaolefins to decrease kinematic viscosity
because as drilling shaft digs deeper depth, viscosity of liquid during operation
increases [40]. Recently, it is found that using shorter-chain-length and low-viscosity
12

esters shows viscosity similar to the typical liquids and their biodegradability and low
toxicity make them the best options as the base fluid [25].
Due to the presence of clay and chemical additives, synthetic liquid becomes
more viscous when cold temperature is encountered. When organophilic clay and
lignitic content of mud is minimum, the rheological properties of fluid can be controlled.
Synthetic liquids have high gel strength which need minimum pressure to flow [41].
2.3. Functions of drilling fluid
On a rig, drilling liquid is pumped from the mud pits. After injecting, the liquid
brings the crushed rocks up the annular space between the drill string and the sides of
the hole being drilled, up through the surface casing, where it emerges back at the
surface [42]. Solids are then separated with a shale shaker and the filtered mud returns
to the mud pits. Fine particles are settled in mud pits and by adding chemicals, the
quality of liquid before re-injecting to the well bore is ensured [38].
The drilling mud contains natural gases which should be collected from work
field. Because these gases are flammable, the special sensors and explosion-proof
certified equipment should be installed in the field. The drilling fluid is pumped back
down the borehole and re-circulated [43, 44].
The mud is treated in the mud pits to ensure chemical properties meet the
standards. Drilling fluid improve the efficiency and stability of bore hole. The capacity of
unearthed solids brought to the surface is depend on annular velocity of fluid traveling
up to the surface, size and density of particles. [45].
Drilling fluids viscosity increases during static conditions and this behavior keep
solids suspended when the fluid does not flow [25]. For the purposes of hole cleaning
13

usually shear thinning and high density fluids are used. Industrial reports show that high
annular velocity should be used for transporting solids [1, 19, 20, 46]. Settled drilled
solids may result stuck-pipe and lost circulation that is why solids should be suspended
[47].
Suspended solids concentration is of very important criteria in drilling operations.
High concentration of cuttings causes increasing viscosity, as a result of which increase
in maintenance cost is inevitable [48]. Drilling fluid rheology properties should be
balanced with solids by controller. It is recommended that for an efficient solids control,
cuttings should be separated from drilling mud on the first circulation from the well [47].
In a wellbore, formation pressure is one of the parameters which should be
checked regularly [49]. Formation pressure is the pressure of the fluid within the pore
spaces of the formation rock. If formation pressure is not enough, gas or foam should
be used. In drilling operations, drilling fluid is kept at minimum level to avoid formation
break [15, 49].
Drilling fluid should be deposited on the wall of borehole as a thin cake, so for
this purpose, well pressure should be more than formation pressure. If thick cake is
attached it causes stuck pipe and circulation failure. The typical chemicals for improving
the filter cake performance are synthetic polymers, and asphalt. Some chemicals such
as calcium carbonate whose particle size are more than half size of pores should be
used to fill in large pores of well wall [50].
Providing proper mixture of drilling fluid for stabilizing a borehole and balancing
the mechanical pressures are vital in drilling operation. One of the most important
technical recommendations in drilling industry is that magnifying hole made by hydraulic
14

pressures should be avoided as far as possible due to low annular velocity and solids
loading [51]. Using viscous fluids containing bentonite is capable of restricting borehole
enlargement. Another problem can be caused in a wellbore by reacting chemicals in
the fluid with shale which results in softening of raw solids. Some inhibitors such as
glycol and potassium are injected into the mud pit to limit interaction between drilling
mud and shale [46].
For minimizing water interaction with shale, emulsifiers should be added to oil-
based drilling fluid to avoid water lost. Pressure drop due to the accumulation of debris
into the holes and reducing the porosity of formation are of the most important
problems. Reducing permeability can be resulted due to inflation of clay filter cake [52].
Because of large amount of heat produced from hydraulic pressure in the well bore,
cooling and lubricating the drill string and well are the vital factors, otherwise failure of
drilling fluid motors is imminent [2]. Oil and synthetic drilling fluids are the best options
for lubricating. Low solids and shear thinning drilling fluids such as polymer fluids are
more efficient in transmit hydraulic energy [16, 51, 53].
One of the major problems in drill rigs is corrosion which is caused by hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide gases in the well bore. For controlling pH level and corrosion
rate, inhibitors should be added to the filtered drilling mud. The most reported reasons
of causing corrosion in drilling industry are high content of oxygen, foaming, sulfide
chemicals and aeration [53, 54]. Generally speaking, the drilling fluid has the following
rules in a well bore:
 Density control
 Lubrication
15

 Filtration control
 Rheology control
 pH control
 Lost-circulation control
 Viscosity control
 Flocculation
 Surface activity modification
 Shale stabilization
 Protect from corrosive and toxic material existing in the well bore
2. 4. Drilling fluid components
2. 4.1. Weighing chemicals &salts
Densifiers are materials that are dissolved or suspended compounds which are
used to enhance the density. Weighting materials control formation pressures and
prevent the effects of sloughing. A weighting material should be denser than water and
shouldn’t have negative effect on the drilling fluid rheological properties. The salts used
in the completion operation are soluble salts prepared to formulate a solids-free drilling
fluid. Drilling fluid densities should be in the range of 9.0 to 21.5 ppg [55].
Some organic polymers are used in drilling operation for a drilling situation.
Polymers are added as foaming materials, surfactants, emulsifiers, corrosion inhibitors,
and lubricants beside to functioning as flocculants, and filtration-control agents to
improve rheological properties of the drilling fluid [56].
Flocculating agents are used to coagulate solids so that they can be more easily
separated from mud. They also change the viscous properties of the drilling fluid.
16

Hydrated lime and synthetic polymers are often used as salts to improve flocculation
and separation of colloidal-size particles. Standards say that polymers should have the
molecular weight above 200, with greater than eight repeating units. Lime increases the
capacity of carrying liquid by flocculating the bentonite and drilled solids. Flocculation is
enhanced by changing the surface charge of the solid particles [32].
In a drilling wellbore, lost-circulation materials are used to seal against
permeable or fractured formations to inhibit the loss of whole drilling fluid. In industry,
three categories of the lost control products are used which are as the following [13, 40]:
Fibrous lost circulation materials: The most common are shredded sugar cane, cotton
fibers, wood fibers, and paper pulp. These types of materials have small rigidity and are
forced into large pores where they bridge and form a mat. Using this type of products is
not recommended for oil-based muds.
Granular lost-circulation materials: ground nut shells and ground carbonates are
the most common types. These products are accumulated inside the opening and form
a bridge. These materials should have particles in the same size of the opening.
Blend: These compounds are mixture fibrous, flake, and granular materials. The
blended chemicals containing flakes are not recommended for use in oil-base muds.
2. 4.2. Filtration control chemicals
Filtrate is the part of drilling fluid that is driven out through the filter cake due to
the differential between the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column and the formation
pressure. Filtration-control materials control the filtrate lost from the drilling fluid into a
subsurface formation. Chemicals such as bentonite, synthetic polymers, starches, and
deflocculants are added as filtration-control agents. Amines such as organophilic lignite
17

is commonly used for filtration control in oil-base muds and synthetic-base muds [25] .
For controlling the filtrate loss, the following mechanisms are used [57]:
Viscosity: filtration rate is low for high viscous drilling fluid, so the most
convenient way to improve the viscosity of the drilling mud is using high molecular
weight polymers.
Compressibility: By using colloidal materials, such as bentonite, a compressible
filter cake is created which controls the control filtrate.
Deflocculation: In flocculation condition, clays and other chemical particles are
attached and form a structure called “floc.” The chemicals which play the role of
deflocculants are injected to the mud pits to prevent floc formation. So the materials that
act as deflocculants reduce filtrate loss. Deflocculants reduce the viscous and
properties of the drilling fluid by changing the physical and chemical interactions
between solids and salts. The most common thinners used in water-base drilling are
phosphates and low-molecular-weight synthetic water-soluble polymers.
Lubricating agents decrease torque and drag force between pipes and the
formation. Lubricants are incorporated into the filter cake and attached as a film to metal
surfaces. Diesel oil, synthetic oils and long-chain alcohols, in amounts ranging from 3 to
10% by volume are known as the most common composition used for lubricants [58].
Alkalinity and pH-control additives are used to optimize pH and alkalinity in the
drilling fluids. The control of many drilling fluid system properties is dependent on pH.
pH also affects the solubility of many thinners and divalent metal ions such as calcium
and magnesium, and influences the dispersion or flocculation of clays.Among the most
common materials used to control pH are NaOH, KOH, Ca(OH)2 and Mg (OH) 2 [31].
18

2.4.3. Drilling fluid additives &surfactants
The surfactants are added to the OBM and SBM drilling fluids as emulsifiers or
wetting agents. Rheological properties of the drilling fluid are the criteria for evaluating
the stability of the emulsion. Acidic products from with an average chain length of 18
carbon atoms, and products derived from reactions with polyamines can be used as
emulsifiers. Chemical compounds such as alkanolamides, imidazolines and a variety of
fatty acids are good options as emulsifiers .Filter cake slows down the drainage of
drilling fluid which results in reducing effect of drilling fluid on the wettability [59, 60].
One of the biggest problems in using SBM is about instability of the wells
resulted from interaction of clays with the formation water. Bentonite improves hole
cleaning properties and decreases water seepage. Forming a filter cake with low
permeability increases the hole stability and viscosifies the mud. It is said that low
amount of bentonite should be added to a high concentrated clay mud is mandatory to
increases the rate of penetration and decreases torque and drags in the pipes [9, 25].
Partially Hydrolysed (15%) Polyacryl-Amide (PHPA) and anionic and non-ionic
polymers are recommended as one of the most effective additives for stabilization of
wellbores by forming a thin filter cake [25]. NaCl combined with silicates and
methylglucoside is used to block the flow of filtrate into the clay.
Glycerol and glycol are commonly used to prevent cuttings from dispersing into
the medium. It is said that sugar viscosifies the filtrate and reduce mud activity and flow
rate of drilling fluid in clay. Sugar provides osmotic pressure favorable to clay
dehydration but it is easily decomposed biologically when stored on the field [61, 62].
19

Silicates and aluminum-based compounds are recommended for the stabilization of
clays and good shale swelling inhibition [9, 61].
2.5. Drilling fluid reuse
In drilling industry, different types of chemicals and additives are used to improve
the performance of drilling process and reduce the costs. To prevent mud loss, some
materials such as fibrous compounds, mica, and calcium carbonate should be used to
keep lost circulation.
In water based mud systems, lubricants should be used to decrease probable of
pipe blockage by cuttings in drilling facilities. Using chemicals such as corrosion
inhibitors and sulfate scavengers for controlling corrosion is inevitable [17].
Corrosion is the most common reason for drill pipe loss and it fails mud pumps and
downstream tools. Corrosion rate increases by increasing temperature of downhole
[63].
There are some different types of abrasive materials in drilling mud which
increase the rate of corrosion by removing protective films [36, 51]. Corrosion in drilling
bit and other facilities can be resulted by hydrogen sulfate and oxygen gases,
biomicrobial decomposition, high temperature and presence of sulfur materials [14].
Scavenger and inhibitor should be added to drilling liquid to neutralize the destructive
effects of H2S and CO2 existing in the wellbore. To overcome this issue and also
preventing bacteria growth, using high pH conditions and microbiocide additive are
recommended [58].
It has been observed in a wellbore that a wall cake is formed around the drill
string which should be removed out [64]. A wetting time is always required to finish
20

cleaning process. Spotting fluids are formulated with a base liquid and some oil
chemical additives that can be used into the drilling mud system with no destructive
effects after the circulation resumes [25].
Lubricants used in drilling industry usually contain hydrocarbon-based materials,
fine glass, and polymeric solutions which can be added to the drilling fluid to improve
lubricity. Lubricants reduce friction in a borehole and provide lubricity to the drill string in
which metal-metal contact is an inevitable process [18].
The used drilling fluid brought to the surface is not only wasted out but also
reused. A shale shaker is used here to separate solids from drilling mud which the
treated drilling fluid is then controlled to have enough chemicals before being re-injected
into the well [4].
Drilling fluids are formulated to increase their resistance inside the high
temperature wellbores. When drilling fluid containing drilled cuttings flows onto the shale
shaker, the filtration process begins. The drilling fluid passes through the screen, the
solids move toward the shaker outlet and the liquid passes through the screen. Drilling
fluid contains particulate matter such as sand and shale, which should be separated
before the fluids are sent for further filtration [8, 65].
The solids are initially submersed by mud and then will be conveyed off the
screen. The flow of drilling fluid along the screen is unsteady flow and drilling fluid is
classified as a Bingham Plastic fluid which by passing drilling fluid through the screen,
pressure drop increases due to the presence of Bingham yield pressure. So for
modeling the drilling fluid, Bingham and the power-law models are common models [66,
67]. It is shown that shear resistance of cement of a well bore decreases by vibrations
21

.The results indicate that by increasing amplitude, the stiff non-Newtonian cements
shows Newtonian state [68].
Supercritical extraction is a new method for reducing oil contaminant from drill
cuttings. In traditional processes of removing oil from mud, CO2 is used to produce a
nontoxic solvent and produced solvent is easy to reuse [69]. Supercritical method which
is based on the lower pressure is capable of recovering solvent by replacing distillation
columns with supercritical extractors. In these kind of extractors, pump is used rather
than compressor and need a lower temperature for hydrocarbons [70]. An empirical
study on the potential of using supercritical extraction in the oil mist separation from
solids of drilling fluid shows more advantage rather than using traditional processes
[70]. In the traditional processes which is based on using solvent, lots of particles are
produced which drilling fluid carries them to the surface [57, 70].
One of the causes of drilling fluid waste in drilling industry is vaporization in the
field. In a linear mixed-effects model focused on occupational exposure among the
workers in Norway, it was detected the high concentrations of oil vapor in the shale
shaker units exist. An industrial report claims that temperature and viscosity of drilling
fluids are the most effective parameters in the content of oil vapor in the shale shaker
fields [3].
A modeling work confirms that oil mist in the air increases up to 86% by a 10◦C
increase in the temperature of drilling mud. High-viscosity oil-based muds result in
increasing oil vapor content in the air. Water-based drilling fluid is not capable of
handling the solids more efficient than oil-based drilling fluids. If the oil-based is used in
a drilling site, so the solids disposal process should meet the severe environmental
22

standards [71]. The disposal of cutting solids produced by oil-based muds in the drilling
areas are not allowed due to the regulations set by the most of the environmental
agencies. For example in the North Sea, drilling mud should not be discharged in
offshore [72].
2. 6. Completion process
To keep a wellbore in a longer production, cementing is the first step [25]. During
operation mud should not transform from liquid to gas and the lowest possible pressure
should be applied [63]. Filter cake of drilling mud should be thin and for the proper
cement operations, mud should be displaced by flushes [73] . For this purpose low
viscosity mud should be used and operations should be done far away from gelation
zone [74]. The surfactants reduce the moisture content of mica and sandstone surfaces
rock permeability in the wellbore [75].
2. 7. Environmental concerns & degradability of drilling fluids
In the drilling operations, waste of crude oil from boreholes, OBM and refined
petroleum products are the major polluting sources in the field. The biodegradability of
oil-based muds is related to the physical-chemical characteristics of their fundamental
ingredients. Petroleum agent resistance to the degradation is propagated by increasing
molecular weight. The content of aromatic hydrocarbons of a drilling mud is an index for
their toxicity. More soluble hydrocarbons are much easier to be degraded than heavier
petroleum hydrocarbons [9].
The most important parameter in determining degradability of a hydrocarbon is
viscosity. The hydrocarbons whose viscosity is high have low degradability [76] . An
23

experimental work has been shown that by increasing aromatic and polar compounds,
biodegradability rate was slowed down [77].
For treating wastes resulted from frilling operations, the waste treatment
technologies such as dewatering, solvent extraction, and distillation are used. The new
OBM technologies use non-aqueous fluids whose compounds are mixture of linear
paraffins and olefins, poly olefins, and esters [78].
Synthetic-based muds have the effective drilling characteristics of petroleum
mud. SBM are free of aromatic hydrocarbons and have lower toxicity and faster
biodegradability which make them less noxious to the sea floor than OBM [79]. The
philosophy behind the development of such fluids was not to design a system that
merely posed a neutral or negligible impact on the environment, but rather one that
would prove beneficial. Thus, the goal was to select the individual components of the
fluid system, including the base fluid, emulsifiers, internal phase (salt and water), weight
material and fluid-loss additives, to allow efficient drilling and generation of drill cuttings
that can be used to actively enhance soil quality and subsequently support improved
plant growth (Getliff et al., 2000).
It is important to consider that the waste disposal method will function with the
base fluid used in the continuous phase of the drilling fluid. For example, under the right
environmental conditions, bacteria are very efficient at degrading many types of
hydrocarbons. However, those compounds that bacteria cannot readily degrade can
delay the final remediation and close out of the site, thereby increasing the overall cost
of the operation (Growcock et al., 2002). Alternatively, if the drilling fluid is optimized for
its biodegradability by using a base fluid that does not contain any aromatic, cyclic or
24

branched components, the treatment times can be significantly reduced, since there is
no requirement to get rid of or reduce the heptane fraction present in a diesel or mineral
oil.
The treatment process of drilling waste is classified in two groups: 1) physical and
chemical treatment processes such as thermal desorption, injection in the wellbores,
dehydration, and solidification and stabilization; 2) biological processes such as
biopiles. These days bioremediation has become the first alternative to prevent
destroying pollutants created from crude-oil operations. Bioprocesses have the following
advantages over the traditional chemical-physical processes of treating oil-based muds:
 Affordable technology
 Simplicity of the process
 Environmentally-friendly
There are some techniques for handling the OBM wastes in a drilling field. In the
waste minimization methods, wastes are reduced by decreasing volume using
techniques such as directional drilling or by using additives with less impacts on the
environment. The contaminants such as heavy metals are removed by applying
bioremediation techniques with phytoremediation together. Drilling fluid chemical
composition is the most important factor in selecting treatment process in the crude-oil
industry [9].
25

CHAPTER. 3
Shale Shaker
3.1. An introduction on the shale shakers
Vibrating screens are used in the oil and petroleum drilling operations to separate
particles from drilling mud. In the drilling industry, a vibrating screen called shale shaker,
is the first equipment which does filtration process [80, 81] . The purpose here is
minimizing cutting solids in the mud. A shale shaker is the first line of defense in
minimizing the cuttings content because it separates the largest solids first [82]. The
screens consist of different layers of mesh and are vibrated in order to increase the
filtration efficiency [83].
A shale shaker should employ all screen area to remove solids from drilling fluid
and minimize the drilling fluid loss. The screen vibration pushes the particles uphill over
the screen and mud is collected at the underside of the screen. There is a limitation in
shale shakers operations in which filtration performance alters as the feed properties
change [84]. Typical vibrating screens vibrate with a constant speed and constant
motors forces which results in an acceleration on the screen. In handling the huge
volume of drilling mud, the acceleration usually decreases as mud flows into the screen.
Shakers operating in the oil industry have higher acceleration than required magnitude
to be able to have enough acceleration when heavily loaded [85].
In the new technologies developed for the shale shakers, constant-g technology
is becoming popular technique. This technique measures the screen acceleration and
sends the signals to a variable frequency drive to keep constant acceleration even
under varying loads [86].
26

