.

An Improved Mathematical Model for Relating Shear Stress to Shear Rate in Drilling Fluids and Cement Slurnes
R. E. ROBEliTSON H, A. STIFF, JR. MEMBERS SPE-AIME

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD DALLAS, TEX.

CO.

ABSTRACT The Newtonian, Bingham, and power law models previously have been used to approximate the rheology o{ drilling fluids and cements. The proposed yieId-pseudopiastic model provides more consistently accurate d~scriptions oi the rheology oi such fluids. relationships between the wal! Simple explicit wdear rate and the volumetric flow rate in botb pipe and annular flow have been derived from this model /or use in engineering calculations, INTRODUCTION Two mathematical models have been widely used with drilling fluids and cement slurries for relating shear stress to shear rate. The most popular is that of Bingham, 1
T =Ty+qj $...... . . . . . . . . (1)

pseudoplastics, fluids that exhibit a yield stress as well as a nonlinear relationship between shear stress and shear rate once flow is initiated. A three-parameter model for such fluids, proposed by Herschel and Bulkley,4 combines the character sties of the Bingham and power law models:
T

=7Y-EK~nSOO.

. --.*(3)

Eq. 3 describes the behavior of yield-pseudoplastics reasonably well,s but again, no explicit relationship can be derived between the shear rate and the volumetric flow rate in a pipe or an annulus. Thus, the need exists for a model that will adequately describe yield-pseudoplastics, such as drilling fluids and cement slurries, and that has the analytical utiIity of the power Iaw model for engineering calculations. PROPOSED The proposed
T= A(; +C)B

MODEL the form . . . ..-. .s (4)

which describes this relationship as linear after an initial yield. Very few, if any, drilling fluids or cement slurries conform to this model, and no explicit relationship can be derived between the shear rate and the volumetric flow rate in a pipe or an annulus. In recent years, the Ostwald-de Waele or power law model,z ~= K~u, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

model

takes . ..-

has gained popularity.s Eq. 2 describes a fluid with no yield stress and a constant ratio between the logarithms of the shear stress and the shear rate Simple explicit over a workable range. the shear rate and the relationships between volumetric flow rate in a pipe and an annulus can be derived from the equation, but the model often does not fit actual shear stress and shear rate data. Actual shear stress/shear rate data for many fluids place them in the categoy of yieldOrlglnal manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Jan. 13, 197S. Paper accepted for publication July 30, 1975. Revised manuscript received Nov. 21, 1975. Paper (SPE 5333) was first presented at the SP E-AIME Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, held in Denver, Colo., April 7-9, 1975. @ Copyright 1976 Amcrkan Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.. lReferencea given at end of paPer. This piper will be included in the 1976 Trenaactforrs volume, FSBRUARY, 1976

It adequately describes the relationship between sheai. rate and shear stress for most drilling fluids and cement slurries. A simple explicit equation relating shear rate to the volumetric flow rate in a pipe or annulus can be derived from Eq. 4. As an added feature, the values of the constants characterize the fluid. Thus, it can be seen that when B = 1.0 and C = O, Eq. 4 becomes ~=/j~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(5)

which describes the flow properties of a Newtonian fluid. When B = 1.0 and CYO, the fluid is a Bingham plastic, as described in Eq. 1. When B # 1.0 and c = O, the fluid follows the power law model, as shown in Eq. 2. The parameters A and B can be considered similarly to the parameters of the power law model. However, the third parameter, C, has a somewhat different connotation than the yield stress of the Bingham model. In this model, it appears as a correction to the shear rate rather than the shear stress, and the term (~ + C) can be considered as shear rat:,. or the shear rate that an ceffective wotdd be required for a power law fluid to produce
31

the same shear stress. This concept also suggests that the relationships derived from this model will differ from those for the power law model by a correction term, which is verified below. To evaluate the parameters, the shear stress corresponding to several shear rates is plotted. The geometric mean of the shear stress is then calculated from

The relationship between volumetric flow rate and shear rate at the pipe wall using the proposed model is developed i,l Appendix A. A simple ex;dicit expression results: j% 3B+1 ~

8U T+-&.....