Drilling liquid is returned to the well surface and then flows on the shale shaker
screens. After the drilling mud was processed by the shaker, it flows to the mud tanks
where other solids-liquid separation equipment separate the finer particles from mud.
The separated particles are sent to a holding tank where they further will be disposed
[87].
3.2. Types of the shale shakers
Two types of end-feed and center-feed shale shakers are used in the drilling
industry which the end-feed shaker is the most common one. The screen of an end feed
shaker is rectangular while center feed screens are circular. Because drilling fluid flow
pattern is difference for both screens, so the vibration pattern for end-feed and center-
feed shale shakers is not identical. The screen motion dominates particles velocity on
the screen and drilling flow rate though cake and screen [82].
In an end feed shale shaker, the motion of the imaginary line created by
intersection of vertical plane parallel with the walls and screen cloth is elliptical. All
points on the line perpendicular to the vertical plane parallel with the walls and passing
through the screens have identical motion. In a direction perpendicular to the vertical
plane parallel with the walls, motion is zero. This type of vibration results in the motion
of particles across the screen in a straight path to the mud pits [82].
In the radial distance from the center of circular feed shaker, the motion of all
point on the screen is elliptical. All points vibrate in a vertical plane perpendicular to the
radial plane. In this kind of shaker, particles also move in a circular shape in a horizontal
plane perpendicular to the radial plane and screen experiences a 3-D motion. In the
27

elliptical motion screens, motion is identical in all angular location around the center [82,
88].
Hoberock proposed that the linear vibration than circular motion model results in
higher efficiency in solids conveyance. He also showed that even elliptical vibration
shows higher efficiency compared to the linear motion as a result of that screen life is
increased [82].
For the multi deck shale shakers, it is recommended that the coarsest mesh size
is placed at the top, then the finer mesh size is used as the middle screen and finally the
finest mesh should be placed as the bottom screen. This configuration allows the
shaker to collect the finer particles with the highest efficiency. The problem of multi deck
shakers is in maintaining the bottom screen [56, 84, 88] .
3. 3. Parameters affecting the performance of a shale shaker
It has been shown that the performance of a shale shaker depends on the large
number of parameters. The most important variables affecting the capacity of a shale
shaker are fluid rheological properties, concentration and size distribution of solids,
screen mesh and area, vibration frequency, vibration pattern, acceleration, and deck
angle [88].
Maximizing capacity of a shale shaker is a trade-off between content of
separated cuttings off the screen and filtrated drilling mud passed through the screen.
For example, if the shaker deck is inclined downward to enhance particles transfer more
drilling mud flows off the shaker channel and cuttings at the outlet have more moisture
while tilting the screen up decreases solids velocity but more fluid is saved. There is an
optimum angle for each shaker, depend on the manufacturer, which tilting the screen up
28

more than that causes solids accumulation on the screen and blocking the screen pores
[82, 88]. The physical mechanisms justifying the effect of vibration on the fluid
displacement in porous media are not yet known.
It is suggested that an increase in flow rate is caused by changing in the pore
structure and particle rearrangement. A research was conducted on the effect of
vibration on the flow rate of Hexadecane as a non-wetting phase in a column filled with
water and sand, the Hexadecane flow rate increased by increasing amplitude [89].
Another explanation for the effect of vibration on the flow rate is based on the capillary
trapping. The capillary trapping mechanism is the most promising one .The idea for this
mechanism is based on the interfacial tension which is considered as the most
significant parameter on multi-phase flow in porous media [90] .
Changing in pore sizes of porous media trap the fluid which this leads to
variations in capillary pressures. This pressure imbalance changes flow rate of liquid
through the porous media. By applying vibration, we see that vibration of the screen will
result in an inertial body force acting on the fluid which this movement pushes the
trapped fluid to reflow [91, 92]. Vibration create an internal circulation in the mud and it
gives more time to the fluid to touch the screen and this might be one of the effects of
vibration on the enhancement of the flow rate.
Particle size distribution and concentration both have effect on the process of
solids-liquid separation. Increasing the solid concentration in a drilling mud reduces the
performance of the drilling operations. An experimental work shows that muds
containing more than 10% by mass solids caused the failure in filtration process. Micro-
29

bit drilling results indicated that very fine particles in a drilling mud have more adverse
effects on the flow rate than larger sizes [93] .
It is claimed that particles smaller than 1μ are much more damaging to the
filtration process than particles larger than 1μ [45, 82]. All solids-liquid separation tools
in drilling industry are designed to remove particles larger than 1μ [82]. The shale
shaker changes the formation of particle structure in the drilling mud due to vibration.
Shear stress of the drilling fluid is decreased due to vibration while polymeric drilling
fluid is not affected by imposing vibration [94].
Table.1 shows the size range of different types of particles in drilling fluid which
can be separated in a shale shaker [82]. A work by Cagle showed that an increase in
drilling fluid viscosity decreases flow rate exponentially. It has been suggested that to
maximize passing a viscous drilling fluid through screen openings, high frequency and
low amplitude should be applied [95].
Table.3.1. Drilling mud solids size range

Material Size range μ
Bentonite 0.001-0.10
Barite 1-100
Drilled cuttings 1-1000
A research on the effect of plastic viscosity and yield values shows that plastic
viscosity of drilling mud flowing through the screen and cake has significant effect on
the capacity of a shale shaker while yield value has slightly effect on the performance. It
has been also shown that increasing plastic viscosity and yield value of a drilling fluid
30

increases the required screen area used in a shaker [96]. Capacity of a shale shaker
can be increased by decreasing plastic viscosity and increasing screen area, shaker
angle, and acceleration [97].
The install location of the vibrating motors on the shale shakers can be
considered as one of the parameters involving in the design of shale shakers. Some
manufacturers say that if a vibrator is precisely mounted on the shaker support there is
no need to incline the shaker downward to get desired mass rate of solids on the screen
but one should aware that inclining the screen downward decreases the drilling mud
flow rate and increases the moisture content of the particles leaving out the channel of
the shaker [81].
In an experimental work done by Porter on a vibrating electromagnetic screen,
the capacity improved by increasing frequency and decreased by amplitude. Their
results showed that there is an optimum operational conditions which after passing the
optimal point, flow rate decreased. Angle 33° was found as the most effective angle
[98].
It has been shown that frequency is one of the important parameters affecting
screen performance while other researches showed the reverse results. The interaction
between frequency and particle size shows that for a feed whose particles size is close
to the opening, frequency is the most effective parameter [99]. Two experimental works
claimed that screening efficiency decreased as frequency increased [100, 101].
A study showed that an increase in deck angle increased the effective mesh area
and number of contacts per unit screen length [102]. An increase in deck angle
31

enhanced the passage of particles. It was found that angles more than 15° decreased
the effectiveness [103].
A work by Hoberock on an experimental shaker working in acceleration 4g and
two frequencies 20 and 60 Hz showed that frequency has an insignificant effect on the
fluid capacity of the shaker. His work showed that flow rate at 60Hz is slightly less than
that in 20Hz. Their results on a 100*100 mesh screen with three types of drilling fluids
showed that the capacity of a shale shaker depend heavily upon the acceleration [96].
A screen whose conductance is higher than the similar screens shows higher
performance. The proposed mechanism for this improvement is in considering
permeability and screen thickness than solely the pore area percentage [81].
A work by Dorry shows that capacity of a shale shaker increases by increasing
g-force. His work revealed that the rate of increase in capacity of the shale shaker
reached a minimum plateau. It indicates that there is a threshold g-force which after
passing that point increasing acceleration does not have any effect on the performance
of the shaker [48].
3. 4. Fundamental parts of a shale shaker
A typical industrial shale shaker is composed of the following major parts [82, 84,
95]:
Vibratory motors- Usually a shale shaker works with two motors which apply
the vibratory motion on the shaker screen. There are two eccentric weights in the
motors to generate a vibrating force when they rotate. The vibrators rotate in opposite
directions and create a force on the screen. The force pushes the particles along the
32

screen and off the screen outlet. The motors can be installed on the vibrating deck or on
the support frame.
Screen angling system- The shaker screen plane should be capable of tilting to
handle fluctuations in mud flow rates and maximize the use of the screen area. Depend
on the type of the shale and drilling process, different angling systems are used which
mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic mechanisms are the most common. It is reported
that mechanical and hydraulic systems are faster than pneumatic mechanism and need
less energy to function.
Base- This part works as a platform for the shaker and collector for the drilling
mud passed through the shaker screen. Depend on flow rate of mud, different depths
can be used.
Screen- This part is the most important part of the shale shaker which most of
efforts in improving the performance of a vibrating shale shaker concentrate on this part.
Screen removes drilled cuttings and send them to the base and make filtration process
more convenient.
Feeder- This part collects the drilling mud before it flows into the shaker channel.
Different types of feeders are used in drilling industry which the most common one is
called weir feeder. This feeder is capable of distributing the drilling mud along the entire
shaker screen surface. The feeder has a bypass stream line which sends the mud
directly to the collecting tank without being processed by the screen.
33

Feed Tank- A tank is used when the shaker is being repaired or screens are
being changed. In the situations that drilling mud is too thick to pass through the screen,
the screen is blinded or plugged which in this situation tank is used. A feed tank has a
bypass port which allows the drilling mud goes to the mud circulation system.
3.4.1. Screen
Different types of screen with different methods of characterizations of the screen
cloth are used in filtration industry. In drilling industry, the plain square mesh is the most
common one. The number of wires per inch is called mesh. Higher mesh number
means finer particles can pass through it. For preventing from problems such as
plugging in the square screens, rectangular mesh screens are usually used. These
screens enhance ratio of opening area. Layered screens are known as the best option
for preventing from plugging. Tilting the screen changes flow capacity, conveyance and
cuttings moisture. Drilling fluid is lost due to the failure in the borehole and conveyance
reduces due to the particle plugging close to the outlet of the shaker. [82].
The layered shale shaker screens are non-plugging and easily changed. API set
some instructions for the shale shakers screens mesh. APR recommends that
numbering a mesh in both directions of should be followed in parentheses by opening
size in microns and the percentage of open area. For example, a screen with
specification of 85 *85 (642 *642, 49) means a square screen with 85 openings per inch
in each direction which has an opening size of 642 and an open area of 49% [27].
screen with specification of 140*90 (211*585, 56) means a rectangular mesh screen
with 140 openings in one direction and 90 openings in another direction. Openings in
34

140 mesh direction is 211 micron and in 90 mesh direction has the size of 585 micron
[82].
Some screen manufactures recommend that calculated length of required screen
should be increased by one-third to consider for the drainage zone for wet filter cake
[96]. Screens with mesh number 40*80 are the most common screens in the drilling
industry[95].
The most common types of screens used in the drilling industry can be classified as
the following groups [104]:
a) Synthetic screen: The screen materials are usually steel, polyurethane and
rubber and used in the drilling operations in which wear life is the most important
concern. Rubber is used as a high resistant material and mounted as the top
layer. In some drilling operations in which high frequencies is not desirable,
rubber screen is used to reduce the maintenance cost.
b) Different weaving techniques have been developed to increase the open area
percentage. Woven wire cloth has been traditionally used in drilling industry for
more than 70 years. It is made of metal woven wires which is the most common
screen due to being inexpensive and easily available.
Recently, a new technology called ‘3D screen’ has been introduced in screen
industry. In this technique, the maximum area of a shale shaker screen can be
achieved. These screens have a flat bottom and corrugation shape on top. The screens
maximize the performance of the screen using building up without requirement of
having a larger screen which results in less expensive shale shakers [105].
35

3.4.2. Screen parts
The most important parts of a shale shaker screen used in the drilling industry are:
Screen Type (mesh) - In the screens, metal wires are woven together to create
a net of metal cloth. Mesh generating technology has been improved over many years
to increase screen life and conductance. To maximize the screen conductance, we
need to minimize the solids which can be fulfilled by either thinning the wire diameter or
changing the geometrical shape of the mesh. Conductance is the criteria shows the
amount of drilling mud which is capable of passing through the screen. It is said the
rectangular mesh increases the performance of the screen while square mesh has a
lower conductance. Screens made with several layers of mesh increase screen life and
protect the cloth against solids accumulation and wire wear [106].
Screen frame- Each screen should be supported by a frame to function well and
depend on the manufacturer differs in material and shape. It is made of either by steel
or plastic composites. A frame has a rectangular shape composed of some inner panels
whose shape can be hexagonal, rectangular, or square [107].
Binder- The binder attaches the frame to the mesh and designed to tolerate the
difficult operational situations such as high heat and vibrations, abrasive particles and
corrosive mud.
36

3.5. Existing technologies using in the filtration of drilling mud
Industrial reports show that a constant-g control shale shaker is capable of
filtration of finer solids than the typical shale shakers. The efficiency of solids removal is
improved with a constant-g control shale shaker [108].
Vibration acceleration of a shale shaker is calculated by Newton’s second law of
motion. As the drilling fluid flows onto the screen, the system mass increases which
results in decreasing the acceleration. A shale shaker vibrates at a constant frequency
which generates a constant force. When the flow rate decreases, the acceleration
increases and it causes higher surface area which results in screen failure [106, 107,
109].
The performance of a shale shaker depends on the vibration intensity and shaker
structure. The vibration has effect on the agglomeration of particle. Different techniques
such as high temperature, solvent extraction, and soap washing have been proposed to
separate oil from cuttings [110, 111]. These techniques have limitations such as safety
issues and high energy consuming [70].
Very few experimental studies have been done on the filtration of drilling mud
using shale shakers. Cagle et.al compared two shale shakers experimentally to
investigate the screen cloth effect on the filtration process [95]. Hoberock developed a
model on a full scale shale shaker to predict fluid handling capacity of the vibrating
screens. It is shown that a shale shaker efficiency in treating mud is a function of
vibration frequency and acceleration, shaker angle, fluid rheological properties, type and
amount of drilled solids, mud height, and type of screen and mesh size [112].
37

In a new design in the drilling industry, a vacuum conveyor separator (VCS)
system was innovated to improve the efficiency of removal of solids from drilling mud. In
this system, blinding does not happen and there is no need to install respiratory
systems. VCS systems are able to monitor fluid and solids volume simultaneously and
records and transmits fluid data. In these kinds of solids separation equipment, there is
no need to install degasser, pressure washers, and solids dryer so operation cost
becomes minimum [113, 114].
One of the concerns with using fine mesh screens in viscous mud systems is that
screen life and flow capacity decrease and plugging screen is observed repeatedly. The
typical layered screens are composed of two fine mesh layers supported by a coarse
screen [25].
A field report shows that mud viscosity has a significant effect on the
performance of the screen. Increasing viscosity decreases capacity of a screen
exponentially. The results show that the capacity of a screen in handling drilling mud is
not linear function of the covered surface of the screen [95].
3. 6. Principles of screening process
One of the most common physical separation techniques in drilling industry is the
mechanical screening. Separating tools are classified into moving and static screen
equipment in which the machine can be inclined or horizontal [115].
The process of screening is controlled by physical variables such as particle
shapes, acceleration, vibration type and bed density. The vibration motion and screen
mesh size have their pros and cons in the process of screening. The most effective
38

pattern of vibration is sinusoidal vibration which is applied on the angled screen relative
to the horizontal. [87].
The actual flow rate of a shale shaker in filtration of drilling mud is less than
capacity of a shaker which processes only fluid. Because of the presence of the solids
in drilling mud, capacity of a shale shaker may be reduced due to one of the following
effects [97]:
1-The solids larger than the screen openings tend to cover the pores which this
results in decreasing the screen area for passing drilling fluid and finer solids. For
overcoming this problem, frequency should be increased to increase solids
velocity. Another way is that downward angle should be increased but it causes
more mud to run off the screen.
2- When screen openings are slightly smaller than particles, blinding effect
reduces the performance of a shaker.
3-The particles which are slightly smaller than openings pass through the pores
barely due to weak orientation and low velocity.
3.7. Vibrational motion patterns
The five types of mechanical vibration are used in solids separation industry:
Circular motion shakers in which motion at the low angels gives the best performance.
This vibrator works by an eccentric drive or mass offsets that causes the shaker to
vibrate in orbital pattern. The solids move across the screen and leave out the screen
due to gravity and directional shifts. The shaker is inclined between 2 to 5 degrees and
are used for clean cuttings [109].
39

Circle-throw machine is another type of vibrator in which an eccentric shaft
shakes the screen at a given angle. As the vibrator returns to the steady state, the
cuttings drops down by gravity to the collector. This equipment is usually used in mining
industry for solids size which varies from 5 to 20 in. This shaker is employed for large
solids and high volume rate at the outlet.
The solids capable of passing through the screen cloth return back to a crusher
and then is mixed with crushed solids. The most common application of this shaker is in
washing process [102]. The results of vibrating screens used in mining industry cannot
be generalized for the shale shakers in drilling field because the main material which a
shale shaker processes is fluid rather than solids [88].
High frequency vibrators vibrate only the screen and are usually used for particle
sizes smaller than 20 mm. These vibrators fulfill a secondary filtration for more
separation process and their angles vary from 3º to 12º [103].
Tumbler screen is another separator in which elliptical motion does the filtration
process. In these screens, the fine material blind the screen center and larger particles
move to the collector. Particles on the screen are broke down and leave the screen
cloth. For improving the separation efficiency of a tumbler screen, adding more decks is
recommended [116].
In G-Control technique, the screen acceleration is measured and then a signal is
sent to a variable frequency drive to keep constant g-force. As drilling fluid enters the
shaker screen, vibration frequency decreases. The current shale shakers in the industry
have high acceleration than required one to handle the situations the screen is heavily
loaded. In recent developments in the shaker industry, a new technology called G-
40

Control came to market to overcome the problem of decreasing acceleration of the
shaker screens due to being loaded. By applying Newton’s second law of motion, we
can easily see that acceleration is inversely proportional to the drilling mud mass .The
shakers in the field work at a constant frequency which results in decreasing
acceleration as mass of mud increases Industrial reports claim that these type of
shakers can remove finer solids than the typical shakers used in the fields [117].
41

CHAPTER. 4
Experiments
4.1. Experimental set up
Shale shakers (vibrating screens) are widely used in the petroleum industry as
the first stage in removing sand particles from drilling muds. The objective of this work
is to develop operating envelope that include all relevant operating variables to provide
improved prediction of shale shaker performance.
The experiments provide valuable data on the performance and experimental
results are used to bench-mark the computer model. There are some parameters, such
as localized porosities, that we could not measure on the pilot plant shakers.
The observations provided some information on the cake, such as porosity, that
could not be observed on the full-scale equipment. The small-scale experiment provided
some information on the cake porosity that could not be observed on the full-scale
equipment. However, the small-scale experiment did not provide a direct comparison to
the full scale machine performance.
A bench scale shaker has been constructed by M-I SWACO, with screen sizes
approximately 2 by 30 inches. This small scale shaker has vibration motion similar to
full scale shale shakers. The parameters such as mud flow rate, mud inlet
concentration, vibration frequency, vibration amplitude, screen opening sizes, and deck
angle, can be varied. The shaker has been installed with tank, pump, and flow system.
The shaker is placed on a frame and equipped with a stirred slurry tank, and pump. A
trough is installed under the screen to return slurry to the tank. Figure 4.1 shows the
setup and all other accessories.
42

The slurry flows on the screen through a T fitting which allows part of slurry flows
through a bypass hose. A valve is used to control flow rate of slurry entering the
channel of the shaker. The slurry returned to stirred tank through bypass line makes the
system as a circulated slurry system. For minimizing particle settling on the channel of
the shaker, flow rate of slurry entering the channel should be maximized by adjusting
the valve. The two connected elbows are used to direct slurry towards the rear wall of
shaker channel.
43

Figure 4.1. Bench scale shaker installed on a support frame. The apparatus is
equipped with a stirred slurry tank, submersible pump, and trough for returning the fluid
and sand back to the tank.
The experimental flow diagram is shown in Figure 4.2. Slurry was prepared in a
tank equipped with a stirrer and a submersible pump was used to pump slurry from the
tank. The flow passed through a T-fitting that distributed the flow between the bypass
line and the flow entering the screen channel. A large diameter gate valve was used as
44

a control valve to pinch the flexible hose through which the slurry entering the screen
channel passed to control the flow entering the screen channel.
The by-pass line returned the flow excess slurry flow to the slurry tank. The
bypass line enabled the flow to the shaker channel to be throttled with the valve to
control the experimental flow rate while maintaining a high flow rate through the inlet
line to the T to minimize particle settling in the line. A trough, fabricated by cutting axially
along the length of a 15 cm plastic pipe, was installed under the channel and screen to
collect water that passed through screen pores. The wet sand filter cake at the outlet of
channel fell into the flowing water in trough and returned to the tank to be remixed and
recycled so that the shaker could be operated continuously without depletion of the
slurry in the slurry tank.
45

Figure.4.2. Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up used to evaluate the
shaker performance
46

Figure 4.3. The inlet flow to the shaker passes through a T fitting that connects
to a bypass line through a valve for controlling the inlet flow rate.
47

The ½ inch inlet hose connects to a T fitting that allows part of the flow to divert
through a by-pass line. A gate valve is used to control the flow through the by-pass and
to provide a means to control the flow rate to the shaker. The by-pass line returns the
flow to the tank. This is designed to keep the flow rate through the inlet hose at a high
velocity to minimize particle settling (Figure 4.3).
The ½ inch inlet flow pipe from the T to the shaker connects to a 1 inch 90 deg
elbow that carries the flow downward into the shaker. A second 90 deg elbow changes
the flow direction towards the rear wall of the shaker. The change from ½ inch to 1 inch
pipe line is to reduce the fluid velocity and the use of the elbows to direct the flow
towards the rear wall is to further reduce the kinetic energy of the flow so that the flow
does not sweep the cake off the screen.
48

4.2. Experiments plan
Set-up experiments on the bench scale shaker will be run with water only to help
us to understand how the shaker performs. These experiments include:
 Correlate the measured frequency and acceleration as a function of the
mass offset (the signal to the motor and the setting of the weights on the
motors).
 Run the shaker with water only to determine the range and capacity of the
shaker.
 We will investigate the flow rate through the shaker by collecting the flow
from the trough into a bucket and timing it with a stopwatch.
The primary parameters we want to vary in the shale shaker experiments are:
 Screen opening (screen type)
 Solids concentration of mud
 Deck angle
 Flow rate
 Filter cake velocity
 Porous media porosity
 Vibration acceleration (the mass offsets on the motors). Figure 4.4 shows
the motors.
 Vibration frequency (vibrator). Figure 4.5 shows the vibrator using in this
research for evaluating the effect of frequency on the capacity of shale
shaker.
49

Figure 4.4. The two motors mounted on the shaker to provide vibration
50

Figure 4.5. The vibrator for evaluation of effect of frequency
We observe:
 Velocity of sand cake on screen as it exits the mud (by tracer or by
videotaping)
 Thickness of sand cake as it exits the screen
 Mud depth (we will install scales at several locations along the length of
the screen)
 The rate of water discharge from the trough (water and sand will be
collected in a bucket, weighed, and filtered to measure the water
separately from the sand)
51

 Form of sand particles attached to each other (clump, filter cake or
accumulated on the screen and blocked the screen)
 Frequency and amplitude
 Porosity of filter cake
The experimental parameters with sand slurries are varied within estimated
ranges as shown in Table 4.1 with a total of 720 experiments.
Table 4.1. Controlled variables of the experiments