(13)

3==(*m,07m*x)~. . .
and the correspondi~g plot and substituted C) to obtain C: c = &itI bx2y-7min-7mex value

(6)

of ~G is read

from the

in Eq. 7 (derived

in Appendix

Using this equation, the wall shear rate in the pipe at a given volumetric flow rate can be found. This can be used to determine the effectjve viscosity 10 from

+2
- o

. . (7) Eq. 4 Annular flow can be considered as flow between can be parallel plates,l 1 and an expression developed using this model to relate the volumetric flow rate in the annulus to the shear rate. This also leads to a simple explicit equation that is developed in Appendix B:

It is evident that the logarithmic form of plots a straight line on log-log coordinates: logr=log A+lllog(~+C).

. . . . . . (8)

Thus, if r is plotted vs (~ + C) on log-log coordinates, B is rhe siope and A is the intercept where (j+ c) = 1.0. The values of A and B also can be calculated from the usual slope and intercept equations without plotting. 6 ~= NZ(PQ) NsP2 ~P~Q (xP)z . . . . . . . . . (9)

The effective viscosity determined by substituting

in the annulus into Eq. 14.

is

then

EVALUATION OF MODELS USING REAL FLUIDS Shear rate/shear stress data for a variety of fluids have been recordedlz using Farm viscometers (Models 35 and 39). These data were used to calculate parameters for the Bingham, power law, The models were then and proposed models. applied to the original shear rate data to calculate shear stresses, which were compared with the experimental shear stresses, The proposed model consistently gave results that were better than either of the popularly used models. Neither the the Bingham nor the power law model showed any con si stent superiority each fit some fluids well and others poorly. For convenience, most people use only one of the models, thereby accepting poor results part of the time. The consistently superior results of the proposed model make it possible to use one model all the time and still obtain the best possible fit for all fluids.
EXAMPLES

log A=

XQ;

Bhp

. . . . . . . . . .

(10)

PIPE

AND ANNULAR

FLOW CALCULATIONS

Theological data on drilling fluids and cement slurries usually are obtained from concentric cylinder viscometers that show the shear stress and the corresponding shear rate at a point on the velocity profile of the fluid. To use these data for flow calculations in a pipe, it is necessary to relate the volumetric flow rate to the shear rate at the pipe wall. Rabinowitsch7 and Mooney8 developed equations relating volumetric flow rate in a pipe to shear stress at the wall. Thus, the form of the equation relating volumetric flow rate and wall shear rate depends on the model used to relate shear rate to shear stress. For a Newtonian model, it can be shown that shear rate at the wall of the pipe can be expressed byg _
~R

32q ~d3

8U d

. . . . . . . . ..

(11)

Use of the Bingham model leads to an implicit equation that only can be solved by approximation, while the power law model provides the following simple expression: 10
+R =

3n+l 4n

...

8U d

.(12)

Fluid A, a drilling fluid, was evaluated using the Model 35 Farm viscometer, with the results shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The proposed model calculated shear stresses with an average error of *2.87 percent, compared with i 5.55 percent for the power law and t 19.20 percent for the Bingham model. Standard deviations increased with average error for this fluid, so that the consistency of fit also was best for the proposed model. Fluid B was a cement that was evaluated with the Model 35 Farm viscometer, as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2. The average error for the proposed
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

32

20 t

15

10

o0

L-------,--/

,/.,-/------------

//
I
1
800 1000

70

60 -

50 -

$
a =
h

40 -30 ./ ,.,,

./

,;>

.----

------.
600

FANN DATA PROPOSEDMODEL POWER LAW BINGHAM

/
/

.,. 1 . /

,, / ,

-----..
400 ; (See-l) 600

FANN DATA PROPOSEDMODEL POWERLAW BINGHAM I

em 1000

10:

200

400

200

~ (seC-l)

FIG.

1 COMPARISON

OF MODELS

FOR

FLUID

A,

FIG.

2 COMPARISON

OF MODELS

FOR FLUID

B.

model was t2.94 percent, while the power law and Bingham models had average errors of t 12.57 percent and *9.06 percent, respectively. Again, the superior consistency of the proposed model was supported by a standard deviation of about one-half that of the other two models. Fluid C, also a drilling fluid, was evaluated using the Model 39 Farm viscometer and is notable because it closely approximates a true Bingham fluid. Both the proposed and Bingham models within *0.92 percent of predict shear stresses measured shear stresses (Table 3 and Fig. 3), with the proposed model being slightly more consistent. The shear stresses predicted by the power law model deviate from actual values by an average of t 14.74 percent, with very poor consistency. The standard deviation for the power law model is an order of magnitude greater than for the other two models. These data are relatively typical of the improved accuracy and consistency of shear stress prediction that can be obtained by the proposed model over the power law and Bingham models. Similar improve-

ment in predicted be observed.

effective

viscosities

also

would

CONCLUSIONS fluids and cement slurries are 1. Drilling generally yield-pseudoplastic fluids and, as such, cannot be consistently represented by either the power law (pure pseudoplastic) or Bingham (yieldNewtonian) models. 2. The proposed model, Eq. 4, gives accurate and con sistent predictions of shear stresses and, therefore, effective viscosities for these fluids. 3. The proposed model can be used to derive a simple, explicit relationship between shear rate and volumetric flow rate for both ~ipe and anndar flow (Eqs. 13 and 15), a prerequisite for many engineering calculations. NOMENCLATURE in proposed model A ,B,C = constants 6 = width of parallel plates

TABLE Shear Rate {eeo-l) 1,022. 511, 349,7 170.3 10.22 5.11 Measured Shear Strees (lb/loo aq ft) 17.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 3.5 3.0 Proposed Model Shear Stress (lb/loo aq ft) 16.4 12.3 10.4 7.9 3.4 3.1

1 RESULTS FOR FLUID A Power Law Shear Stress (lb/loo sq ft) 15.1 12.2 10,7 8.6 3.5 2.8 Blngh&n Shear Stress (lb/loo eq ft) 18.0 11.2 8.9 6.6 4.5 4.4 Proposed Model Percent Error -3.59 2.32 3.96 -1.52 -3.37 2.46 * 2.87 0.92 B Proposed Model Percent Emor 0.71 3.50 0.28 -8.55 3.ss 0.59 i 2.84 3.18 Power Law Percent Error -21.14 2.98 12.20 18.35 7.21 -13.52 *12.67 .6.76 Bingham Percent Error 1.8s -1.23 -5.31 -11.91 1s.13 15.81 i 9.06 7.23
33

Power Law Percent Error -10.95 1.39 7.07 7.56 1.28 -5.03 * 5.55 3.76

BI;I;I Error 5.92 -6.97 -11.17 -17.49 27.34 46.28 * 19.20 15.45

Average error, percent Standard deviation: TABLE 2hear Rate @e&~ 1,022. 511. 340.7 170.3 10.22 5.11 Measured Shear Stress jlb/100 sq ft~ 68.0 42.0 34.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 Proposed Model Shear Stress \lb/100 sq ft) 68.5 43.5 34.* 23.8 12.5 :12.1 2 RESULTS Power Law Shesr stress (lb/100 sq ft) 53.6 43.3 36,1 30,8 12.9 10.4 FOR FLUID Binghtvn Shearstreas (lb/100 sq ft) 69.3 41.5 32.2 22.9 14.2 13.9

Average error, percenti Standard deviation:

FEBRUARY, 1976

q= p,

plastic viscosity in Bingham = effective viscosity stress value value at jmin at jmax stress

model

r= shear

rein shear-stress = max = shear-stress 100 -----FANN OATA, PROPOSED MODEL, and BINGHAM POWER LAW

-7= geometric-mean
?R = =

shear

shear yield

stress stress

at pipe or annulus in Bingham model

wall

REFERENCES
Y (See-l)

E. C.: Fluidity and Plasticity, 1. Bingham, Book Co., Inc., New York (1922). FOR FLUID C. 2. Bird, R. B., Stewart, Transport Phenomena, York (1960) 11.

McGraw-Hill

FIG.

3 COMPARISON

OF MODELS

W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Method of Fluids,

d= dl

inner diameter of parallel plates

pipe

or

gap

between
3.

= outer diameter of annulus d2 = inner diameter of annulus factor in power law model K= consistency L= N= P= ;: 9= R= r= length number of flow path of shear stress/shear rate values

Walker, R. E,, and Kerry, D. E.: Field Evaluating Annular Performance of Drilling J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1974) 167-173.

4.