PARAMETER No. Range
Variations
Screens (Provided by SWACO) 3
Sand concentration (% by mass) 3 2, 4, 6
Acceleration (mass offset) 4 40,60,80,100
Screen angle (Degree) 4 3,5,7,10
Frequency (Hz) 4 60,80,100,120
The table is organized such that for each screen, three variations of slurry
concentration, four variations of acceleration (mass offset), four variations of screen
angle, and four variations of frequency are conducted.
These parameters are varied as the experiments are in progress for each
acceleration without stopping the experiment. When these parameters are varied, time
will be given for the shaker to reach steady state. Steady state must be determined
from sequential measurements in the flow rate and mud height. A steady state is
mostly achieved on average in about 40 minutes, then the variations of angle and
52

frequency for each set of acceleration experiments take 4 x4 x 40 min = 640 min, or
roughly 11 hr.
After completing each experiment with each frequency, the shaker is turned off
and tank content is discharged and then tank is washed out with water. A fresh slurry is
prepared for replication of each experiment. It is also about one hour required for
cleaning the shaker channel and filling the tank after completion of each experiment.
4.3. Accessories and measurements
In this research three different screen are used. The screens XR 120, XR 200,
and XR are layered screens type. The characteristics of the screens and the results of
the ASME separation efficiency tests carried out on a full-scale shaker with a solids-
laden drilling fluid for the screen mesh size manufactured by M-I SWACO are shown in
the Table.4.2. The equivalent API data are also listed for comparison purposes.
Table.4.2. Characteristics of the screens
53

A pneumatic stirrer was used to mix water and sand in the 20-gal PVC slurry
tank. A submersible pump (Franklin ElectricTM, USA) with flow rate of 935 ml/s was
used to pump the slurry from tank into the shaker.
velocity and porosity of the wet sand filter cake leaving the shaker channel were
measured by collecting and gravimetrically measuring timed samples at the screen
outlet. The moisture content of the sand lump or sand filter cake samples at the outlet of
screen were calculated by determining the total volume of wet sand lump through a
custom made pycnometer using the principle of gas expansion. Volume fraction not
occupied by the sand particles of the cake samples are calculated from the mass of dry
sand particles, the intrinsic density of the sand, and the wet volume of the cake sample.
All measurements were repeated three times and the reported data are the average
values of the three repeats
4.4. Acceleration analysis

Vibration is used in industry for separation purposes to increase filtration
efficiency. The screen vibration assists in moving particles forward and mud leave out
the shaker from the bottom of screen. Screen motion in the bench scale shaker has
elliptical pattern provided by masses mounted in the motors.
The vibrating screens can be vibrated with different accelerations experienced by
an object or a rotating mass. The rotating eccentric weights on a shale shaker are used
to vibrate the screen [101] . The vibrating screen carries particles across its surface and
allows fluid and particles smaller than screen openings to pass through to the slurry
tank. A mass rotating around a point with a constant speed has its own acceleration
[118]. In this research, an accelerometer is used to measure acceleration of a rotating
54

masses in two motors. These two weights spin in two different directions to keep motor
balances and neutralize forces generated by two motors.
The mass offset settings of the weights on the two motor were adjusted on a
scale of zero (no offset, ie, balanced thus zero vibrational acceleration) to 100 (the
maximum acceleration) in increments of 10. Because the acceleration of the whole
assembly also depended on the mass of the shaker, channel, screen, motors, brackets,
etc. and on the spring properties, the accelerations were independently measured with
the accelerometer.
There is 49 degree angle between screen and line perpendicular to the line
passing through the centers of rotation. Figure.4.6 shows rotating masses offset. For
each rotating mass offset (motor weight), acceleration is measured in 3-dimensions in
the Cartesian coordinates.
55

Figure.4.6. Rotating masses offset
The two motors rotate in opposite directions, the force components in the
direction of the line connecting the centers of the two rotating motors cancel out.
However, the force components in the direction of line perpendicular to line passing
through centers of rotation are additive and do not cancel. Line perpendicular to line
passing through centers of rotation is what contributes to the vibrational acceleration
experienced by the screen to which the motors are attached. Schematic 4.7 shows
motor orientations on the bench scale shaker assembly. The vibrations acted along the
line (2) perpendicular to the line (1) passing through the centers of rotations of the motor
shafts. The accelerations in the direction of the line through the centers of rotations of
the motor shafts were canceled out due to the two motors rotating in opposite
56

directions. The screen lies in the X-Y plane. The net accelerations from the motors
ideally act only in the Y-Z plane.
Figure 4.7. A schematic of the motor orientations on the bench scale shaker assembly
The rotation of the mass offset from the motor shaft results in a sinusoidal force
(or acceleration) radially from the center of rotation. This force can be resolved into two
perpendicular components, (1) in the direction of the line connecting the centers of the
two rotating motors, and (2) perpendicular to the line described in (1).
Because the two motors rotate in opposite directions, the force components in
the direction of the line (1) cancel out. However, the force components in the direction
of (2) are additive and do not cancel. (2) is what contributes to the vibrational
acceleration experienced by the screen to which the motors are attached. Since flow
through the screen is dependent on the forces normal to the screen, then the
57

acceleration contributing to move the fluid through the screen is the force component
that is perpendicular to the screen.
The acceleration experienced by the screen was varied between experiments by
adjusting the center of mass of the rotating masses on the motor shafts. The
acceleration delivered to the screen also depended on the mass of the screen assembly
and the properties of the damping springs. The acceleration at the center point of the
shaker is measured by an accelerometer (OMEGA HHV82). The accelerometer was
capable of measuring frequencies up to 1KHz, accelerations up to 200 m/s2, and
velocities up to 400 mm/s. By attaching the magnet sensors on the surface of shaker
channel in the three Cartesian coordinate directions, the acceleration directional
components are measured for different mass offsets and frequencies.
Figures 4.8 to 4.11. show the plots of acceleration components in the X, Y, Z
directions for mass offsets of 40, 60, 80, and 100 for frequencies ranging from 60 to 120
Hz. The plots show all the acceleration components increase by increasing frequency
and mass offset. The Z component of the acceleration was largest of the three
directions. The Z component mostly acts to help drive the water flow through the cake
and screen and to keep the cake loose. The Y component moves the cake along the
screen. The X component may contribute to energy loss, but may also effect whether
the sand forms a flat cake, ribbons, or balls, and the cake emerges from the cake zone.
58

45
40
35
30
Acceleration (m/s2)
25
20
15
10
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4.8. Accelerations plot for mass offset 40
80
70
60
Acceleration (m/s2)
50
40
30
20
10
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
59

140
120
100
Acceleration (m/s2)
80
60
40
20
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
140
120
100
Acceleration (m/s2)
80
60
40
20
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
60

4.5. Hypothesis
There is no comprehensive study on the effect of the operating parameters on
the performance of shale shakers. The capacity of a shale shaker is a function of
parameters such as fluid rheology, shaker angle, mud concentration, acceleration,
frequency, and type of screen mesh.
In real conditions, mud contains different types of hydrocarbon oils. In this
research due to the laboratory restrictions, water is used as drilling water. Therefore, the
effect of fluid rheology is not investigated in this research.
Hypothesis 1:
Vibration is typically used in industry for separation purposes. There are very few
industrial reports on the effect of frequency and acceleration on the separation
efficiency which do not shed light on this matter.
Basis:
Varying the frequency affects the performance of the systems so called “vibrating
screens”. Increasing frequency improves the separation of water from the sand on the
screen [80]. The screen vibration assists in moving particles forward and mud leave out
the shaker from the bottom of screen [119]. Applying more intensive vibration on the
filter cake on the shaker screen causes it moves faster. A few Studies show that
increasing vibration amplitude results in deceasing velocity [88].
Task 1:
For studying the effect of acceleration of vibration, two rotating eccentric weights
leveled from 10 to 100 mounted inside the two motors are used.
61

Task 2:
Vibration frequency are altered from 60Hz to 120Hz by increments of 20Hz.
Preliminary tests with frequencies from 10 to 50 Hz showed that shaker is not capable
of filtration due to the channel blocked by sand accumulation on the channel.
Hypothesis:
It is predicted that changing the angle of the shaker has effect on the humidity of
the filter cake. In drilling industry mud is reused and all efforts are based on minimize
liquid content of solids leaving out the shaker.
It is predicted that increasing angle alters the cake velocity because it increases
resident time of filter cake on the channel which results in more drainage. A new need in
vibrating screens requires vibrating screen with capability of changing angle.
Basis:
A tilted vibrating screen is used to make the cake climb out of the mud and aid in
the drainage. Some studies show that if small angles are used, filter cake will be thinner
but no angle is specified in the previous studies [82, 96]. Thicker cakes formed in higher
angles do not drain as fast as thinner cakes [119].
Task 3:
Experiments are conducted in this work to evaluate whether the residual
moisture in the cake leaving the screen varies with the screen. Angles 3, 5,7, and 10
degree are tested. In each angle, humid content of sand lumps leaving out the channel
are measured.
62

Hypothesis:
The effect of the solid concentration on the efficiency of the shale shaker is not
clear for manufacturers of vibrating screens.
Changing the solid concentration changes the thickness of the cake and the
uniformity of the cake on the screen which also changes the shape of wet cake on the
shaker channel (flat cake & clumps).
Basis:
A vibrating screen meshes can be blocked by solid particles at a specific
concentration. This threshold concentration dominates probability of the channel being
blocked by particles.
Task 4:
Concentrations 2, 4, and 6% are tested to determine the effect of solids content
on the shaker performance and how the shale shaker can effectively separate. A series
of preliminary tests on the experimental shale shaker used in this research showed
when concentration is more than 7% by mass, shake channel is blocked by
accumulation of sand and no separation occurs.
Hypothesis:
Mesh size is a primary parameter which affects the ability of the shaker to
separate solids from liquids. It is anticipated that if the screen mesh changes, the form
of particle accumulation (lumps, filter cake, or unshaped) changes.
Basis:
63

Filter caked formed on the shaker controls the process of filtration [83]. A very
few industrial reports have claimed that there is a possibility of failing in separation
process due to altering the pore size while operational conditions have remained
constant [80]. Covering the screen pores either with particles larger than meshes, called
blinding, or particles slightly smaller than the screen pores are the first reasons for the
shakers to not work efficiently [120].
Task 5:
In this research three different mesh sizes (three screens) of screen are used.
These screens are provided by M-I SWACO which built the bench scale shale shaker
for this study. These screens are called XR 120, XR200, and XR 325; the nomenclature
corresponds with the number of mesh. These screens are layered screens type.
64

4.6. Experimental results
4.6.1. Operating envelopes of the screens XR 120, XR 200, and XR325
In this research three layered screens are used (Table. 4.2). All experiments of
the screens XR 120 and XR 325 were accomplished successfully while the experiments
of the screen XR 200 were limited to the 2% sand concentration due to being worn out
during the 2% experiments. For each screen, three sand concentrations of the slurry of
2%, 4% and 6% by mass were evaluated. For each sand concentration and at the mass
offsets 40, 60, 80, and 100, the angle of the deck was varied from 3°, 5°, 7°, to 10°. At
each deck angle the vibration frequency was varied from 60Hz to 120Hz by increments
of 20Hz.
Figures 4.12 to 4.59 show the effects of angle and acceleration on the flow rate
of slurry measured at the bottom of the screens XR 120 and XR 325 and the velocity of
wet filter cake measured at the outlet of both screens at frequencies 60 through 120 Hz.
Preliminary tests showed that the shale shaker is not capable of separation in the
frequencies less than 60Hz, in which changing acceleration and deck angle do not help
the shaker to filter sands and the shaker channel is plugged by sand accumulation. The
results showed that for concentration of 6% and mass offset 40, the channel was
plugged and filtration didn’t occur.
65

800
2%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Degree)
Figure 4.12. Flow rate profile (f=60 Hz)
800
2%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
66

800
2%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
800
2%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (mL/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
67

800
4%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
800
4%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
68

800
4%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
800
4%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
69

800
6%, XR 120
700
600
Flowr rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
800
6%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
70

800
6%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
800
6%, XR 120
700
600
Flow rate (ml/s)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle(Deg)
71

16
2%, XR 120
14
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
Figure 4.24. Velocity profile (f=60 Hz)
16
2%, XR 120
14
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
72

16
2%, XR 120
14
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
16
2%, XR 120
14
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
73

18
4%, XR 120
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
4%, XR 120
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
74

18
4%, XR 120
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
4%, XR 120
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
75

14
6%, XR 120
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
14
6%, XR 120
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
76

14
6%, XR 120
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
14
6%, XR 120
12
10
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
77

600
2%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (mL/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Degree)
600
2%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (gr/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
78

600
2%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (gr/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
600
2%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
79

600
4%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
600
4%
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
80

600
4%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
600
4%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
81

600
6%, XR 325
500
400
Flowr rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
600
6%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
82

600
6%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
600
6%, XR 325
500
400
Flow rate (ml/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle(Deg)
83

18
2%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
2%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
84

18
2%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
2%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
85

18
4%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
4%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
86

18
4%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (gr/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
4%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
87

18
6%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
6%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
88

18
6%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
18
6%, XR 325
16
14
12
Velocity (cm/s)
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)

89

Increasing acceleration removes the limitations of the high angle and low
frequencies in the shaker operation. The data of 2% sand for the screens XR 120 and
XR 325 showed that increasing mass offset from 60 to 100 increased the flow rate of
slurry measured at the bottom of channel and velocity of the wet cake at the discharge
end of the shaker.
All experiments results indicate that at the same operation conditions, by
increasing solids concentration a higher acceleration is needed to handle the solids. In
concentration 6%, unlike 2 and 4%, the minimum acceleration required to separate
sand in the both screens start from mass offset 60. In this mass offset, the shaker
channel is plugged by sand accumulation because the vibration does not impart shear
enough to push the solids forward across the screen. In the range for which the shaker
successfully operated increasing the frequency and acceleration increased the flow rate
of slurry and cake velocity and increasing the deck angle decreased the flow rate of
slurry and cake velocity.
The results of 2% experiments obtained in all tested angles in the screen XR 120
show that the least increasing effect of mass offset on the velocity can be observed
when mass offset increases from 60 to 80 while the least increasing effect of mass
offset on the velocity in the screen XR 325 is observed when mass offset increases
from 40 to 60. It can be concluded the reciprocal effects of acceleration and angle on
the shaker are dependent upon the vibration frequency.
The results of 2% experiments of the screen XR 120 for flow rate in mass offsets
60,80, and 100 obtained in all tested frequencies show that the least increasing effect of
90

angle on the flow rate can be observed when angle increases from 7 to 10 degree while
it happens for the screen XR 325 for mass offsets 40,60, and 80. The general trend of
velocity changes for the both screens ( Figures.4.24-4.35 and 4.48-4.59) indicate that
the biggest effect of mass offset on the velocity occurs when motors rotate by 100%
mass offset. The results of the 2% experiments for the screen XR 325 show that the
effect of mass offset on the velocity becomes more apparent as frequency increases.
The general trend of 2% experiments for both screens show that at the same operation
condition the screen XR 120 is capable of passing more liquid through the screen than
the screen XR 325.
The results of 4% experiments for the both screens show that the most
increasing effect of mass offset on the flow rate can be observed when mass offset
increases from 40 to 60. The biggest effect of mass offset on velocity in the screen XR
325 experiments can be observed when mass offset increases from 80 to 100.
In 6% experiments for the screen XR 120, increasing mass offset from 80 to 100
resulted in the least increasing effect of mass offset on the flow rate, yet the most
increasing effect of mass offset on the velocity. The results of XR 325 experiments
show that the increasing the angle from 3º to 7º do not have significant effect on the
flow rate.
From literature, the screening of dry sand with inclination angles of 6º, 9º, 15º,
and 19º with constant acceleration showed that the efficiency of the sand separation
had a maximum at the at the 15º angle above which the performance decreased [17]. In
the shaker experiments of this work a maximum was not observed in the range of 3º to
91

10º deck angles. The experiments were not extended to larger angles because in
practice shakers are not operated at such high angles.
In a virtual sieving, experimental simulation on a single particle on the linearly
vibrating screen, vibration amplitude showed high influence on the particle velocity while
vibration frequency and screen angle have very small effect on the velocity. The particle
trajectory indicated that as frequency increases the velocity first increases but then
decreases [121]. In a model of a medium vibration-assisted dead-end, it was concluded
that velocity decreased by increasing in the vibration amplitude [122]. Applying
sinusoidal vertical vibration on a packed bed showed that porosity decreased by
amplifying the vibration and acceleration 6g is most effective value in producing
consolidation [123].
An experimental work done on a 60*60 mesh screen for two amplitude and two
different fluids with no solids shows that the increasing fluid plastic viscosity decreases
flow capacity and there is no considerable change in flow rate with increasing frequency
[124]. Two micro and macro-scale modeling works show that separation efficiency of a
vibrating screen can be decreased by increasing acceleration and deck angle and
decreasing drilling viscosity [97, 125].
In a simulation work on the vibrating screen, velocity of filter cake formed on the
screen is a function of acceleration, frequency, and angle. As frequency increases,
particle conveying velocity decreases provided that vibration amplitude increases [112,
126].
92

General trend of flow rate variations by angle for 4% sand experiments in the
both screens (Figures.4.28-4.31 and 4.40-4.43) show that the flow rate decreases with
increasing shaker angle and increases with increasing acceleration. It has been
observed that flow capacity of a 4º tilted vibrating screen with 4.5ft2 active screen area
and working at frequencies 20 and 60Hz in treating mud containing sand is so sensitive
to the acceleration and less sensitive to the frequency [95]. In the screen XR 120,
Increasing angle from 7° to 10° for mass offsets 60 and 80 does not have big effect on
the capacity of a shale shaker while in mass 100 this negligible effect can be seen when
the shaker is tilted up from 5° to 7°. For mass offset 60, increasing angle from 7° to 10°
does not have much effect on the capacity of the shaker. An industrial report predicts
that increasing g-force might increase filtration capacity of the shaker [105].
A modeling work considering screen open area and conductance as the system
geometrical properties say that screen acceleration and plastic viscosity are the most
effective parameters while the effects of yield values and mud weights are negligible
[112]. In a continuum modeling on the cake formed on the screen shows that mud
height and porosity are the most responsive variables while acceleration and mud
weight are slightly sensitive. A modeling considering screen wire thickness and
permeability as the system geometrical properties show that flow capacity of a vibrating
screen could increases with acceleration, mud height, and angle while increasing mud
concentration results in decreasing capacity [127].
Plots trends for the both screen show that sand velocity increases by an increase
in acceleration and decreases by tilting up the shaker. Increasing frequency increases
velocity. The results of 2% experiments obtained in mass offsets 40, 60, and 80 in the
93

screen XR 120 show that the least increasing effect of angle on the velocity can be
observed when angle increases from 5° to 7°.
The results of 4% experiments obtained in mass offset 40 for the both screens
show that the least increasing effect of angle on the velocity can be observed when
angle increases from 5° to 7°. A modeling work on a screen vibrating with 5g
acceleration and constant frequency suggests that if the screen is tilted upward, filter
cake velocity could be decreased. Model gives good results for the filtration water-
based drilling mud in a shaker tilted with angle 4º and acceleration 4g [97].
In the screen XR 120, the penalty paid by tilting up the screens is that velocity
decreases, but mass offsets 60 and 80 in 6% experiments show that by tilting up the
shaker from 7° to 10°, velocity changes are negligible.
Figures 4.60 to 4.67 show the flow rate of liquid for 2% experiments for the
screen XR 200. The experiments in the frequencies 60 and 80 Hz were completed
successfully while during the experiment 100 HZ, the screen was torn out. The torn-out
screen was also tested at frequency 120 HZ and the experiments did not proceed any
further because the obtained results were not reliable.
Like the experiments of the screens XR 120 and XR 325, the results of the
experiments at frequencies 60 and 80 Hz show that flow rate of slurry at the bottom of
channel and velocity of the wet cake at the discharge end of the shaker increases by
increasing the acceleration and decreases by increasing the angle (Figures 4.60-61 and
4.64-65).
94

Figures 4.62-63 and 4.66-67 show the results of flow rate and velocity at
frequencies 100 and 120 Hz while separation process occurs in the torn-out screen.
The plots of flow rate and velocity at frequencies 100 and 120 Hz do not show the same
trend as we observed from the screen XR 120 and 325. Flow rate and velocity data
obtained from the torn out screen do not follow any specific pattern and in most
operation conditions are in opposition to results of the screens XR 120 and 325. The
results of the torn out screen show the a few small holes created on the screen can
have big effect on the performance of the shaker.
95

350
2%, XR 200
300
250
Flow rate (mL/s)
200
150
100
50
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Degree)
450
2%, XR 200
400
350
300
Flow rate (gr/s)
250
200
150
100
50
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
96

600
2%, XR 200 (torn out)
500
400
Flow rate (gr/s)
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
700
600
500
Flow rate (ml/s)
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
97

9
2%, XR 200
8
6
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)

10
2%, XR 200
9
7
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
98

10
9
7
Velocity (cm/s)
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
25
20
Velocity (cm/s)
15
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
99

Figure 4.68-4.73 depicts the moisture content of the wet filter cake at the outlet of
the screens XR 120 and XR 325 measured in the three accelerations for 4% sand
concentration. In the mass offsets 60,80, and 100, the shaker angle increases from 3°,
5°, 7°, and 10° then at each angle the moisture of sand cake lumps taken from the
channel effluent is measured at frequencies 80, 100, and 120 Hz.
It is anticipated that changing the shaker angle would affect the slurry content of
the filter cake on the screen. In the drilling industry mud is reused and all efforts are
based on minimize liquid content of solids leaving the shaker. The results of screen XR
120 tests (Figure 4.68-4.70) at each angle show that by increasing frequency in the
mass offsets 60 and 80, the moisture decreases. Comparing the results of mass offset
100 tests in the both screens show that increasing frequency has a very little effect on
the moisture in the screen XR120 tests while frequency had a significant effect on the
performance of screen XR 325. It can be seen that changing the angle has a significant
effect on the moisture. The results of mass offset 60 show that in a constant frequency
by increasing angle, the moisture content decreases while the results of mass offset 80
show reverses results.
Increasing time spent on the screen allows more drainage while the buildup of
cake on the screen will retain more mud causing less separation than a smaller angle.
So, there is a trade-off between the capacity of a shaker and humidity content of solids
leaving the shaker channel based on the angle. The data shows that if the deck angle
increases, the filtration capability of the shaker decreases while less drilling fluid leaves
the shaker screen. A tilted vibrating screen makes the filter cake climb out of the mud
100

and aid in the drainage. Some studies show that if small angles are used, the filter cake
will be thinner, but no angle is specified in the previous studies [3, 124].
Thicker cakes formed in higher angles do not drain as fast as thinner cakes [82];
hence there may be an optimum angle that produces the driest cake and minimize
waste of drilling fluid. Observations showed that it is better for a shaker to separate at
minimum possible angle to improve the shaker life. A sharp angle makes a screen
overloaded and worn out, however; low angles makes a shaker to lose more drilling
fluid despite carrying faster solids.
Screen XR 120 results in mass offset 60 for frequencies 80 and 100 show that as
the shaker angle increases, the moisture decreases from 0.63 to 0.33 and from 0.52 to
0.31, respectively, while in mass offset 80 for frequencies 80 and 100, moisture
increases from 0.51 to 0.65 and from 0.42 to 0.55, respectively. At frequency 120 Hz
and by giving more angle to the shaker, the moisture increases from 0.23 to 0.33 for
mass offset 60, while for mass offset 80, moisture remained almost constant. In mass
offset 100, by increasing angle from 3º to 5º then by tilting more to 7º and 10º, the
moisture decreases and then increases.
The results of angle 5º tests in the screen XR 325 show that in all mass offsets
by increasing frequency, the moisture content decreases. It can be observed by
increasing frequency in all tested angle, moisture decreases (Figures 4.71-73).
Obtained results from screen XR 120 experiments show that in angle 3º and for
frequencies 80 and 100 Hz, increasing mass offset from 60 to 100 causes the moisture
to decrease from 0.63 to 0.39 and from 0.52 to 0.37, respectively. In both frequencies,
101

maximum moisture is achieved at mass offset 80 and angle 10º in which the moisture
values are 0.65 and 0.55. In angles 3º and 5º by increasing mass offset from 60 to 100
at a constant frequency of 120 Hz, moisture increases from 0.25 to 0.35 and from 0.29
to 0.32, respectively.
A study on the fluidization of dry glass beads whose mean diameters were
changed from 6 to 100 microns showed that applying vibration whose frequency
changes from 30 to 45 Hz to the bed can cause a decrease in bed void fraction. It has
been also shown that increasing the amplitude of vibration from 0.5 to 1.5 mm
decreases the bed voidage [128].
It is reported that vibrating a fixed bed at frequency 30Hz leads to a decrease in
bed void fraction of glass ballotini [129]. In a report on the packed column filled with
glass beads (0.47mm) designed for of the drainage and centrifuge moisture equivalent
of porous media, it is shown that in a vibration amplitude range from 0.05 to 0.17 cm,
the porosity changes is negligible and ranges between 0.392 and 0.4 [130].
A research on the effect of vibrational energy on the solidification of aluminum
alloys shows that porosity increases by increasing frequency and amplitude [90] . A
numerical simulation on the dynamic behavior of a granule bed shows that by
increasing the frequency up to a specific value, the void fraction reaches to a peak
value and then decreases [131].
102

70
XR 120, Mass offset 60
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
Figure.4.68. screen XR 120 (moisture content of filter cake for mass offset 60)
70
XR 120, Mas offset 80
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
103

70
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
70
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
104

70
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
70
Mass offset 100
60
50
Moisture (%)
40
30
20
10
0
3 5 7 10
Angle (Degree)
105

Figures 4.74 to 4.79 show the operating envelope of the screen XR 120 and 325
for 2,4, and 6% inlet sand concentrations. Operating envelops of 2 and 4% for both
screens show that for the mass offsets less than 40, the channel is not capable of
separation and the channel flooded while the operating envelop of 6% experiments is
not capable of separation for mass offset less than 60. The results for all concentrations
show that increasing frequency to the maximum is not capable of removing the flooding
problem for mass offsets less than 40. Figures 4.80 to 4.82 show the shape of
agglomerated sand particles on the shaker channel.
The general trend of the operating envelops of both screens show that by
increasing concentration, the granulated sand particles tends to transform from clumps
to filter cake. In the screen XR 120, by increasing concentration from 2 to 4%; the area
of clumps becomes 3.3% smaller while the area of filter cake becomes larger by the
same magnitude. By increasing concentration from 4 to 6% in both screens, the area of
clumps significantly decreases 13% while filter cake area is enlarged only 3.3%. The
results imply that for preventing the channel being plugged, the minimum frequency
should be adjusted at 60 Hz. The results of XR 325 show that by increasing
concentration from 2 to 6%, the area of clumps becomes smaller and area of filter cake
becomes larger. Comparison between two screens results show that the screen XR 120
with smaller mesh size forms more filter cake than XR 325.
In drilling industry, it is crucial to measure cake properties such as moisture
content, permeability, and thickness. If granulated sands form clumps on the channel of
shaker, it makes it very difficult to measure the granulated sands properties. It is
106

claimed that optimum performance of the shale shaker can be achieved if solids form
filter cake than clumps.
107

Figure.4.74. Operating envelope of the XR 120 for 2% experiments
108

109

110

Figure 4.80. Sand particles accumulated on the shaker channel (Plugged)
Figure 4.81. Moving agglomerated sand particles in form of clumps
111

Figure 4.82. Moving agglomerated sand particles in form of filter cake
4.7. Data analysis for the screens

Full quadratic models were used to relate the flow rate and velocity to the four
factors – mass offset, frequency, angle and concentration. For modeling the moisture, a
full quadratic model in three factors (mass offset, frequency and angle) was used.
Model coefficients were estimated using the Design of Experiments (DOE) Response
Surface platform of MINITAB 17 software. Quadratic plots depicting main effects for
flow rate, velocity and moisture are shown in Figures 4.83-4.84. These plots are
obtained by the response optimizer method in MINITAB 17.
Plots 4.83-4.84 (A and B) show that the flow rate and velocity profiles resulted
from both screens are an increasing function of mass offset and frequency, but
112

decreases as the angle increases. Main effects plots of flow rate and velocity for screen
XR 120 show that flow rate and velocity are slightly decreasing in concentration.
Quadric plot for velocity (Figure. 4.84B) for the screen XR 325 shows that there
is a quadric relationship between velocity and concentration. An optimum point is at
concentration 4% in which velocity is estimated to be minimized at 3.98 cm/s.
Quadric plots of moisture for the screen XR 120 (Figure. 4.83C) show a clear
quadratic relationship between mass offset and angle. An optimum point is seen at
mass offset 80 in which moisture is estimated to be maximized at 0.47. The moisture
plot verifies that moisture is strongly related to the frequency but that angle has a
negligible effect on the moisture.
The plots of moisture for the screen XR 325 (Figure. 4.84C) show that the
moisture is an increasing function of mass offset, but decreases as the frequency
increases. Figure. 4.84C for the screen XR 325 shows that there is a quadric
relationship between moisture and angle. An optimum point is at angle 7° degree in
which moisture is estimated to be maximized at 0.425. Comparing the plots of both
screens show that the biggest effect of mesh size is on the moisture content of the filter
cake.
P-values for each of the coefficients of the quadratic models for predicting flow
rate, velocity and moisture are shown in Table 4.3. These values were obtained from
the analysis of variance produced using the Response Surface Regression functionality
of Minitab 17.
113

From the ANOVA results for both screens, we see that mass offset, frequency,
and angle have statistically significant impact on flow rate and concentration does not
have significant effect on the flow rate. The only coefficient in the model for flow rate
that was not significant at the 0.05 level was the quadratic term for concentration. For
flow rate, the 2-factor interaction terms of concentration are not statistically significant.
The quadratic and interaction effects were very small, compared to the linear effects.
This can be seen by the nearly linear main effects plots (Figures 4.83A and 4.84A) and
the nearly parallel interaction plots (Figures 4.85A and 4.86A).
In the quadratic model relating filter cake velocity to the four factors for the
screen XR 120, all the linear and quadratic terms except concentration terms are
statistically significant, as well as four of the six 2-factor interaction terms. While the
results of the screen XR 325 show that all the linear, quadric, and 2-factor interaction
terms except concentration* mass offset term are statistically significant. Thus, the
velocity is also significantly impacted by frequency, acceleration, and angle.
Among the 2-factor interactions for the both screens, the strongest effects are
observed in (Figures 4.85B and 4.86B) for the interaction between mass offset and
angle, mass offset and frequency, and angle and frequency. For example, for the
screens XR 120, at low mass offset values; the angle and frequency has small effect on
velocity, but at high mass offsets, both angle and frequency have a clear impact on
velocity. Also, the frequency has a greater effect on velocity at a small angle than at a
large angle. The results of velocity interaction plots for the screen XR 325 show that,
the angle and frequency have distinct effect on the velocity at all ranges of mass offsets.
114

For moisture of filter cake in the both screens, none of the model terms involving
the angle are statistically significant. However, both mass offset and frequency have
significant effects on the moisture. The interaction between mass offset and frequency
is also significant, as seen in Figures 4.85.C and 4.86C. For the screen XR 120, It is
observed that frequency has a much greater impact on moisture at low mass offset
values than at high offset values while for the screen XR 325, frequency has significant
effect on moisture in all range of tested mass offset.
115

Figure 4.83. Main effect plots (XR 120) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture
116

Figure 4.84. Main effect plots (XR 325) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture
117

Table.4.3. P-values for quadratic model coefficients based on analysis of variance
Flow rate Velocity Moisture
Model Parameter XR XR XR XR XR XR
120 325 120 325 120 325
Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0.025
Mass Offset 0 0 0 0.005 0.022 0.042
Linear Angle 0 0 0 0.03 0.777 0.065
Concentration 0.152 0.141 0.095 0 - -
Frequency*Frequency 0.008 0 0.002 0 0.446 0.303
Mass offset*Mass offset 0 0 0 0.007 0.006 0.445
Square Angle*Angle 0 0.009 0.005 0.029 0.659 0.097
Concentration*Concentration 0.211 0.215 0.455 0.025 - -
Mass offset* Angle 0.0143 0.002 0 0.012 0.133 0.807
Mass offset*Frequency 0.008 0.032 0 0 0.003 0.986
2-Way Angle*Frequency 0.001 0.025 0 0 0.773 0.656
Interaction Concentration* Mass Offset 0.244 0.152 0.025 0.454 - -
Concentration*Angle 0.387 0.115 0.283 0.009 - -
Concentration*Frequency 0.09 0.063 0.106 0.002 - -
118

119

Figure 4.85. Interaction plots (XR 120) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture
120

121

Figure 4.86. Interaction plots (XR 325) for A) flow rate, B) velocity; C) moisture
4.8. Conclusion
The performance of a bench scale shale shaker filtrating sand-water slurry in
concentrations 2, 4, and 6% was studied. In four accelerations, the shaker angle was
increased from 3°, 5°, 7°, and 10° and at each angle the frequency was increased from
60Hz to 120Hz. In concentration 4%, the moisture of sand filter cake leaving the shaker
channel for different frequencies, mass offset, and angles was evaluated to find the
effect of operating parameters on the moisture. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this study:
1. The results of flow rate showed that the flow rate decreases with increasing
shaker angle and increases with increasing acceleration.
122

2. The data showed that cake velocity increased with increasing acceleration and
decreasing shaker angle.
3. In concentration 6% unlike 2 and 4%, the minimum acceleration required to

separate sand starts from motor offset 60.
4. By increasing concentration in frequency range 60 to 80, the governing

parameter in filtration is the shaker angle. The nullifying effects of acceleration
and angle on the shaker is dependent on the frequency.
5. The most important parameters affecting the moisture of filter cake are frequency
and mass offset. By increasing frequency, the moisture decreases while angle
didn’t show any influence on the moisture.
123

CHAPTER. 5
Continuum Modeling of the Experimental Shale Shaker
5.1. Porous media models

The continuum theory is used to derive the governing equations of a macro scale
system. For formulating a system like a porous media, the volume averaging technique
is applied for the smallest volume of a porous medium. In this technique, the system
can be modeled as composition of interpenetrating continua which each section
occupies the small part of the space and is separated by interfaces.
The governing equations are based on classical balance laws of continuum
mechanics and interfacial and boundary conditions. Because solving the equations in
the microscopic scale is very complicated so by averaging the equations over the parts
of the system we can overcome this issue. Volume average theory can be applied on a
multiphase system to derive governing equations for viscous and non-viscous flows.
Each phase has thermo-mechanical properties which can be generalized to whole
system [132].
A volume averaging modeling based on shear model has been applied on a
viscous fluid flowing through orifice. The momentum balance was used to predict
velocity and pressure drop profiles of viscous flow. The results of modeling were in a
good agreement with laboratory findings. The results of modeling of fluid flow through
some packed columns showed that porosity magnitude totally depends on location. The
model predicted pressure drop and velocity for both Newtonian and yield stress fluids
[133].
124

A compressible gas model for simulation of the behavior of the vibrating beds
packed with granular materials has been introduced. The model and laboratory studies
were capable of prediction of the gas behavior for the air gap. The results of the work
revealed that void fraction of the vibrating packed beds changes insignificantly [134].
Whitaker applied the volume averaging theory for the stocks fluid flowing through
a porous medium to derive Darcy’s law without using conservative laws. The analysis
provided some simple theoretical definition of the permeability tensor [135].
Wang et al. developed a momentum balance considering the time derivative and
the nonlinear convective terms of velocity. Their model was derived from set of
microscopic equation by applying volume averaging technique. They show that intrinsic
phase averaged velocity should be used for calculating the pressure drop through a
porous media [136].
Tapia et al. developed a momentum balance for the boundaries between a
porous medium and bulk fluid based on the jump balance and volume averaging theory.
In this model, the classical Darcy’s law can be applied for the region outside the
boundary [137] .
Chase and Dachavijit developed a correlation for the yield stress fluid flowing
through the packed beds based on the modified Ergun’s equation. Their model relates
the friction factor to the Reynolds and Hedstrom numbers for flow of the yield stress
fluid through a packed bed which can be used for the prediction of pressure drop.
Comparison of obtained results for a Newtonian and a yield stress fluid flowing through
125

a packed bed of spheres showed that the Non-Newtonian fluid gradually changes its
nature to the Newtonian fluid at large Reynolds numbers and the flow rate [138].
It was found that the yield stress fluid shows its effects on the rheological
properties at low Reynolds numbers and decreases the flow rate. The correlation has
three parameters which are the functions of the roughness and geometry of the
particles. Two parameters of the model were calculated by applying Ergun’s equation
for Newtonian fluids and third parameter was determined from experimental data
resulted from a packed bed [138, 139].
5.2. Packed bed systems
The process of penetration of flow through a porous media is of interests to many
industries [135]. Equations describing a single phase fluid flowing through a porous
media for small velocities prove that Darcy’s law is a special case of the general
momentum balance[140].
Chase and Dachavijit showed that the pressure drop-flow rate performance of an
electrorheological fluid flowing through a packed bed of glass beads agrees with
modified Ergun equation for yield stress flow through a packed bed. Viscosity and yield
stress were functions of electric field. It was observed that the silica particle- silicone oil
suspension formed fibrous structures parallel to the electric field that stretch between
the glass beads from electrode to electrode. It was also found that electrorheological
fluid consisting of particles finer than the pores exposing the electric field showed yield
stress behavior [139].
126

Packed beds are commonly used in different industries. Knowing pressure drop
through a fixed bed is of importance in designing filtration processes. In a packed bed,
pressure drop is caused by simultaneous viscous and kinetic energy losses [138, 141].
Several correlations have been developed for calculating pressure drop in a
packed bed. In a study on the Newtonian flows through a bundle of capillary tubes, a
combination of Blake–Kozeny and Burk–Plummer correlations were used to give the
correlation for pressure drop and friction factor for a wide range of Reynolds numbers
[141].
Several approaches have been proposed for modeling the Non-Newtonian fluids
through porous media. A model for the Non-Newtonian flows through porous media
based on Darcy model and a modified permeability has been proposed. It has been
shown that among all proposed mechanism for modeling non-Newtonian flows through
a porous media, the capillary tube is the most convincing approach [142-144].
In some models, power law fluids have been considered for simulation of the
Non-Newtonian fluids behavior. By applying volume averaged theory and considering
wall effects, the Non-Newtonian fluids considered as the power law fluids have been
modeled through the packed beds [145].
The cake filtration is widely used in the solids-liquid separations. In the process
of the slurry filtration, particles collide with each other and attach to other particles to
form the filter cake. The most accepted technique for relating the pressure drop to the
flow rate through the filter cake, is based on the continuum theory [146]. One of the
phenomena affecting on the performance of a filter cake is the compression. The
127

compression is the filter cake deformation which increases pressure drop [147]. The
different theories such as “cake rearrangement”, “particle migration”, “particle adhesion
effects”, and etc have been developed for defining the mechanism of the compressibility
[146, 147]. The optimum size of the particles which pass through a mesh of screen and
the optimum opening pores size can be derived by the bubble point test [148] .
A work on the relation between acceleration and compressibility of the bed
showed that a packed bed is compacted if the packing density is increased due to the
particle rearrangement. It has been also said that if the smaller particles are lodged
between the larger particles, the internal motion occurs [149] .
5.3. Vibrating bed models
The solids liquid separation has been showed as one of the most important
processes upstream industry which among them the shale shaker is a vital part of
drilling industry. Some techniques have been developed to characterize the separation
capacity of the vibrating screens but still there is not a comprehensive computer model
with correlations to describe the performance of the shale shaker. Optimization of the
vibrating screen performance makes the comparison of parameters and their effects on
capacity easier.
A numerical modeling on the performance of a screen was developed based on
continuum and filtration theories. The model is in the form of dimensionless correlation
which considers viscous and inertial properties of fluid flow. The proposed model
considers screen geometry and wire characteristics. The model showed that viscous
term of the model is dependent upon the porosity of the porous media [150].
128