Herschel, W. H., and Bulkley, R.: Measurement of Consistency as Applied to Rubber-Benzene Solutions, %OC., ASTM ( 1926) vol. 26, 621. Govier, G. W., and Aziz, K.: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N. J. (1972) 38-40. Carlile, R. E,, and Gillett, B. E.: Heres the First 10 Rapid Ways to Correlate Random Dsta, Computer Programming and Mathematical Techniques for Engineera No. 60, Oil and Gas J. (Feb. 9, 1970). Rabinowitsch, B.: ~~The Viscosity of Brinea, ~~ Zeit fur Physih. A145, 1. Mooney, Fluidity, and Elasticity Cbem, of ( 1929) Vol. Slip Wiley and &

5.

r?= flow behavior log (j + c) pressure log r volumetric

index

in power law model

6.

flow rate of gap

7.

inner radius of pipe or one-half between parallel plates positional variable for pipe flow variable positional

8.

M.: Explicit Formulaa for J. Rheology (1931) Vol. 2, 210. J. M.: Polymer Processing, New York ( 1962) 69. John

?D = dimensionless flow lJ= instantaneous ~= x= bulk velocity positional parallel

for pipe

9. McKelvey, Sons, Inc.,

fluid velocity for flow between for flow

variable plates

10. Skelland, A. H. P.: Non-Neu tonian Flow and Heat Trans/ef, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York ( 1967) 30-32, 73-74. (PseucloNewtonian J. G.: ~(Generalized 11. Savina, piaatic) Flow in Staf.ionary Trans., AIME (1958) Vol. 213, 12. Farm Instrument Corp., Houston, Pipe 325. Tex. and Annuli,

XD . dimensionless positional variable between parallel plates f= shear rate = lowest shear-rate highest shear-rate Yma% = Y= shear rate giving imin . value value F rate wall

APPENDIX

DF;RIVATION OF FLOW EQUATIONS FOR PIPE FLOW Let us consider the steady-state, Iaminar flow of a fluid of constant density in a pipe of length L
3 RESULTS FOR FLUID C Propased Model Percent Error 181.8 92.2 65.4 29.6 20.6 9.9 4.5 3.6 -0.02 0.43 0.78 0.42 -1.68 -1.32 -0.62 2.06
PoWW Laiw.

shear ~Ra = apparent or Newtonian shear rate at pipe or annulus ~R =

TABLE

8hesr
Rate W 1,000. 500. 350. 150. 100. 400 10. 5.

Measured Shear Stress Jlb/lW sa flJ 182,0 92.0 85.0 29.5 21.0 10.0 4.5 3.5

M6tfel
3hear Stress jlb/100 w ft~ 162.0 92.4 65,5 28.6 20.6 9.9 4.5, 3.6

Power Law 8hesr 8tress jlb/100 sq ft] 14S.6 E: 34.4 25.4 12.7 4.5 2.7

~innhm~ Error -0.12 0.26 0.56 0.20 -1.88 -1.41 -0.30 2.60

Percent Error -21.10 -7.36 0.26 16.76 20.66 27,36 -0.27 _-23.W * 14.74 10,69 -

Average error, parcenti i 0.92 - 0,70 8tsndsrd deviation:

* 0.92 0.98

34

SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

and radius R. The momentum flux & stribution is derived by integrating the equation of motion, subject to the boundary condition that the momentum flux is finite at r = O. The equation of motion takes the form ~d~(r~)= Hence,

Also,
1 q =

u7R2 =

()
J& r

r.

. . . . . . is

(A-1)

o Substituting Eq. A-9 into Eq. A-10 and integrating yields an expression for the bulk velocity: u BRTI115 = Am (3B+ 1) equationg _ CR .. 3 . . (A-11)

2frR2VrDdrD . . . . . . (J4-10)

the momentum Ap

flux distribution

=z

()

.(A-2) in Fig. 4. For a fluid

The Rabinowitsch

can be written

as

This distribution is shown described by the model, r=A(~+C)B Combining differential .= Y

. . . . . . . . . . .(A-3) the following

Eqs. A-2 and A-3 gives equation for the velocity: dv dr = AP mrlm_c to define

where the apparent shear rate at the wail, ~Ra, is simply that which would be observed for a Newtonian fluid, or ha=~ 8U to evaluate (A-13) the derivative,

At this point, rD~lY...-..--R and ?R

() x it is convenient

(A-4)

Eq.