There are some models which describes the shaker performance but most of
them have not taken in account all parameters effecting on the performance of the
shaker. The weakness in current models are resulted from the complexity of the
filtration operation in the vibrating screens which handle a yield stress fluid such as
drilling fluid [112, 151, 152].
Most of the models of the vibrating screens treat drilling fluid as a Newtonian fluid
than a Bingham Plastic fluid [88]. Another type of Non-Newtonian fluids used in
scientific and engineering area is Electrorheological (ER) fluid whose rheological
properties are varied by applying electric field. The resistance of ER fluids increases by
thousand times by applying the electric field and their nature can be changed from
Newtonian to the yield stress [139].
ER fluids consist of non-conductive micron particles dispersed in a non-
conductive liquid which due to interaction between induced electric dipoles within the
fluid. The forces acting on the ER fluids are thermal, London–Van DerWaals,
electrostatic, polarization, and viscous which the viscous and polarization forces are
most important. ER fluids are used to determine pore size distributions and also to
change structural orientation of loosely packed fibers [153, 154].
The best performance of a vibrating screen can be achieved by elliptical motion
while most of the existing models consider the motion of the shaker as a linear motion
because the dynamic analysis of the elliptical motion is difficult [155].
One of difficulties in modeming of the shale shakers treating drilling fluid is that
mud physical characteristics are varied during the drilling process in a rig field. Due to
129

this problem, most experimental studies on the shale shakes have used water as the
drilling fluid. Another problem with shaker operations is in deriving quantitative results.
Due to this difficulty, most of the numerical works on the vibrating screens only address
the qualitative behavior of filtration [156].
A correlation has been developed to calculate the capacity of the drilling fluid as
a Newtonian fluid and pressure drop through screens for the different types of the
screens. In the model, screen is treated as a thin packed bed. Viscous and inertial
forces were responsible for the pressure drop through the screen and screen tortuosity
was incorporated in the model. The developed formula for calculating the pressure drop
is valid only for laminar flows (NRe<1000) and void fractions from 0.35 to 0.75 [157].
The flow capacity of the shale shakers per the sensitivity analysis is more
sensitive to screen acceleration and plastic viscosity than others. Yield stress and mud
weight has negligible effect on the capacity while porosity and mud height at the inlet
are very important in designing a shale shaker. In a packed bed, the pressure stress
resulted from a Bingham fluid should be greater than yield stress for fluid to flow [112] .
The capacity of a vibrating screen is improved by increasing acceleration, angle and
mud height [138, 158].
To study the segregation of granular material, a mathematical model based on
the mass balance on the sieve was developed for sizing the vibrating screen and
calculating screening efficiency. Model showed a good agreement with experimental
and industrial results [151] . Sun modeled the granular bed of a vibrating screen by
molecular dynamics simulation to investigate the rise dynamics of the particles in a
granular bed related to vertical vibrations [159] . A model for solids conveyance gives
130

the average velocity required for predicting the solids loading factor and actual capacity
of the shale shaker [97].
An experimental work on the effect of vibration on the pressure drop and height
of the bed tested by different powders at the wide range of gas velocities revealed that
the low velocities tend to return solids back to the fixed bed state and high velocities
suspended the solids in the expanded state. This work comes with a theoretical model
which relates the retention force between particles and the coordination number [160].
A model has been developed for behavior simulation of a vibrated packed bed
with granular materials by participating the compressibility. It was found that the results
of the compressible gas model for the air gap thickness and air gap pressure were as
same as the Kroll model. It was found that the effect of vibration on the void fraction of
the vibrated bed is negligible [134].
Akiyama worked on an experimental research and a mathematical model based
on diffusion theory for vibrated beds of powders to validate the compressible gas model.
The results showed a good agreement between experiments and model [161].
A mathematical model based on Monte Carlo technique was developed to
investigate the particle interaction with a screen. In this model parameters of particle
sizes, frequency of vibration, acceleration, and shaker angle were varied to simulate the
separation of particles, thin-layer screening, and thick-layer screening. This model
predicts less screen area [162].
Some modeling studies have been developed to predict the performance of the
shale shakers in the mining industry [93, 152, 163, 164]. A model proposed for the
131

double-deck screens shakers was developed to predict urea granulation process. The
results showed that shakers screen apertures has a big effect on the recycle ratio and
granulation efficiency [165].
5.4. Hypotheses & Motivation
Modeling of the performance of the shale shakers treating drilling mud using
continuum theory has not been study yet. So, a comprehensive mathematical model
with correlations describing the shaker performance has taken attentions of the filtration
and drilling industry.
Continuum theory has the potential of being applied for developing equations. A
systematic mathematical model employing multiphase transport phenomena, Non-
Newtonian models and filtration fundamentals is needed to describe the shale shaker
performance under various operating conditions in which entering drilling mud is a Non-
Newtonian fluid.
In the experimental shale shaker, it was tried to run the shaker in operational
conditions like those in drilling industry. The continuum model should be able to
optimum the shaker performance in handling drilling mud by providing capacity verses
acceleration, angle and other independent variables.
The several models and simulations have been proposed for the vibrating
screens which most of them have solely described only vibration dynamics of the
screen or ignored some of the operational parameters. For example, one of the
weaknesses of the current models is that most of them model the drilling fluid as a
Newtonian fluid [88, 157].
132

The model can be applied to the all of the linear, balanced and unbalanced
elliptical motion while most of the models presented in the literatures can be applied
only for the linear motion [166]. Another shortcoming of existing models is that they do
not consider the particle existing in the drilling and hence the continuum model is an
improvement in the models presented in the literatures.
Hence, the model in this work attempt to overcome some of the shortcomings in
the previous works by applying the realistic operational features of a pilot plant shale
shaker and mud rheology and validate with the results obtained from a laboratory scale
shale shaker.
5.5. Filter cake continuum model
The drilling mud flows onto the screen and eventually forms a filter cake. The
filter cake is the continuum. The vibrations of the screen assist in moving the filter cake
across the screen and eventually the cake emerges out of the pooled liquid because of
depletion of the pooled liquid and inclined screen. Figure 5.1 shows the shale shaker
diagram.
133

Figure 5.1. Schematic of a cake moving on a screen
As the drilling fluid enters from left, the solid particles build up a cake layer on the
surface of the screen. Vibration makes the cake moves to the right. When the filter cake
emerges out of the pooled and the surface of the cake reaches the liquid-air surface,
the drainage zone starts to form at the right of the intersection of the liquid-air surface
and the top of the cake.
The part of the screen where the filter cake does not have pooled liquid it is
called the “drainage zone.” In the drainage zone the capillary and gravity forces are
governing forces dominate. In the drainage zone, the liquid depletion from the cake is
small compared to the filtration rate in the cake zone which it makes it unnecessary to
model the drainage section separately.
5.5.1. Development of the cake model
The process of continuous cake filtration in the bench scale shale shaker is
modeled. As the mud continuously enters the screen, the cake is continuously formed
134

on the screen. The vibrations applied on the screen by motors aids the cake to move
across the screen while the drilling fluid moves downward due to gravity, as indicated in
Fig.5.2. The filtration process reaches to the steady sate at the equal rate of cake
formation and cake removal.
Figure.5.2. Diagram of filter cake formed on the screen with angle β and pool of depth
The volume averaged continuum model is employed for development of the
shale shaker model. This model provides a fundamental framework which by employing
constitutive expressions for drag forces of the yield stress fluid flowing through the cake
and screen, establish a set of governing equations. For simplifying the continuum model
development, the following assumptions are:
 The process is isothermal.
 The sand particles form a filter cake on the screen surface as the drilling
mud flows into the screen.
135

 Density and rheological properties of the liquid phase of the drilling mud is
constant. The liquid phase is considered as a yield stress fluid.
 The free surface of the mud is assumed to be horizontal from the inlet to
where it meets the cake on the surface of the inclined screen.
 The sand particles of the drilling mud are uniformly distributed in the mud
and have a constant intrinsic density and do not agglomerate into larger
particles.
 There are no chemical reactions and no phase change.
 The cake is incompressible and has the constant porosity.
 The cake velocity is not a function of vertical position.
 The inertial and wall shear forces are negligible.
 The viscous forces of the mud are large enough and hence the settling
velocity is negligible.
 The flow drag on the cake particle dominates over the drag at the walls of
the shaker channel.
5.5.2. Model description
The shale shaker is modeled as a continuous cake filtration. Cake forms as
particles collect on the cake surface while the vibration move the across the screen. A
continuum model here applies to either Newtonian or Yield Stress fluids.
The governing equations for modeling the flow through the cake and screen are
the mass and momentum balances derived from volume averaging theory for flow
through a porous media [167, 168]. The equations are also set for the solid phase
(particles forming the cake) and the fluid (drilling mud) phases. Cartesian coordinate is
136

used to portray the horizontal and vertical directions, as indicated in Fig.5.2. Fig.5.3
shows the cake and mud height at an arbitrary position in x and the pressure values at
the boundaries between the mud, cake, and screen regions, for a thin section of cake of
screen length ∆x.
Figure 5. 3. A section of the screen of length ∆ , cake height , mud height
Mass Continuity Equation
. 0 (5.1)
. (5.2)
The superscripts or subscripts i where i = c, m, and scr indicate the quantities
are for the cake, mud, or screen regions, respectively. The quantities are the volume
fractions of the th
region, are the respective directional components of the velocity,
137

th
and are the drag force components between the phases in the region.
superscript shows solid and liquid phases.
Steady state process → =0 (5.3)
0 (5.4)
Phase intrinsic density: ∑ (5.5)
Volume fraction of phases: ∑ ε 1 (5.6)
Cake moves in a constant plug flow velocity in direction:
x → =0 (5.7)
No motion in Z direction → 0 (5.8)
→ Constant
Eq (5.4) reduces to:
0 (5.9)
For the liquid phase → 0 ( ) (5.10)
Eq.(5.9) tells us the velocities of the liquid and solid particles in the cake in the z-
direction are independent of vertical position in the cake.
Incompressible cake → 0 (5.11)
∆
Due to driving force generated by pressure drop ):
138

Negligible settling velocity for particles in the mud:
(5.12)
Assuming the shear at the channel walls of the shaker is negligible and the cake
velocity is not function of vertical position:
0→ → 0 (5.13)
Assuming the lack of separating forces in the x-direction, results in no separation of the
phases in the x direction, hence:
(5.14)
Momentum Equation in Z-Direction

0 0 0 0

SS Eq (5.13) X-Z plane Eq (5.10)

(5.15)
0 0 0
Eq (5.13) X-Z plane Eq (5.10)
Eq.(5.15) reduces to:
0 (5.16)
Mass Jump Balance between two dispersed phases (Mud & Cake)
At the boundary between the cake and the screen the solid velocity in the Z-
direction (vertical direction) is zero. Combining this boundary condition with Eq.(5.9)
139

makes the cake vertical velocity (solid phase of the cake) zero. So, the solids vertical
velocity in the cake is zero everywhere. However, the cake height changes with
position (X-direction) and the velocity. The jump balance is applied to the differential
section of the 2-D interface between the mud and cake as indicated in Figure (5.4). A
correlation relating the mud and cake velocities to the rate of change cake is obtained
from the mass jump balance [169, 170].
Figure 5.4. Section of the interface between the mud and the cake zones.
The steady state jump balance at the boundary between the cake and the mud:
∑ . ∑ . (5.17)
Velocity of interphase at the steady state: 0 (5.18)
Unit Direction Vector: + (5.19)
and are unit direction vector components in the x and z directions.
Combining Eqs (5.17) & (5.19):
140

(5.20)
The solid and liquid phases in Eq.(5.20)are independently conserved, giving
(5.21)
(5.22)
Applying Eqs. (5.6),(5.11), (5.12),(5.14):
1
1
0
(5.23)
Combining and rearranging Eqs (5.21) and (5.22):
(5.24)
From geometric arguments (Fig.5.4), the components of the unit direction vector are
given by:
∆
. sin .
∆ ∆
∆ (5.25)
. cos .
∆ ∆
∆ ∆
→ lim → (5.26)
∆ ∆ → ∆
Approach velocity: (5.27)
141

Combining Eqs (5.24), (5.26), and (5.27) gives:
(5.28)
A correlation is needed for the velocity of the liquid in the cake to solve Eq.(5.28)
for the cake height. The momentum balance controls the rate of liquid flow. The
pressure at the top of the cake is obtained from the static head in the mud, as
indicated in Figure (5.3).
From Figure (5.3):
(5.29)
The height from the screen to the surface of the mud, , is determined from Figure
(5.2):
(5.30)
Integration of Eq (5.16) over cake and screen:
(5.31)
(5.32)
For surfaces with high wettability and in absence of vibration, the surface tension
holds the liquid to the pores on the bottom surface of the screen and results in a
capillary forces the resists the fluid flow. For surfaces with low wettability, capillary force
does not have significant effect on the flow rate. For surfaces with high wettability under
vibration, It is assumed that vibration of the screen causes the underside liquid to shake
142

off of the screen then capillary force resistance holding liquid drops to the underside of
the screen can be neglected. So, in either low or high wettability surfaces, we can
cancel out capillary forces from equations.
Mud bulk density: 1 (5.34)
Combining Eqs.(5.29), (5.31)-(5.33), gives
0 (5.35)
Drag and Friction Factor Correlations
Filter cake
Equation (5.35) is used to derive a correlation for velocity for using in equation
(5.28). Two expressions are needed for and in terms of friction factors. For
packed beds and filter cakes the pressure drop is related to the flow through the Ergun
equation [171]:
∆
| || | (5.36)
Applying Eq (5.16) for the horizontal flow in a packed bed gives:
∆
(5.37)
∆
Combining Eqs (5.36) and (5.37)
| || | (5.38)
For a yield stress fluid flowing through the cake, the friction factor is calculated
through the modified Ergun equation [138]:

143

. .
5.741 0.6 (5.39)
| |
Reynolds Number:
(5.40)
Hedstrom Number:
Screen
We need also to find a correlation for drag force for the yield stress fluid flowing
through the screen. There is not a correlation available for the yield stress flow through
the screen hence the screen is modeled as a bundle of capillary tubes. The Fanning
Friction factor correlation derived by Hanks-Dadia for the flow in a tube with average
velocity of is applied, where [172]
Reynolds and Hedstrom numbers for fluid flowing through the screen:
| |
(5.41)

To obtain a correlation in form of the Eq.(5.39), the following expression is assumed
form
(5.42)
where and are for the laminar and turbulent regimes, respectively.
For a laminar flow, equating the Hagen-Poiseuille and Darcy-Weisbach equations gives
[171]
(5.43)
144

The correlation for has the assumed form
(5.44)
The coefficients 3.83 0.68, 1.83 0.04, and 0.87 0.02 were
obtained by least-squares-error fitting of 20 random points from the factor plot in Hanks
and Dadia [172].
Fanning friction factor:
∆
(5.45)
Applying Eq (5.16) into the Eq (5.45) gives:
∆
(546)
| || | (5.47)
Here R is the effective pore radius. We also need to derive a correlation for R in
the screen. By assuming laminar flow through a bundle of capillary tubes, velocity is
calculated by [171]
∆ .
| | . (5.48)
Darcy’s Law
∆
| | (5.49)
Combing Eqs (5.48) and (5.49)
145

(5.50)
Boundary and Flow Condition
One boundary condition is needed to integrate Eq (5.28). At x=0, the cake height
is zero, 0. The flow condition establishes the location at which the cake formation
stops. This location is the position at which the cake surface intersects the mud
surface, where , or the static pressure is not enough to overcome the yield
stress of the liquid at the pore walls of the cake and screen for flow to occur, whichever
occurs first. No flow also occurs if the static pressures do not exceed the capillary
pressure, even for Newtonian fluids.
The nature of the yield stress fluid requires the stress at the pore walls to exceed
the yield stress, otherwise the flow is zero. This condition is used to determine when
the flow though the cake and screen stops, even if there is still mud above the cake.
Hence, flow in a tube occurs when / 1 where and are yield stress and shear
stress at a tube wall, respectively. The liquid flows through the cake when several
criteria are satisfied. First the mud height must exceed the cake height. Second, the
static pressure must exceed the capillary pressure and the resistance due to the yield
stress in [138]:
Cake: 10.5 (5.51)
Screen 2 (5.52)
146

To solve Eq.(5.28) for the cake height profile, a second order accurate implicit
Euler method is applied. The total flow rate through the cake section is calculated by
numerically integrating the velocities using trapezoidal rule over the area of the cake
section using trapezoidal rule [173, 174].
5.6. Experiments for the continuum model
The experimental shaker was functioned in 15 different operational conditions to
give the effects of the parameters acceleration, frequency, angle, and particle size on
the capacity of the shaker. In all these 15 experiments, the porosity of the filter cake at
the outlet of the screen was measured. The screen acceleration and angle affected the
filter cake velocity traveling across the screen. The acceleration here is the maximum
acceleration which is function of frequency and mass offset. The 15 experiments data
and physical properties of mud and screen are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2,
respectively.
The three particle sizes 200,350, and 500 microns were used in these set of
experiments. A top table sieve shaker was used to sieve the sand blend which varies in
size from 50 microns to 1mm as determined by a sieve analysis. The sand has intrinsic
densities of 2600 kg/m3 and water has a density of 998 kg/m3. The model input
parameters in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 were used for the calculations. The measured cake
velocity and inlet mud height were also input into the computer model.
147

Table.5.1. Experimental data for the bench scale shale shaker
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Acceleration (m/s2) 22.7 48.6 64.3 100.6 127.3 40.5 58.6 76.3 83.9 115.3 16.8 32.1 45.3 72.5 115.8
Frequency (Hz) 80 110 100 120 120 100 120 110 100 110 70 90 80 90 110
Deck angle, (Deg) 3 5 10 3 10 3 5 7 7 10 3 7 3 3 3
Particle size, (Micron) 200 200 200 200 200 350 350 350 350 350 500 500 500 500 500
Volume fraction of liquid 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.976 0.976 0.976 0.976 0.976
in the mud,
Cake porosity, 0.63 0.44 0.51 0.39 0.5 0.37 0.5 0.46 0.47 0.35 0.57 0.43 0.57 0.31 0.41
Bulk density of mud, 1012 1012 1012 1012 1012 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1038 1038 1038 1038 1038
(kg/m3)
Velocity of cake, 1.2 4.1 3.4 8.4 7.5 2.7 4.4 5 4.3 6.6 1.8 2.8 3.4 1.8 10.9
(cm/s)
Initial mud height, 3 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3 2 2 2.5 2 2 2

(cm)
Cake height at outlet 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 1

(cm)
Length of mud above 30‐35 24‐30 10‐19 28‐33 16‐21 30‐35 20‐31 16‐20 14‐19 16‐22 28‐34 18‐25 24‐30 32‐37 27‐31
cake, LExp (cm)
Length of mud above 36 27 13 37 14 43 25 22 21 11 14 16 18 31 25
cake, LModel (cm)
386
Mud flow rate, QExp 276 255 302 295 258 344 398 332 293 311 253 405 165 453
(mL/s)
294
Mud flow rate, QModel 182 150 217 210 172 277 257 248 103 201 161 304 97 358
(mL/s)
148

Table.5.2. Physical properties of mud and screen
Surface tension of mud, (N/m) 0.0728
Plastic viscosity of mud, (kg/ms) 0.000893
Screen thickness, hscr (m) 0.0000927
Screen permeability, kscr (m2) 1.06×10-9
Screen porosity, 0.7
5.6.1. Model calculations

The flow rate, cake height, and the length of mud above cake for the
experimental conditions listed in Table 5.1 were calculated by the model. The free
surface of the entering slurry is horizontal from the inlet to where it intersects the
screen. The slurry enters the channel from the left side of the shaker and forms a pool
of mud with depth h0 which it significantly affects the static pressure driving the flow
through the cake (Figure 5.2). As the mud travels across the screen the sand particles
settle on the screen and form a cake. The screen vibration causes the cake to move
across the screen while the liquid exits the screen through the openings.
The parameter controls the capillary pressure. The capillary pressure
represents a resistance to the flow of the liquid by capillary forces at the bottom of the
screen. Because dynamic vibrations of the screen cause the underside liquid to shake
off the screen then the capillary force resistance is negligible. By setting the to 90
degree in the model effectively eliminates this flow resistance.
The comparison of the results of the calculations with experimental results are
summarized in Table 5.1. The comparison between the results of flow rate and mud
length calculated by model show that there is more 10% variance from the observed
149

values or outside of the expected range. The results of the continuum model for the 15
data sets for flow rate is shown in Figure 5.5. ANOVA analysis is also summarized in
Table.5.3.
500
400
Calculated flow rate (mL/s)
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Experimental flow rate (mL/s)
Figure.5.5. Comparison between experimental and model results
150

Table.5.3. ANOVA analysis for 15 set of experiments
Coefficients Standard Error P‐value
Intercept ‐0.00028 0.000173288 0.145127003
Acceleration 1.78E‐06 5.4981E‐07 0.010315178
Angle ‐1.3E‐05 6.13963E‐06 0.065413453
Particle size 0.210279 0.132908756 0.14807961
Initial Mud height 0.006629 0.004545031 0.178687833
Porosity 0.000669 0.000190664 0.006612561
Based on the ANOVA results, the most important parameters affecting the
capacity of the shaker are acceleration and porosity while angle, particle size, and initial
mud height do not have significant effect on the flow rate. It should be considered that
due to the shortage of experimental data, the results of this analysis are inaccurate. To
overcome this problem, another ANOVA analysis will be applied on another 48 set of
experiments which porosity were not measured in these set of experiments.
Few industrial reports say that porosity of a packed bed varies from 0.45 to 0.55
[175]. An experimental work on a vibrating screen showed that the porosity of a vibrated
packed bed can range up to 0.55 [127].
The range of measured values of porosity of the cake at the shaker channel
outlet varied from 0.31 to 0.63. Measuring porosity of filter cake leaving the shaker has
some difficulties and measured values are not accurate due to some experimental
restrictions. For these 48 sets of experiments, the cake porosity was not measured
though it was expected to fall in the range, hence; the values of porosity were modified
to see the effects on the calculated parameters.
The 48 experimental data sets are shown in Table 5.4. The values of was
changed from 0.45 to 0.55. So, these modified porosity values are used as input
151

parameters in the model. The comparison of the results of the continuum model for the
48 data sets for flow rate with porosity changes are shown in Figure 5.6. ANOVA
analysis is also summarized in Table.5.5.
The calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.45 show that the values are not within 15% of
the experimental values in Table 5.5 then the calculated values are not reasonable
compared to the experiments. The calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.50 indicate that except
for few data sets, the other calculated flow rates are not within 10% of the experimental
values. The calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.55 indicated that the large number of flow
rates predicted by model fall within the within 10% of the experimental values. So,
general trend of flow rate changes with porosity show that increasing porosity increased
the more calculated flow rate within 10% of the experiment values.
152

Figure.5.6. Comparison between experimental and model results in three different porosities
153