A-11 can

be used

dq/drR ,

-*-(A-5)

dq T-

du TR2 dTR

T (+R + C) R* (3B+1)7R (A-14) the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6) R Substituting Rabinowitsch 3

jR ~ ~

()

Ap

Eqs. A-13 and equation gives 8U () + form, 8U () T (+R + (3B+

A-14

back

into

so that Eq. A-4 becomes dv dr~ RT# = -~ .r~lm+& subject to .(A-7) the no-slip

c)
1) (A-15)

or, in an explicit

Integrating Eq. A-7, boundary condition, @r~=l, results v= O,

+n=
Eq. rate the can A-16 and wall then

3B+1

c -m

(A-16)

. . . . . . velocity

. . . ..(A-8)

in the following

distribution:
B+l

says that knowledge of the volumetric flow the pipe diameter is sufficient to evaluate shear rate, from which an effective viscosity be determined. APPENDIX B

=(+)wdo-rn
-CR(l-rD) -----*-(A-9)

DERIVATION OF FLOW EQUATIONS FOR ANNULAR FLOW Annular flow, to a good approximation, can be considered as flow between parallel plates, provided the annular space is small. Thus, we consider flow between two stationary, parallel plates of length L by a space d = 2R. As before, and width b, separated the equation of motion takes the form

dr

AP

(B-1)

FIG.

L
r.rR

r.o

T=-r*s@o

Assuming the momentum flux is O at x =U, Eq, B-1 is integrated to give the momentum flux distribution: r H

4 PIPE

FLOW GEOMETRY FLUX DISTRIBUTION.

AND

MOMENTUM

.( )

Ap ~

~ .:......:,..

(B-2)

FRBRUAIIY, 1976

3s

.1

r=O

rc ,

rR

For an annulus, the and d2, respectively, noting that d=%(d,-d,)

outer and inner diameters, dl can be used in Eq. B-12 b;

q 0*

70**oo(J3-13)

=LINEAR MOMENTUM FLUX DISTRIBUTION

so that

FIG, 5 GEOMETRY AND MOMENTUM FLUX DISTRIBUTION FOR FLOW BETWEEN PARALLEL PLATES.

R=(a(*)+ ~B-14)
APPENDIXC EQUATION TO CALCULATE PARAMETER, C THIRD Given a set of shear rate/shear stress data, let us first define three data points: the one at the fewest shear rate (~min, ~min); the one at the highest shear rate (ymax, rmax); and one at the geometric mea~ shear stress, based on those first two points (~, r), so that
~s(~m,n~m~x)%. . . . . . . . . . .

l%isdistribution is shownin Fig. 5. Combining the model, Eq. A-3, and the momentum flux distribution, Eq. B-2, gives the folIowing differential equation for the velocity: .= Y Defining
dv =

dx

AP x ()

mx_c.

. .

(B-3)

for convenience,

AD=+*
and

(B-4)

(c-1) shear

If the relationship between stress is defined as Eq. B-3 can be rewritten

-

shear

rate

and

as
7R [/s Im

T=A(~+c)B?

(C-2)

1
~&=~~D

dv ()

-c
to the no-slip

.(M)

the following

relationships

also . .

must hold: . . . . . . .(C-3)

Tmtn=A(~2nin+C)B. boundary
r-

Integrating condition, @lxD= results

Eq. B-6, subject

=A(yum,

+C)B.

. . . . . . . . .(c-4)

I,v=o!

velocity

distribution:

@-7)
Thus, we have a set of three equations involving three unknowns. To solve them for C, we divide Eqs. C-3 and C-4 by Eq. C-5 to obtain
7mln =

in the following

v=(@B
-

(
CR(l-XD)

>;l (1-.?) )
. o
q

(j%liflo + (~+ C)B

, . . . . . . . . (C-6)

o 0.(B-8)

For this geometry, 1 q = 2bR f o These two equations root is taken: are multiplied and the Bth VdXI) = 2Rbu . . . . . . . (P-9)
rm~x = (*m2x +

c)

(c-7)

(f+c)B

Substituting Eq. B-8 into Eq. B-9 and performing the indicated integration yields an expression for the volumetric flow rate,

q=213(*)1m(
or,

)-bCRZ$(B.IOJ
Ymin ?max + (~min +

$%mx) + C2 . . . C

(C-8)

u=(~+c)

(=+% CR*( B-l)

an explicit 6U ()
7 m

p+2fC+c2
By the definition of Eq. C-1, th~ left side of Eq. C-8 reduces .to unity. Rearranging, we then obtain an explicit expression for C:

Eq. B-11 can be rearranged to give equation for shear rate at the wall, 2B+1
?R = ~~

@12)

36

SOCIF,TY OF PETROLEUM

ENGINEERSJOURNAL