Table.5.4. 48 set of experimental data
Experiment No Particle Size Acceleration Deck Angle Mud density Mud volume Initial mud Measured flow rate
( micron) (m/s2) (Degree) (kg/m3) fraction height (cm) (mL/s)
1 200 32.1 3 1012 0.992 2.5 385
2 200 32.1 5 1012 0.992 3 319
3 200 32.1 7 1012 0.992 4 264
4 200 32.1 10 1012 0.992 4 323
5 200 55.9 3 1012 0.992 2.5 347
6 200 55.9 5 1012 0.992 3 402
7 200 55.9 7 1012 0.992 4 366
8 200 55.9 10 1012 0.992 4 309
9 200 72.5 3 1012 0.992 2.5 446
10 200 72.5 5 1012 0.992 3 388
11 200 72.5 7 1012 0.992 4 408
12 200 72.5 10 1012 0.992 4 355
13 200 90.4 3 1012 0.992 2.5 486
14 200 90.4 5 1012 0.992 3 466
15 200 90.4 7 1012 0.992 4 493
16 200 90.4 10 1012 0.992 4 443
17 350 32.1 3 1025 0.984 2.5 356
18 350 32.1 5 1025 0.984 3 332
19 350 32.1 7 1025 0.984 4 387
20 350 32.1 10 1025 0.984 4 316
21 350 55.9 3 1025 0.984 2.5 441
22 350 55.9 5 1025 0.984 3 462
23 350 55.9 7 1025 0.984 4 433
24 350 55.9 10 1025 0.984 4 405
25 350 72.5 3 1025 0.984 2.5 509
26 350 72.5 5 1025 0.984 3 523
27 350 72.5 7 1025 0.984 4 462
154

28 350 72.5 10 1025 0.984 4 387
29 350 90.4 3 1025 0.984 2.5 526
30 350 90.4 5 1025 0.984 3 487
31 350 90.4 7 1025 0.984 4 455
32 350 90.4 10 1025 0.984 4 374
33 500 32.1 3 1038 0.976 2.5 568
34 500 32.1 5 1038 0.976 3 472
35 500 32.1 7 1038 0.976 3.5 463
36 500 32.1 10 1038 0.976 4 486
37 500 55.9 3 1038 0.976 2.5 542
38 500 55.9 5 1038 0.976 3 555
39 500 55.9 7 1038 0.976 3.5 474
40 500 55.9 10 1038 0.976 4 386
41 500 72.5 3 1038 0.976 2.5 523
42 500 72.5 5 1038 0.976 3 520
43 500 72.5 7 1038 0.976 3.5 488
44 500 72.5 10 1038 0.976 4 474
45 500 90.4 3 1038 0.976 2.5 672
46 500 90.4 5 1038 0.976 3 574
47 500 90.4 7 1038 0.976 3.5 605
48 500 90.4 10 1038 0.976 4 574
155

Table.5.5. ANOVA analysis for 48 set of experiments
Coefficients Standard Error P‐value
Intercept 0.000237 6.08847E‐05 0.000348743
Particle size 0.259484 0.052890593 1.37618E‐05
Acceleration 1.97E‐06 2.37688E‐07 1.88376E‐10
Angle ‐1.7E‐05 6.35273E‐06 0.012077404
0.002387 0.002674832 0.377159599

Figures 5.7 show the effect of particle size and porosity on the calculated flow
rate in different operational conditions. The model results show that by increasing
particle size, the flow rate increases. Figure 5.7 (a) shows that by increasing particle
size from 350 to 500 µ, the flow rate was significantly increased compared to Figures
5.7 (b,c). The model also predicts that the flow rate increases by increasing porosity and
this trend was observed in all operational conditions.
156

550
a) A=32.1 m/s2, β=3 deg
500
450
400
350
ɛ=0.45
300
ɛ=0.50
250
ɛ=0.55
200
150
100
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Particle size (Micron)
550 b) A= 55.9 m/s2, β=7 deg

500
450
400
350
ɛ=0.45
300
ɛ=0.50
250
ɛ=0.55
200
150
100
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
550 c) A=90.4 m/s2, β=10 deg

500
450
400
350
ɛ=0.45
300
ɛ=0.50
250
ɛ=0.55
200
150
100
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Figure.5.7. Effect of porosity and particle size on the performance of the shale shaker in different
operational conditions
157

The effects of acceleration and angle on the capacity calculated from the model
are shown in Figures 5.8 to 5.10. All results show that acceleration has much effect on
the flow rate and by increasing acceleration, flow rate increases. The model results for
particles 200 and 350 µ show that by increasing deck angle from 5° to 7°, the capacity
of the shaker either is not changed or slightly increases. General trend of the plots show
that by increasing angle, the flow rate decreases.
158

550
dp=200 µ
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
550
dp=350 µ
500
Calculated fow rate (mL/s)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
550
dp=500 µ
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)

Figure.5.8. Effect of acceleration and angle on the capacity of the shaker (ɛ=0.45)
159

650
dp=200 µ
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)

650
dp=350 µ
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)

dp=500 µ
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
160

750
700
dp=250 µ
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
750
700
dp=350 µ
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
750
700
dp=500 µ
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Angle (Deg)
161

Figure 5.11 shows the plots of the calculated cake height as a function of position
along the screen for three different operational conditions as shown in Table 5.6. It
should be noted that the plots are not to scale causing the angles 3, 7, and 10 of the
screen to appear larger than actual. Plots show that the cake height starts at zero and
gradually increases to the final cake height above the screen at the point where the mud
and cake curves intersect.
162

0.35
Experiment 1
0.3
0.25
Cake height (cm) 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Position on screen (cm)
0.35
Experiment 2
0.3
0.25
Cake height (cm)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.35
Experiment 3
0.3
0.25
Cake height (cm)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 5.11. Plot of calculated cake height for the three experiment (operational conditions and
experimental observations are listed in Table 5.6).
163

Table. 5.6. Operational conditions and experimental observations for the cake height
Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
Acceleration (m/s2) 48.6 76.3 115.3
Deck angle, (Deg) 5 7 10
Particle size, (Micron) 200 350 350
Volume fraction of liquid in the mud, 0.992 0.984 0.984
Cake porosity, 0.44 0.46 0.35
Bulk density of mud, (kg/m3) 1012 1025 1025
Velocity of cake, (cm/s) 4.1 5 6.6
Initial mud height, (cm) 2.5 3 2
Cake height at outlet, Exp (cm) 0.5 1 0.5
Cake height at outlet, Model (cm) 0.13 0.31 0.08
5.6.1.1. Limitations of continuum model
1. The cake porosity is a function of the cake height. The yield stress model
considers a constant porosity through the cake.
2- In this model, the blinding phenomena is neglected but in real operations of
the industrial shale shakers, this phenomenon often happens and due to that, it
blocks the screen pores and decrease the capacity.
3- This research and industrial reports indicate that clumping is usual
phenomena which can be observed. This model does not incorporate the
clumping effect between particles.
164

4- The yield stress model assumes the particles form an even filter cake on the
screen and vibration does not change the cake thickness. However, in an
industrial shale shaker and in the experimental shaker; particles do not form filter
cake in all operational conditions. Depend on the vibration intensity and mud
rheology, particles may form the clumps or block the shaker channel. Because of
wall shear stress, the filter cake moving on the screen is possible to be broken
apart and form particle clusters. For the future work, it is suggested that the
stickiness and agglomeration phenomena are incorporated into the model to
improve the accuracy of the model.
5- The model assumes the mud height constant and it does not account for the
mud height variations due to the vibration. The measured mud heights here are
not accurate and they are average of a range of measured heights.
6- The model does not account for liquid splash due to the vibration.
7-Velocity and porosity of the filter cake cross the screens are not constant and
they are changed. Industrial reports indicate that the mud rheology changes
during the operation while in the model it was assumed that the physical
properties of the mud remain constant throughout the process.
5.6.1.2. Pros and cons of the experimental and industrial shale shakers
The comparison between advantages and disadvantages of the bench scale
shale shaker used in this research and industrial shale shakers show that:
1. Measuring variables such as flow rate, cake velocity, mud height, end etc. in
the bench scale shale shakers are much easier more accurate. Especially
165

about porosity, it should be mentioned that measuring the porosity of the
moving filter cake on the channel of an industrial shale shaker is almost
impossible.
2. Due to experimental restriction, drilling fluid was mixture of water and sand
while real mud is mixture of particles, water, clay, surfactants and some other
chemical compounds. So, behavior of mud in this research was Newtonian
fluid.
3. Industrial shakers are much wider than experimental shakers so in the pilot
scale shale shakers, particles are not affected by wall effects while in the
experimental shaker, we neglected the shear stress which is not a good
assumption.
4. Full scale shale shakers usually work with constant angle and frequency and
it makes it impossible for site engineers and researchers to predict the
performance of the shale shakers in different range of angles and
frequencies. While, the experimental shaker is capable of working in wide
range of frequency and acceleration which is able us to develop the operating
envelope for the shaker.
5.6.2. Experiments for testing the effect of vibration on the capillary force
In the Model Description section (5.5.2), It was mentioned that capillary force is
neglected from the momentum balance over the screen. In this part, it is shown
experimentally that in either low or high wettability surfaces, we can cancel out capillary
forces from equations. For the sake of this purpose, the three membranes Nylon,
Aluminum, and Teflon each with thickness 1/32" are tested.
166

Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water was studied. The purpose of this
experiment is to show if capillary force is canceled or weaken by vibration. Nylon with
contact angle 52 degree is considered as a high wetting surface which holds water and
does not allow water flowing out of capillary tube freely. So, for this situation, vibration
comes to help to push droplets to move. So here it is assumed there is capillary force
which by applying vibration on liquid in surface with high wettability, the capillary force is
eliminated.
Aluminum and Teflon are considered as low wetting surface so droplets do not
stick to the surface and they flow easily. It is predicted vibration should not have
significant on the flow rate because these low wetting surfaces basically do not intend to
hold water and droplets already flow in absence of vibration.
The experimental set up is composed of two PVC sheets each with size
6"*6"*0.5" (Figure 5.12). Then, the membrane is placed between two bases. A very
small hole resembling capillary is made on the membranes. A PVC pipe welded on the
top base to hold water. The setup is put on the vibrating screen to study the effect of
vibration on the flow rate of water leaving the bottom base. The results of flow rate in
absence of vibration and under influence of vibration for three membranes have been in
sown in Figures 5.13-5.15.
167

PVC pipe
PVC sheet
Membrane
Figure 5.12. A photo of set up for testing the effect of vibration on the capillary force
168

The results of Nylon tests proved our initial hypothesis. Figure.5.13 shows that by
applying vibration on liquid flowing through the Nylon membrane with high wettability,
flow rate is higher than the condition with no vibration (frequency=0). The results prove
that by applying vibration, the capillary force is eliminated which results in increasing
flow rate.
The results of Aluminum and Teflon also proved our second hypothesis which
says vibration does not have any significant effect on the flow rate of liquid through a
membrane with low wettability because droplets already flow easily in absence of
vibration. As we see from Figures 5.14 and 5.15, flow rate is not an increasing function
of vibration.
20
Nylon
18
16
14
Fllow rate (mL/s)
12
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
Figure.5.13. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Nylon membrane
169

20
Aluminium
18
16
14
Flow rate (mL/s)
12
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
Figure.5.14. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Al membrane
20
Teflon
18
16
14
Flow rate (ml/s)
12
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Frequency (Hz)
Figure.5.15. Effect of vibration on the flow rate of water through a Teflon membrane
170

5.8. Chapter summary
1- The comparison between the results of flow rate calculated by continuum
model show that there is more 10% variance from the observed values or outside of the
expected range.
2- The calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.45 show that the values are not within 15%
of the experimental values then the calculated values are not reasonable compared to
the experiments. The calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.50 indicate that except for few data
sets, the other calculated flow rates are not within 10% of the experimental values. The
calculated flow rates with ɛ=0.55 indicated that the large number of flow rates predicted
by model fall within the within 10% of the experimental values. So general trend of flow
rate changes with porosity show by increasing porosity the more calculated flow rate fall
within 10% of the experiment value
3-The results of effect of particle size and porosity on the flow rate show that by
increasing particle size, the flow rate increases. The model also predicts that the flow
rate increases by increasing porosity and this trend was observed in all operational
conditions.
4-The model predicts that acceleration has much effect on the flow rate and by
increasing acceleration, flow rate increases. General trend of the plots show that by
increasing angle, the flow rate decreases.
5-The cake height calculated by model shows the cake height starts at zero and
gradually increases to the final cake height above the screen at the point where the mud
and cake curves intersect.
171

6- Comparison of the continuum model results with experimental data showed
the model under predicted the liquid flow rate
172

Symbols
[m] shaker width
, , [-] coefficients
d [m] average particle size
[-] friction factor
[N] drag force
[m/s2] gravity acceleration
[-] number of gravities
h0 [m] depth of mud above the screen at inlet
hc [m] cake height
[m] height from the surface of the screen to the surface of the mud
hscr [m] screen thickness
kscr [m2] screen permeability
[-] Hedstrom Number
[m] screen length
[-] unit vector
[Pa] pressure
[m] effective pore radius
[-] Reynolds number
[m/s] average velocity within the pores
[m/s] approach velocity of the liquid through the cake
[m/s] velocity of the cake moving on the screen
, [m/s] velocities of solid and liquid phases in the region i in direction x
, [m/s] velocities of solid and liquid phases in the mud in direction z
[m3/s] liquid flow rate through the screen

173

Greek symbols
[deg] deck angle
[deg] contact angle with water
μ [kg/m.s] plastic viscosity of the liquid
τ , [N/m2] yield stress
, [-] volume fractions of liquid in the mud and cake
kg/m3] liquid bulk density
[N/m] surface tension
Superscripts
i regions of cake, mud, and screen
c quantities for the cake
m quantities for the mud
scr quantities for the screen
S solid
L liquid
Subscripts
j directional component of the velocity and drag force vectors
x,z vector components in the x and z directions
atm atmospheric
cap capillary
174

CHAPTER.6
Conclusions
6.1. Results and Conclusions
The shale shaker has been used in the drilling industry for many years for
removing sand and coarse particles from drilling fluids. The performance envelopes of
most shale shakers were determined empirically. Systematic empirical studies of full
scale shakers are difficult and expensive to conduct due to the high volumetric flow
rates of drill fluid and coarse materials flowing through the shaker. In a recent effort to
reduce the experimental costs, a bench scale shale shaker was fabricated. As an initial
performance characterization of the bench scale shaker, the bench scale shaker was
evaluated in the separation of sand from a sand-water slurry.
Preliminary tests showed that the shale shaker is not capable of separation in the
frequencies less than 60Hz, in which changing acceleration and deck angle do not help
the shaker to filter sands and the shaker channel is plugged by sand accumulation. The
results showed that for concentration of 6% and mass offset 40, the channel was
plugged and filtration didn’t occur.
Increasing acceleration removed the limitations of the high angle and low
frequencies in the shaker operation. All experiments results indicate that at the same
operation conditions, by increasing solids concentration a higher acceleration is needed
to handle the solids. In the range for which the shaker successfully operated increasing
the frequency and acceleration increased the flow rate of slurry and cake velocity and
increasing the deck angle decreased the flow rate of slurry and cake velocity. Plots
trends for the both screen showed that sand velocity increases by an increase in
175

acceleration and decreases by tilting up the shaker. The general trend of the operating
envelops of both screens showed that by increasing concentration, the granulated sand
particles tends to transform from clumps to filter cake.
Data analysis showed that the flow rate and velocity profiles resulted from both
screens are an increasing function of mass offset and frequency, but decreases as the
angle increases. The moisture plots for the screen XR 120 generated by ANOVA
analysis verified that moisture is strongly related to the frequency but that angle has a
negligible effect on the moisture. The plots of moisture for the screen XR 325 showed
that the moisture is an increasing function of mass offset, but decreases as the
frequency increases.
In the second part of the research, the continuum theory is used to derive the
governing equations of a macro scale system. The governing equations were based on
classical balance laws of continuum mechanics and interfacial and boundary conditions.
The continuum model of the cake was developed to predict the capacity of the shale
shaker. The model accounts for the non-Newtonian yield stress rheology of the drilling
fluid. The comparison between the results of flow rate calculated by continuum model
showed that there is more 10% variance from the observed values or outside of the
expected range.3-The results also showed that by increasing particle size, the flow rate
increases. The model also predicted that the flow rate increases by increasing porosity
and this trend was observed in all operational conditions. The model predicts that
acceleration has much effect on the flow rate and by increasing acceleration, flow rate
increases. General trend of the plots show that by increasing angle, the flow rate
176

decreases. Comparison of the continuum model results with experimental data showed
the model under predicted the liquid flow rate
6.2. Recommendations for Future Work
This work provides a good understanding of the shale shaker performance by
incorporating a comprehensive experimental study and mathematical modeling.
However, it is recommended the following suggestions need to be applied to get better
results. Some of the suggestions for future work are:
1. Due to the experimental restrictions, the drilling mud used in this research is
simply composed of water and sand which shows a Newtonian behavior. A
real drilling mud is composed of water, solids, clay, surfactants, viscofiers,
etc. It is recommended that a comprehensive experimental research is
needed to investigate the effect of operating parameters on the performance
of the shaker in filtration of real drilling mud.
2. In this research, the operation of only two screens were fully studied. The
third screen, due to being torn out, did not provide enough information. It is
recommended the at least three screens are employed to make a better
judgment of screen mesh size on the capacity of the shale shaker.
3. The largest source of error in the experimental part of this research was
measuring the moisture content of the sand lump or sand filter cake
samples at the outlet of screen. The moisture content was measured by
determining the total volume of wet sand lump through a custom made
pycnometer using the principle of gas expansion. For measuring the
177

moisture content of the samples, they were first sprayed by sugar- water
solution to keep the sample particles attached to each other. Then the
surface sample was sprayed by glue to keep the sample shape intact. This
technique has a big error, seriously affect the results of modeling. It is
recommended to use the image analysis software such as J-Image to
measure the void fraction to obtain more reliable data on moisture content.
178

References
1. Simpson, A.T., Comparison of Methods for the Measurement of Mist and Vapor from Light
Mineral Oil–Based Metalworking Fluids. Applied occupational and environmental hygiene, 2003.
18(11): p. 865‐876.
2. Maury, V. and A. Guenot, Practical advantages of mud cooling systems for drilling. SPE Drilling &
Completion, 1995. 10(01): p. 42‐48.
3. Steinsvåg, K., M. Bråtveit, and B.E. Moen, Exposure to oil mist and oil vapour during offshore
drilling in Norway, 1979–2004. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2006. 50(2): p. 109‐122.
4. Steinsvåg, K., et al., Effect of drilling fluid systems and temperature on oil mist and vapour levels
generated from shale shaker. Annals of occupational hygiene, 2011. 55(4): p. 347‐356.
5. Adams, B.A., W.C. Shafer, and N.A. Henry, Drilling rig, pipe and support apparatus. 2002, Google
Patents.
6. Chenevert, M. and S. Osisanya, Shale/mud inhibition defined with rig‐site methods. SPE Drilling
Engineering, 1989. 4(03): p. 261‐268.
7. Hannegan, D.M. and G. Wanzer. Well control considerations‐offshore applications of
underbalanced drilling technology. in SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. 2003. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
8. Halsey, G., et al. Drillstring Torsional Vibrations: Comparison Between Theory and Experiment on
a Full‐Scale Research Drilling Rig. in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 1986.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
9. Khodja, M., et al., Drilling Fluid Technology: Performances and Environmental Considerations.
2010: INTECH Open Access Publisher.
10. Lyons, W.C. and G.J. Plisga, Standard handbook of petroleum and natural gas engineering. 2011:
Gulf Professional Publishing.
11. www.youtube.com.
12. http://science.howstuffworks.com/.
13. Aston, M., et al. Drilling fluids for wellbore strengthening. in IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. 2004.
14. Committee, A.S.S., Drilling fluids processing handbook. 2011: Elsevier.
15. Abrams, A., Mud design to minimize rock impairment due to particle invasion. Journal of
petroleum technology, 1977. 29(05): p. 586‐592.
16. Adibhatla, B., et al., Effect of surfactants on wettability of near‐wellbore regions of gas
reservoirs. Journal of petroleum science and engineering, 2006. 52(1): p. 227‐236.
17. Al‐Riyamy, K. and M.M. Sharma. Filtration properties of oil‐in‐water emulsions containing solids.
in International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control. 2002. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
18. Johancsik, C., D. Friesen, and R. Dawson, Torque and drag in directional wells‐prediction and
measurement. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1984. 36(06): p. 987‐992.
19. Veil, J.A. Drilling waste management: past, present, and future. in SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. 2002. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
20. Reid, P., B. Dolan, and S. Cliffe. Mechanism of shale inhibition by polyols in water based drilling
fluids. in SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. 1995. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
21. Kelly, J., Drilling problem shales 1: Classification simplifies mud selection. Oil and gas J.(3 June),
1968. 66(23): p. 67‐70.
22. Block, J., Completion and workover fluid. 1985, Google Patents.
23. Rogers, W.F., Compostion and properties of oil well drilling fluids. 1948.
179

24. Steiger, R.P., Fundamentals and use of potassium/polymer drilling fluids to minimize drilling and
completion problems associated with hydratable clays. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1982.
34(08): p. 1,661‐1,670.
25. Darley, H.C. and G.R. Gray, Composition and properties of drilling and completion fluids. 1988:
Gulf Professional Publishing.
26. Patel, A., et al. Advances in Inhibitive Water‐Based Drilling Fluids—Can They Replace Oil‐Based
Muds? in International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. 2007. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
27. Dept, A.P.I.P., Recommended practice standard procedure for field testing water‐based drilling
fluids. Vol. 13. 1990: American Petroleum Institute.
28. Specification, A., 13A (SPEC 13A). Specification for Drilling Fluid Materials, 1990.
29. Mahto, V. and V. Sharma, Rheological study of a water based oil well drilling fluid. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2004. 45(1): p. 123‐128.
30. Bland, R., Development of new water‐based mud formulations. 1991, Royal Society of Chemistry:
London. p. 83‐98.
31. Bland, R., Water‐based glycol systems acceptable substitute for oil‐based muds. Oil and Gas
Journal, 1992. 90(26): p. 5.
32. Caenn, R. and G.V. Chillingar, Drilling fluids: State of the art. journal of petroleum science and
engineering, 1996. 14(3): p. 221‐230.
33. Lyons, W., Air and gas drilling manual. 2000: McGraw Hill Professional.
34. Amaerule, J.O., et al. Advances in formation damage assessment and control strategies. in
Annual Technical Meeting. 1988. Petroleum Society of Canada.
35. Coussot, P., F. Bertrand, and B. Herzhaft, Rheological behavior of drilling muds, characterization
using MRI visualization. Oil & gas science and technology, 2004. 59(1): p. 23‐29.
36. Neff, J.M., et al., Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids. 2000: US Department
of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.
37. Burke, C.J. and J.A. Veil, Synthetic‐based drilling fluids have many environmental pluses. Oil and
Gas Journal, 1995. 93(48).
38. Hudson, C., Evaluation of drilling rig fluids handling systems: an integrated fluids management
approach. Offshore Magazine, September, 1999.
39. Bland, R. Quality criteria in selecting glycols as alternatives to oil‐based drilling fluid systems. in
SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Conference. 1994.
40. Civan, F. Water Sensitivity and Swelling Characteristics of Petroleum‐Bearing Formations:
Kinetics and Correlation. in SPE Production and Operations Symposium. 2001. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
41. Durand, C., et al., INFLUENCE OF CLAYS ON BOREHOLE STABILITY‐A LITERATURE SURVEY. 1.
OCCURRENCE OF DRILLING PROBLEMS PHYSICOCHEMICAL DESCRIPTION OF CLAYS AND OF
THEIR INTERACTION WITH FLUIDS. Revue De L Institut Francais Du Petrole, 1995. 50(2): p. 187‐
218.
42. Bishop, S.R. The experimental investigation of formation damage due to the induced flocculation
of clays within a sandstone pore structure by a high salinity brine. in SPE European Formation
Damage Conference. 1997. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
43. Sekimoto, Y., M. Yanagida, and S. Kanda, Completion and workover fluids. 1986, Google Patents.
44. Paulsen, J.E., et al. Environmental Advances in Drilling Fluid Operations Applying a Total Fluid
Management Concept. in AADE 2002 Technology Conference. Drilling and Completion Fluids and
Waste Management, held at the Radisson Astrodome. Houston, Texas, April. 2002.
45. Lummus, J.L. and J.J. Azar, Drilling fluids optimization: a practical field approach. 1986.
180

46. Reid, P. and H. Santos. Novel drilling, completion and workover fluids for depleted zones:
avoiding losses, formation damage and stuck pipe. in SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
47. Ali, A., C. Kalloo, and U. Singh, A practical approach for preventing lost circulation in severely
depleted unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs. SPE Drilling & Completion, 1994. 9(01): p. 32‐38.
48. Andersen, E., et al. An analysis of relative costs in drilling deep wells. in SPE Annual Technical
49. Bennion, D. and F. Thomas. Underbalanced drilling of horizontal wells: Does it really eliminate
formation damage? in SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium. 1994. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
50. Sparkman, G., An introduction to this special section: Offshore technology leads to greater
depths. The Leading Edge, 2000. 19(4): p. 381‐381.
51. Audibert‐Hayet, A. and C. Dalmazzone, Surfactant system for water‐based well fluids. Colloids
and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 2006. 288(1): p. 113‐120.
52. Baghdikian, S.Y., M.M. Sharma, and L.L. Handy. Flow of clay suspensions through porous media.
in SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. 1987. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
53. Lal, M. Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction and shale strength. in SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
54. Benna, M., et al., Effect of pH on rheological properties of purified sodium bentonite suspensions.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1999. 218(2): p. 442‐455.
55. Vinegar, H.J. and S.L. Wellington, Method of determining drilling fluid invasion. 1985, Google
Patents.
56. Neff, J.M., S. McKelvie, and R. Ayers, Environmental impacts of synthetic based drilling fluids.
2000: US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.
57. Suri, A. and M.M. Sharma. Strategies for sizing particles in drilling and completion fluids. in SPE
European Formation Damage Conference. 2001. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
58. Jiashen, Z. and Z. Jingmao, Control of corrosion by inhibitors in drilling muds containing high
concentration of H2S. Corrosion, 1993. 49(2): p. 170‐174.
59. Skalli, L., et al., Surface and core wetting effects of surfactants in oil‐based drilling fluids. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2006. 52(1): p. 253‐260.
60. Quintero, L., An overview of surfactant applications in drilling fluids for the petroleum industry.
Journal of dispersion science and technology, 2002. 23(1‐3): p. 393‐404.
61. Van Oort, E. A novel technique for the investigation of drilling fluid induced borehole instability in
shales. in Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering. 1994. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
62. Simpson, J., T. Walker, and G. Jiang, Environmentally acceptable water‐base mud can prevent
shale hydration and maintain borehole stability. SPE Drilling & Completion, 1995. 10(04): p. 242‐
249.
63. Donovan, J.F., M.H. Johnson, and D.J. Turick, Method of drilling and completing wells. 1997,
Google Patents.
64. Bennett, R., New drilling fluid technology mineral oil mud. Journal of petroleum technology,
1984. 36(06): p. 975‐981.
65. Børgesson, L. and A. Fredriksson. Influence of vibration on the rheological properties of cement.
in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Rheology of Fresh Cement and Concrete, Liverpool. 1990.
66. Zhu, W., et al., A Novel Solution to Sieving Model for a Drilling Fluid Shale Shaker. TELKOMNIKA
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering, 2012. 10(6): p. 1357‐1363.
67. Tattersall, G. and P. Baker, The effect of vibration on the rheological properties of fresh concrete.
Magazine of concrete research, 1988. 40(143): p. 79‐89.
181

68. Kakuta, S. and T. Kojima. Rheology of fresh concrete under vibration. in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on
Rheology of Fresh Cement and Concrete, Liverpool. 1990.
69. Seibert, A., et al. Spray, sieve‐tray, and packed high pressure extraction columns—design and
analysis. in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Supercritical Fluids. 1988. Societe
Francaise de Chemie: Nice, France.
70. Eldridge, R.B., Oil contaminant removal from drill cuttings by supercritical extraction. Industrial
& engineering chemistry research, 1996. 35(6): p. 1901‐1905.
71. Raynor, P.C., J. Volckens, and D. Leith, Modeling evaporative loss of oil mist collected by
sampling filters. Applied occupational and environmental hygiene, 2000. 15(1): p. 90‐96.
72. Bråtveit, M., et al., Modeling of oil mist and oil vapor concentration in the shale shaker area on
offshore drilling installations. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2009. 6(11): p.
679‐686.
73. Klotz, J., R. Krueger, and D. Pye, Effect of perforation damage on well productivity. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 1974. 26(11): p. 1,303‐1,314.
74. Ali, S., et al., Reversible drilling‐fluid emulsions for improved well performance. Oilfield Review,
2004. 16(3): p. 62‐68.
75. Yan, J. and M. Sharma, Wettability alteration and restoration for cores contaminated with oil‐
based muds. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 1989. 2(1): p. 63‐76.
76. Cole, G.M., Assessment and remediation of petroleum contaminated sites. 1994: CRC Press.
77. Haus, F., O. Boissel, and G.‐A. Junter, Multiple regression modelling of mineral base oil
biodegradability based on their physical properties and overall chemical composition.
Chemosphere, 2003. 50(7): p. 939‐948.
78. Friedheim, J. and H. Conn. Second generation synthetic fluids in the north sea: are they better? in
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. 1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
79. Drilling Waste Management Information System website. 2004; Available from:
http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm.
80. Hoberock, L., SHALE SHAKER SELECTION AND OPERATION. 6. FIELD OPERATION OF SHALE
SHAKERS CAN EXTEND SCREEN SERVICE LIFE. Oil & Gas Journal, 1982. 80(5): p. 124‐126.
81. Hoberock, L., SHALE‐SHAKER SELECTION AND OPERATION. 5. FLOW LIMITS FOR
UNCONVENTIONAL SHAKER SCREENS. Oil & Gas Journal, 1982. 80(3): p. 92‐&.
82. Hoberock, L., SHALE‐SHAKER SELECTION+ OPERATION. 1. MODERN SHALE SHAKERS ARE KEY TO
IMPROVED DRILLING. Oil & Gas Journal, 1981. 79(47): p. 107‐113.
83. Raja, V., et al., AADE‐10‐DF‐HO‐11. 2010.
84. Handbook, M.E.M., 3: Shale Shakers, Brandt & Love, Gulf Pub. Co., Oct, 1982.
85. De Silva, C.W., Vibration: fundamentals and practice. 2006: CRC press.
86. El Dhorry, K. and B. Dufilho. Automation Improves Shaker Performance. in IADC/SPE Drilling
87. Adams, T.C., Screen for vibrating separator. 1996, Google Patents.
88. Hoberock, L., A study of vibratory screening of drilling fluids. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
1980. 32(11): p. 1,889‐1,902.
89. Iassonov, P.P., Quantitative prediction of the effect of vibrations on two‐phase immiscible flow in
porous media. 2005.
90. Kocatepe, K., Effect of low frequency vibration on porosity of LM25 and LM6 alloys. Materials &
design, 2007. 28(6): p. 1767‐1775.
91. Reddi, L.N. and S. Challa, Vibratory mobilization of immiscible liquid ganglia in sands. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 1994. 120(5): p. 1170‐1190.
92. Beresnev, I.A., et al., Elastic waves push organic fluids from reservoir rock. Geophysical Research
Letters, 2005. 32(13).
182

93. Heinrich, S., et al., Particle population modeling in fluidized bed‐spray granulation—analysis of
the steady state and unsteady behavior. Powder Technology, 2003. 130(1): p. 154‐161.
94. Fard, A., T.H. Omland, and A. Saasen, Shale shaker's effect on drilling fluids rheological
properties. ANNUAL TRANSACTIONS‐NORDIC RHEOLOGY SOCIETY, 2007. 15: p. 227.
95. Cagle, W. and L. Wilder, Layered shale shaker screens improve mud solids control. World Oil,
1978. 186(5): p. 89‐94.
96. HOBEROCK, L., SHALE‐SHAKER SELECTION AND OPERATION. 4. CURVES ARE USEFUL GUIDE IN
FINDING FLUID CAPACITY LIMITS FOR CONVENTIONAL SHAKER SCREENS. OIL & GAS JOURNAL,
1982. 80(1): p. 89‐&.
97. Lal, M. and L. Hoberock, Solids‐conveyance dynamics and shaker performance. SPE drilling
engineering, 1988. 3(04): p. 385‐394.
98. Jansen, M. and J. Glastonbury, The size separation of particles by screening. Powder Technology,
1968. 1(6): p. 334‐343.
99. Standish, N., A. Bharadwaj, and G. Hariri‐Akbari, A study of the effect of operating variables on
the efficiency of a vibrating screen. Powder technology, 1986. 48(2): p. 161‐172.
100. Wilkinson, H., INVESTIGATION INTO THE PERFORMANCE OF VIBRATING SCREENS FOR SIZING
COLD SINTER. J RION STEE INST, 1971. 209(3): p. 178‐189.
101. Baldwin, P.L., The continuous separation of solid particles by flat deck screens. Trans. Inst. Chem.
Engrs, 1963. 41: p. 255‐263.
102. Fennekotter, K., R. Heinrich, and D. Takev, Vibrating screening machine. 2011, Google Patents.
103. Chandrappa, R. and J. Brown, Solid waste management: Principles and practice. 2012: Springer
Science & Business Media.
104. ZHANG, L. and L.‐w. ZHONG, Dynamics and fatigue analysis of linear vibrating screen [J]. Journal
of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, 2009. 3: p. 021.
105. El Dorry, K., Effect of Constant‐G Control on Shale Shaker Performance, in American Association
of Drilling Engineers (AADE). 2010: Houston,Texas.
106. Baltzer, T.L. and R.E. Norman, Rectangular opening woven screen mesh for filtering solid
particles. 1999, Google Patents.
107. Cagle, W.S., Screen for filtering undesirable particles from a liquid. 1993, Google Patents.
108. WANG, H.‐w., J. LIU, and J.‐l. LIU, Development of New Foreign Shale Shakers. Oil Field
Equipment, 2011. 3: p. 020.
109. W Jr, R.R., Vibrating screen for fine screening of liquids. 1972, Google Patents.
110. Heilhecker, J.K., R.E. Williams, and W.H. Marshall, Apparatus and method for removing and
recovering oil and/or other oil‐based drilling mud additives from drill cuttings. 1989, Google
Patents.
111. Heilhecker, J.K. and D.D. Schoeneman, Dryer system for drilling mud cuttings. 1982, Google
Patents.
112. Hoberock, L., Flow limits in vibrating screen separation of drilling fluids. Filtration and
Separation, 1982: p. 109‐114.
113. Svarovsky, L., Solid‐liquid separation. 2000: Butterworth‐heinemann.
114. Trond Melhus, C.M., Jan Kristian Vasshus, Cubility, Intelligent, Automated Shale Conveyance:
Rotary Screen Vacuum Assisted Gas and Solids Separation System for Drilling Fluids, in American
Association of Drilling Engineers. 2010: Houston, Texas.
115. Bennion, D., B. Lunan, and J. Saponja, Underbalanced Drilling And Completion Operations to
Minimize Formation Damage‐Reservoir Screening Criteria For Optimum Application. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1998. 37(09).
183

116. Hayter, D., et al. Density segregation of granular material in a rotating cylindrical tumbler. in
Smart Materials, Nano‐and Micro‐Smart Systems. 2008. International Society for Optics and
Photonics.
117. El Dorry, K., Effect of Constant‐G Control on Shale Shaker Performance. Houston, Texas, sn, 2010.
118. Hosking, J., The effect of amplitude and frequency of vibration on the performance of a vibratory
screen. 1963.
119. Cagle, W., Shale shaker and centrifugal pumps. Pet. Engr, 1987. 7: p. 37‐42.
120. Hoberock, L., SHALE SHAKER SELECTION AND OPERATION. 2. SCREEN SELECTION IS KEY TO
SHALE‐SHAKER OPERATION. Oil & Gas Journal, 1981. 79(49): p. 130‐&.
121. Lala, Z., L. Chusheng, and Y. Junxia, A virtual experiment showing single particle motion on a
linearly vibrating screen‐deck. Mining Science and Technology (China), 2010. 20(2): p. 276‐280.
122. Gundogdu, O., et al., Vibration‐assisted dead‐end filtration: experiments and theoretical
concepts. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2003. 81(8): p. 916‐923.
123. Woodhead, P. and J. Newton, The effect of sinusoidal vibration on the uniformity of packing of
powder beds. Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology, 1984. 36(9): p. 573‐577.
124. Hoberock, L., A study of vibratory screening of drilling fluids. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
1980. 11: p. 1889‐1902.
125. Dong, K., B. Wang, and A. Yu, Modeling of Particle Flow and Sieving Behavior on a Vibrating
Screen: From Discrete Particle Simulation to Process Performance Prediction. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013. 52(33): p. 11333‐11343.
126. Redford, A. and G. Boothroyd, Vibratory feeding. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, 1967. 182(1): p. 135‐152.
127. Raja, V., Shale Shaker Model and Experimental Validation. 2012, University of Akron.
128. Mawatari, Y., et al., Comparison of three vibrational modes (twist, vertical and horizontal) for
fluidization of fine particles. Advanced Powder Technology, 2001. 12(2): p. 157‐168.
129. Marring, E., A. Hoffmann, and L. Janssen, The effect of vibration on the fluidization behaviour of
some cohesive powders. Powder technology, 1994. 79(1): p. 1‐10.
130. Johnson, A.I., R.C. Prill, and D.A. Morris, Specific yield‐‐column drainage and centrifuge moisture
content. 1963.
131. Kong, X.‐Z., et al., Effects of vibration frequency on intruders' position in granular bed. Physics
Letters A, 2006. 356(4): p. 267‐271.
132. Hassanizadeh, M. and W.G. Gray, General conservation equations for multi‐phase systems: 1.
Averaging procedure. Advances in Water Resources, 1979. 2: p. 131‐144.
133. Liu, S. and J.H. Masliyah, Non‐linear flows in porous media. Journal of Non‐Newtonian Fluid
Mechanics, 1999. 86(1): p. 229‐252.
134. Gutman, R., Vibrated Beds of Powders Part II: Heat Transfer in and Energy Dissipation of a
Vibrated Bed. Trans. lnstn. Chem. Engtw, 1976. 54: p. 251‐257.
135. Whitaker, S., Flow in porous media I: A theoretical derivation of Darcy's law. Transport in porous
media, 1986. 1(1): p. 3‐25.
136. Wang, L., et al., Volume‐averaged macroscopic equation for fluid flow in moving porous media.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2015. 82: p. 357‐368.
137. Alberto, J., Momentum jump condition at the boundary between a porous medium and a
homogeneous fluid: inertial effects. Journal of Porous Media, 1998. 1(3): p. 201‐217.
138. Chase, G.G. and P. Dachavijit, A correlation for yield stress fluid flow through packed beds.
Rheologica Acta, 2005. 44(5): p. 495‐501.
139. Chase, G.G. and P. Dachavijit, An experimental study of electrorheological fluid flow through a
packed bed of glass beads. Transport in Porous Media, 2008. 72(1): p. 25‐35.
184

140. Hassanizadeh, M. and W.G. Gray, General conservation equations for multi‐phase systems: 3.
Constitutive theory for porous media flow. Advances in Water Resources, 1980. 3(1): p. 25‐40.
141. Ergun, S., Fluid flow through packed columns. Chemical engineering progress, 1952. 48.
142. Dharmadhikari, R. and D. Kale, Flow of non‐Newtonian fluids through porous media. Chemical
Engineering Science, 1985. 40(3): p. 527‐528.
143. Christopher, R.H. and S. Middleman, Power‐law flow through a packed tube. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 1965. 4(4): p. 422‐426.
144. Park, H., M. Hawley, and R. Blanks, The flow of non‐Newtonian solutions through packed beds.
Polymer Engineering & Science, 1975. 15(11): p. 761‐773.
145. Hayes, R., et al., Modelling the flow of power law fluids in a packed bed using a volume‐averaged
equation of motion. Transport in porous media, 1996. 23(2): p. 175‐196.
146. Chase, G., J. Steffen, and D. Ott, Microscopic observation of filter cake formation. Separations
Technology, 1994. 4(2): p. 118‐122.
147. Azbel, D.S. and P. Cheremisinoff, Fluid mechanics and unit operations. 1983.
148. Schütz, S., P. Kopf, and M. Piesche, Prediction of pore size and pressure drop of porous woven
wire cloth filter media on the basis of calculation models. Filtration, 2008. 4(8): p. 335‐344.
149. Flemmer, R.C. and I.J. Yule, Coherence of a packed bed under lateral oscillation. Powder
technology, 2007. 171(3): p. 154‐156.
150. Ingmanson, W., et al., Resistance of wire screens to flow of water. Tappi, 1961. 44: p. 47‐54.
151. Ferrara, G., U. Preti, and G. Schena, Modelling of screening operations. International Journal of
Mineral Processing, 1988. 22(1): p. 193‐222.
152. Karra, V., Development of a model for predicting the screening performance of a vibrating
screen. Cim Bulletin, 1979. 72(804): p. 167‐71.
153. HALSEY, T., Electrorheological fluids. Science, 1992. 258(5083): p. 761‐766.
154. Gast, A.P. and C.F. Zukoski, Electrorheological fluids as colloidal suspensions. Advances in Colloid
and Interface Science, 1989. 30: p. 153‐202.
155. Beenken, W., Method for the mathematical modelling of the screening process on circular
vibrating screens. Aufber Tech, 1990. 31: p. 147‐156.
156. Ivanov, K., Optimization of vibrational screening process. Proc. Vibration Problems ICOVP, 2011:
p. 174‐179.
157. Armour, J.C. and J.N. Cannon, Fluid flow through woven screens. AIChE Journal, 1968. 14(3): p.
415‐420.
158. Chase, G.G. and P. Dachavijit, Incompressible cake filtration of a yield stress fluid. Separation
Science and Technology, 2003. 38(4): p. 745‐766.
159. Sun, J., F. Battaglia, and S. Subramaniam, Dynamics and structures of segregation in a dense,
vibrating granular bed. Physical Review E, 2006. 74(6): p. 061307.
160. Jaraiz, E., S. Kimura, and O. Levenspiel, Vibrating beds of fine particles: estimation of
interparticle forces from expansion and pressure drop experiments. Powder technology, 1992.
72(1): p. 23‐30.
161. Akiyama, T. and T. Naito, Vibrated beds of powders: a new mathematical formulation. Chemical
engineering science, 1987. 42(6): p. 1305‐1311.
162. Beeckmans, J. and A. Jutan, Monte Carlo simulation of a probability screen. The Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1989. 67(2): p. 329‐336.
163. Cotabarren, I., et al., Modeling of an industrial double‐roll crusher of a urea granulation circuit.
Powder Technology, 2008. 183(2): p. 224‐230.
164. Drechsler, J., et al., Investigating the dynamic behaviour of fluidized bed spray granulation
processes applying numerical simulation tools. Chemical engineering science, 2005. 60(14): p.
3817‐3833.
185

165. Cotabarren, I.M., et al., Modeling of an industrial vibrating double‐deck screen of a urea
granulation circuit. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2009. 48(6): p. 3187‐3196.
166. Beenken, W., Method for the mathematical modelling of the screening process on circular
vibrating screens. Aufber.‐Tech, 1990. 31: p. 147‐156.
167. Slattery, J.C. and E. Momentum, Mass Transfer in Continua. Robert E. Krieger, New York, USA,
1972.
168. Chase, G., Transport phenomena in porous media. Fluid Flow Handbook, J. Saleh. ed., McGraw
Hill, New York, 2002.
169. Willis, M., et al., A dispersed multiphase theory and its application to filtration. Advances in
porous media, 1991. 1: p. 179‐294.
170. Slattery, J.C., Momentum, energy, and mass transfer in continua. 1972: McGraw‐Hill New York.
171. Bird, R.B., W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot, Transport phenomena. 2nd. New York, 2002.
172. Hanks, R.W. and B.H. Dadia, Theoretical analysis of the turbulent flow of non‐newtonian slurries
in pipes. AIChE Journal, 1971. 17(3): p. 554‐557.
173. Constantinides, A. and N. Mostoufi, Numerical methods for chemical engineers with MATLAB
applications. Vol. 380. 1999: Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River, NJ.
174. Davis, M.E., Numerical methods and modeling for chemical engineers. 2013: Courier
Corporation.
175. Foust, A.S., et al., Principles of unit operations. 2008: John Wiley & Sons.
186

APPENDIX. A
FORTRAN codes for Continuum Model
====================================================
MAIN PROGRAM
PARAMETER (IMAX=10000000)
IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H, O-Z)
IMPLICIT INTEGER (I-N)
COMMON V(0:IMAX),HC(0:IMAX),X(0:IMAX), VCSXE,VCSX,QE,Q
COMMON B,W,WDEG,DX,DP,HSCR,HM0E,HM0,R,XFLOW,XMUD
COMMON EML,ECL,EMS,ECS,ESCR,PSCR,SIGMA,THETASCR,THETASCRDEG
COMMON VIS0,TAO0,DENL,DENS,DENM
COMMON PCAP,G,GMAX,GACCEL,HEP,HE,C1,C2,C3,REMV,REPMV
COMMON ISTOP,VACC,HCEND,HCINIT,EFF,IEFF,IVCSX,XTOL,HTOL
OPEN(UNIT=7,FILE = 'VIBSCREEN.CSV', STATUS = 'UNKNOWN') ! SAVE IN
MSEXCEL FORMAT, ',' DELIMITER&
CHOOSE WHICH EXPT DATA TO FIT, EXPT 1,2,3
WRITE(*,*)' INPUT EXPT NUMBER TO FIT, 1,2,3'
READ(*,*)IEXPT
IF(IEXPT.EQ.1)THEN
CALL INITEXPT1
ELSE IF(IEXPT.EQ.2)THEN
CALL INITEXPT2
ELSE IF(IEXPT.EQ.3)THEN
CALL INITEXPT3
ELSE
WRITE(*,*)'MUST INPUT 1,2,3'
GO TO 10
ENDIF
WRITE(*,*)' EXPT NUMBER ',IEXPT
187

CALL MENU ! INPUT USER CHANGES
CALL CALCHC
ELSE IF(IEFF.EQ.1)THEN
ELSE IF(IEFF.EQ.2)THEN
ENDIF
CALL RESULTS
pause
GO TO 20
END
====================================================
SUBROUTINE INITEXPT1
THIS ROUTINE INITIALIZES VARIABLE VALUES
INPUT DATA FROM VIDYA'S EXPT 1
ECL = 0.45 ! CAKE LIQ VOL FRAC (POROSITY)
EML = 0.938 ! MUD LIQUID VOL FRAC (POROSITY)
ESCR = 0.7 ! SCREEN POROSITY
DENL=1090. ! MUD LIQUID DENSITY (WATER+CLAY), KG/M3
DENS=2600.0 ! SOLID PARTICLE (sand) INTRINSIC DENSITY, KG/M3
HM0E = 0.110 ! INITIAL MUD HEIGHT, M
HSCR=0.000422 ! SCREEN THICKNESS,M
WDEG = 3.0 ! SCREEN ANGLE REALTIVE TO HORIZON, DEG
188

GACCEL = 9.807 ! GRAVITY ACCELERATION, M/S2
DP = 0.0004 ! PARTICLE DIAMETER,M
PSCR=2.73e-9 ! SCREEN PERMEABILITY, M2
SIGMA = 0.0728 ! SURFACE TENSION OF MUD, N/M
THETASCRDEG = 70.0 ! CONTACT ANGLE LIQ ON SCREEN, DEG
VIS0=0.0012 ! LIQUID VISCOSITY, KG/M/S
TAO0=0.037 ! YIELD STRESS, N/M2 TAO0=0.0 =>
B = 1.0 ! WIDTH OF SCREEN, M
IVCSX=1 ! =1 USE EXPT VALUE, =0 USE FITTED EQUATION
VCSXE=0.305 ! EXPT VALUE OF CAKE VELOCITY
Q = 0.0 ! CALCULATED TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE
ISTOP = 0 ! I VALUE AT END OF CAKE SECTION
VACC = 0.0001 ! ACCURACY OF VELOCITY
XTOL = 0.0001 ! TOLERANCE IN SIZING DX
HTOL = 0.0001 ! TOLERANCE IN CALCULATING HC IN ITERATIONS
XFLOW = 0.0 ! LENGTH OF SCREEN WITH FLOW THRU CAKE,M
ITERATED
RETURN
END
====================================================
COMMON COMMON VIS0,TAO0,DENL,DENS,DENM
! INPUT DATA FROM VIDYA'S EXPT 2
189

DENS=2600.0 ! SOLID PARTICLE (sand) INTRINSIC
GMAX = 6.22 ! GRAVITY FORCE MULTIPLIER DUE TO
TAO0=0.037 ! YIELD STRESS, N/M2 TAO0=0.0 => EWTONIAN
QE=0.0462 ! EXPERIMENT TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE
! OTHER PARAMETERS
Q = 0.0 ! CALCULATED TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE
XFLOW = 0.0 ! LENGTH OF SCREEN WITH FLOW THRU CAKE,M
XMUD = 0.0 ! LENGTH OF SCREEN COVERED BY MUD
RETURN
190

END
====================================================
THIS ROUTINE INITIALIZES VARIABLE VALUES
! INPUT DATA FROM VIDYA'S EXPT 3
DENS=2600.0 ! SOLID PARTICLE (sand) INTRINSIC DENSITY, KG/M3
GMAX = 2.59 ! GRAVITY FORCE MULTIPLIER DUE TO VIBRATIONS
191

TAO0=0.037 ! YIELD STRESS, N/M2 TAO0=0.0 => NEWTONIAN
QE=0.0398 ! EXPERIMENT TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE THROUGH THE
SCREEN M3/S
OTHER PARAMETERS
Q = 0.0 ! CALCULATED TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE THROUGH
SCREEN, M3/S
FLOW = 0.0 ! LENGTH OF SCREEN WITH FLOW THRU CAKE,M&
MUD = 0.0 ! LENGTH OF SCREEN COVERED BY MUD
ITERATED
RETURN
END
====================================================
SUBROUTINE CALCCONST
THIS ROUTINE CALCULATES CONSTANTS
192

EMS = 1.0-EML ! MUD SOLID VOL FRAC
ECS = 1.0-ECL ! CAKE SOLID VOL FRAC
DENM=EML*DENL+EMS*DENS ! BULK DENSITY OF MUD,
KG/M3
DENC=ECL*DENL+ECS*DENS ! BULK DENSITY OF MUD,
KG/M3
IF(IVCSX.EQ.1)THEN
VCSX=VCSXE
ELSE
VCSX = 0.084618*GMAX+(-0.01574187)*GMAX*WDEG ! CAKE SOLIDS
VELOCITY IN X DIR, M/S;
ENDIF
ACCELLERATION ON LIQUID
HM0=HM0E ! SET HM0 TO EXPT VALUE, ALTERED IF HM0 IS FITTED
W=WDEG*3.141592654/180.0 ! SCREEN ANGLE RELATIVE
TO HORIZON, RADIANS
THETASCR=THETASCRDEG*3.141592654/180.0 ! CONTACT
ANGLE IN RADIANS
R = (8.0*PSCR/ESCR)**0.5 ! EFFECTIVE PORE RADIUS OF
SCREEN FOR DRAG FORCE CALC
HEP= TAO0*DENL*(DP/VIS0*ECL/(1-ECL))**2 ! HEDSTROM NO. IN CAKE
HE=TAO0*DENL*4.0*R*R/VIS0/VIS0 ! HEDSTROM NO. IN SCREEN
PORES
C1=(1-EML)/(EML-ECL)/VCSX ! CONST IN dh/dx
C2=3.0*(1.0-ECL)*DENL/ECL/ECL/DP ! CONST IN CAKE DRAG
FORCE, FC
C3=DENL/ESCR/R ! CONST IN SCREEN DRAG
FORCE, FSCR
REPMV=DENL*DP/VIS0/(1-ECL) ! CONST IN REP
REMV=2.0*R*DENL/VIS0/ESCR ! CONST IN RE
PCAP=2.0*SIGMA*COS(THETASCR)/R ! CAPILARY FORCE BOTTOM
OF SCREEN, N/M2
193

WHEN QM IS KNOWN, QM=TOTAL MUD FLOW RATE, MASS BALANCE GIVES
! HCEND=EMS*QM/ECS/B/VCSX ! BUT QM NOT KNOWN IN THIS
VERSION
!WHEN QE IS KNOWN, QE=TOTAL WATER FLOW RATE THRU SCREEN
HCEND=EMS*QE/(ECS-EMS)/B/VCSX
! FINAL CAKE HEIGHT
!INITIAL CAKE HEIGHT FROM INTEGRATION OF GOV EQ
HCINIT=0.0 ! INITIAL CAKE HEIGHT
HC(0)=HCINIT
SET DX STEP SIZE
XEND=HM0E/TAN(W)
DX=XTOL*XEND
RETURN
END
===================================================
SUBROUTINE MENU
! THIS ROUTINE ALLOWS THE USER TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PARAMETERS
EML,ECL,EMS,ECS,ESCR,PSCR,SIGMA,THETASCR,THETASCRDEG
WRITE(*,*)' MENU FOR SHALE SHAKER (FIND MUD HEIGHT): V12 8Jan16'
WRITE(*,*)'<1> ECL = ',ECL
WRITE(*,*)'<2> EML = ',EML
WRITE(*,*)'<3> ESCR = ',ESCR
WRITE(*,*)'<4> DENL = ',DENL
WRITE(*,*)'<5> DENS = ',DENS
WRITE(*,*)'<6> DP = ',DP
194

WRITE(*,*)'<7> HM0E = ',HM0E
WRITE(*,*)'<8> HSCR = ',HSCR
WRITE(*,*)'<9> W (DEG) = ',WDEG
WRITE(*,*)'<10> GMAX = ',GMAX
WRITE(*,*)'<11> EFF = ',EFF
WRITE(*,*)'<12> 0=No Fit,1=Fit EFF,2=Fit HMO',IEFF
WRITE(*,*)'<13> PSCR (SCR PERMEABILITY) ',PSCR
WRITE(*,*)'<14> SIGMA = ',SIGMA
WRITE(*,*)'<15> THETASCR (DEG) = ',THETASCRDEG
WRITE(*,*)'<16> VIS0 = ',VIS0
WRITE(*,*)'<17> TAO0 = ',TAO0
WRITE(*,*)'<18> QE (EXPT WATER FLOW RATE) ',QE
WRITE(*,*)'<19> USE EXPT VALUE VCSX (1=YES,0=NO)',IVCSX
WRITE(*,*)'<20> XTOL ',XTOL
WRITE(*,*)'<21> HTOL ',HTOL
WRITE(*,*)'<0> RUN PROGRAM'
WRITE(*,*)'<99> STOP PROGRAM'
READ(*,*)J
IF (J.EQ.1)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT ECL'
READ(*,*)ECL
ELSE IF(J.EQ.2)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT EML'
READ(*,*)EML
ELSE IF(J.EQ.3)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT ESCR'
READ(*,*)ESCR
ELSE IF(J.EQ.4)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT DENL'
READ(*,*)DENL
195

ELSE IF(J.EQ.5)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT DENS'
READ(*,*)DENS
ELSE IF(J.EQ.6)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT DP'
READ(*,*)DP
ELSE IF(J.EQ.7)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT HM0E'
READ(*,*)HM0E
ELSE IF(J.EQ.8)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT HSCR'
READ(*,*)HSCR
ELSE IF(J.EQ.9)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT W'
READ(*,*)W
ELSE IF(J.EQ.10)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT GMAX'
READ(*,*)GMAX
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT EFF'
READ(*,*)EFF
IEFF=IEFF+1
IF(IEFF.GT.2)THEN
IEFF=0
ENDIF
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT PSCR'
READ(*,*)PSCR
196

WRITE(*,*)'INPUT SIGMA'
READ(*,*)SIGMA
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT THETASCR (DEG)'
READ(*,*)THETASCRDEG
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT VIS0'
READ(*,*)VIS0
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT TAO0'
READ(*,*)TAO0
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT QE'
READ(*,*)QE
IF(IVCSX.EQ.0)THEN
IVCSX=1
ELSE
IVCSX=0
ENDIF
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT XTOL'
READ(*,*)XTOL
WRITE(*,*)'INPUT HTOL'
READ(*,*)HTOL
ELSE IF(J.LT.1)THEN
RETURN
ELSE IF(J.GE.99)THEN
CALL SAVEFILE
197

CLOSE (UNIT=7)
STOP
ENDIF
GOTO 10
END
===================================================
! SET INITIAL ARRAY VALUES
V(I)=0.0 ! LIQ VELOCITY IN Z DIR THROUGH CAKE (NEG QUANTITY), M/S
HC(I)=0.0 ! CAKE HEIGHT
X(I)=0.0 ! HORIZONTAL POSITIONS
ENDDO
HC(0)=HCINIT
ISTOP=0
! FIRST POINT, AT X=0, FIND VELOCITY
I=0
X(I)=0.0
HM=HM0-X(I)*TAN(W)
IF(FLOW(I).LE.0.0)THEN
WRITE(*,*) 'NO FLOW CONDITION AT X=0'
ISTOP=1
ELSE
198

V(I)=FINDV(HC(I),X(I))
ENDIF
ACONST=C1*(-1.0)
DO WHILE(ISTOP.EQ.0) !ISTOP
I=I+1
WRITE(*,*)' I = ',I
X(I)=X(I-1)+DX
IF(I+1.GT.IMAX)THEN
PAUSE 'IMAX LIMIT REACHED'
ISTOP=I
ENDIF
HM=HM0-X(I)*TAN(W)
IF(HM.LT.HC(I-1))THEN !END OF MUD
CALL ENDCAKE(I)
ELSE IF(FLOW(I-1).LE.0.0)THEN
CALL NOFLOW(I)
ELSE !FLOW OCCURS
! ITERATE TO FIND HC
ITOL=0
FIM1=ACONST*V(I-1)
HCS=HC(I-1)*DX*FIM1
jcount=0
DO WHILE(ITOL.EQ.0) !ITOL
HCSM1=HCS
VS=FINDV(HCS,X(I))
FI=ACONST*VS
HCS=HC(I-1)+DX*(FI+FIM1)/2.0
RATIO=ABS(HCS-HCSM1)/HCSM1
IF(RATIO.LT.HTOL)ITOL=1
if(jcount.gt.1000)itol=1
199

ENDDO !ITOL
V(I)=VS
HC(I)=HCS
ENDIF
ENDDO !ISTOP
! CALCULATE AND SAVE RESULTS
CALL QFLOW ! CALCULATES Q
!CALL SAVEFILE
RETURN
END
===================================================
SUBROUTINE ENDCAKE(I)
WRITE(*,*)'END OF CAKE SECTION REACHED'
ISTOP=I
HC(ISTOP)=HC(ISTOP-1)
V(I)=0.0
! LENGTH OF SCREEN WITH FLOW THRU CAKE
XFLOW=X(I)
! LENGTH OF SCREEN COVERD WITH MUD
XMUD=(HM0-HC(I))/TAN(W)
RETURN
200

END
===================================================
SUBROUTINE QFLOW
DO I=1,ISTOP ! USE TRAPEZOID METHOD
TERM=0.5*(V(I)+V(I-1))*(X(I)-X(I-1))
Q=Q+TERM*B
ENDDO
Q=ABS(Q) ! VELOCITY IS NEGATIVE BUT Q IS REPORTED AS POSITIVE
RETURN
END
====================================================
FUNCTION FINDV(HCC,XCC)
THIS SUBROUTINE FINDS THE VALUE OF V USING BISECTION ! HCC=CURRENT
VALUE OF HC
! XCC=CURRENT VALUE OF X
201

! VELOCITY GUESSES
V1=0.0 ! SMALL VALUE
V2=(-100.0) ! LARGE VALUE
FMID=FMOMENTUM(V2,HCC,XCC)
F=FMOMENTUM(V1,HCC,XCC)
IF(F*FMID.GE.0.0)THEN
PAUSE 'ROOT MUST BE BRACKETED IN FINDV'
ENDIF
IF(F.LT.0.0)THEN !ORIENT SEARCH SO THAT F>0 LIES AT X+DX
FINDV=V1
DV=V2-V1
ELSE
FINDV=V2
DV=V1-V2
ENDIF
DO J=1,40 !BISECTION LOOP
DV=DV*0.5
VMID=FINDV+DV
IF(ABS(DV).LT.VACC .OR. FMID.EQ.0.0) RETURN
ENDDO
PAUSE 'TOO MANY BISECTIONS IN FINDV'
END
=====================================================
FUNCTION FC(U)
202

FC=C2*ABS(U)*U*FFC(U)
RETURN
END
=====================================================
FUNCTION FFC(U)
REP=REPMV*ABS(U)
FFC=5.741*(REP**(-1.969))*(HEP**0.958)+60.0/REP+0.6
RETURN
END
=====================================================
FUNCTION FFSCR(U)
203

RE=REMV*ABS(U)
FFSCR=3.83*(RE**(-1.83))*(HE**0.87)+16.0/RE+0.001
RETURN
END
FUNCTION HM0MIN(I)
RES1=10.5*(1.-ECL)/DP/ECL*HC(I)*TAO0
RES2=2*HSCR/R*TAO0
RES=RES1
IF(RES2.GT.RES)RES=RES2
HM0MIN=HCINIT+((RESISTANCE+PCAP)/G-DENL*(HCINIT+HSCR))/DENM
RETURN
END
204

Performance Study of A Bench Scale Shale Shaker (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Performance Study of A Bench Scale Shale Shaker (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Study of A Bench Scale Shale Shaker (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A BENCH

SCALE SHALE SHAKER

Saeid Ghaniyari Benis

Saeid Ghaniyari Benis

Adviser Department Chair

Committee Member Dean of the College

Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

push for tenacity ring in my ears.

— truly I have been blessed to have you in my life.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my supervisor,

him for his friendship, empathy, and great sense of humor.

I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Prof. H. Michael Cheung, Prof.

2, 4, and 6 % concentrations by mass of sand in water for variations of vibration

scale shale shaker (M-I SWACO, A Schlumberger Company).

Few studies have been published on the performance of shale shakers.

during the operation of a full scale shale shaker.

To overcome some of the experimental issues of a full scale shaker a custom

with fluids containing fine clays.

List of Figures VIII

1.1. Research Statement and Approach 1

1.2. Dissertation Organization 4

CHAPTER.2. Drilling Fluid

2.1 . Introduction on drilling fluid 6

2.2 . Classification of drilling fluid 9

2.2.1. Oil-based drilling fluid 9

2.2.2. Water-based drilling fluid 10

2.2.3. Air-based drilling fluid 11

2.2.4. Synthetic-based drilling fluid 12

2.3. Functions of drilling fluid 13

2. 4. Drilling fluid components 16

2. 4.1. Weighing chemicals &salts 16

2. 4.2. Filtration control chemicals 17

2.4.3. Drilling fluid additives &surfactants 19

2.5. Drilling fluid reuse 20

2. 7. Environmental concerns & degradability of drilling fluids 23

3.1. An introduction on the shale shakers 26

3.2. Types of the shale shakers 27

3. 3. Parameters affecting the performance of a shale shaker 28

3. 4. Fundamental parts of a shale shaker 32

3.4.2. Screen parts 36

3.5. Existing technologies using in the filtration of drilling mud 37

3. 6. Principles of screening process 38

3.7. Vibrational motion patterns 39

4.1. Experimental set up 42

4.2. Experiments plan 49

4.3. Accessories and measurements 53

4.4. Acceleration analysis 54

4.6.1. Operating envelopes of the screens XR 120, XR 200, and XR325 65

4.7. Data analysis for the screens 112

4.8. Conclusion 122

CHAPTER. 5. Continuum Modeling of the Experimental Shale Shaker

5.1. Porous media models 124

5.2. Packed bed systems 126

5.4. Hypotheses& Motivation 132

5.5. Filter cake continuum model 133

5.5.1. Development of the cake model 134

5.5.2. Model description 136