Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil, 2021, 6, 129-145

https://www.scirp.org/journal/ojogas
ISSN Online: 2473-1900
ISSN Print: 2473-1889

The Effects of Fluid Rheology and Drillstring

Eccentricity on Drilling Hydraulics

Anthony Kerunwa, Julian Ubanozie Obibuike, Ugochukwu Ilozurike Duru,

Stanley Toochukwu Ekwueme

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria

How to cite this paper: Kerunwa, A., Abstract

Obibuike, J.U., Duru, U.I. and Ekwueme,
S.T. (2021) The Effects of Fluid Rheology Accurate determination of hydraulic parameters such as pressure losses, equiv-
and Drillstring Eccentricity on Drilling alent circulation density (ECD), etc. plays profound roles in drilling, cement-
Hydraulics. Open Journal of Yangtze Gas ing and other well operations. Hydraulics characterization requires that all
and Oil, 6, 129-145.
factors are considered as the neglect of any could become potential sources of
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012
errors that would be detrimental to the overall well operation. Drilling Hy-
Received: May 2, 2021 draulics has been extensively treated in the literature. However, these works
Accepted: October 16, 2021 almost entirely rely on the assumption that the drill string lies perfectly at the
Published: October 19, 2021
center of the annulus—the so-called “concentric annulus”. In reality, concen-
Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and tricity is almost never achieved even when centralizers are used. This is be-
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. cause of high well inclination angles and different string geometries. Thus,
This work is licensed under the Creative eccentricity exists in practical oil and gas wells especially horizontal and ex-
Commons Attribution International tended reach wells (ERWs) and must be accounted for. The prevalence of
License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
drillstring (DS) eccentricity in the annulus calls for a re-evaluation of existing
Open Access hydraulic models. This study evaluates the effect of drilling fluid rheology types
and DS eccentricity on the entire drilling hydraulics. Three non-Newtonian
fluid models were analyzed, viz: Herschel Bulkley, power law and Bingham
plastic models. From the results, it was observed that while power law and
Bingham plastic models gave the upper and lower hydraulic values, Herschel
Bulkley fluid model gave annular pressure loss (APL) and ECD values that
fall between the upper and lower values and provide a better fit to the hy-
draulic data than power law and Bingham plastic fluids. Furthermore, analy-
sis of annular eccentricity reveals that APLs and ECD decrease with an in-
crease in DS eccentricity. Pressure loss reduction of more than 50% was pre-
dicted for the fully eccentric case for Herschel Bulkley fluids. Thus, DS eccen-
tricity must be fully considered during well planning and hydraulics designs.

Keywords
Wellbore, Drilling Fluid, String Geometries, Pressure Losses, Newtonian
Fluid Models

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 Oct. 19, 2021 129 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil
A. Kerunwa et al.

1. Introduction
Hydraulics plays vital roles in well operations such as drilling, cementing, com-
pletion, and well stimulation. Increasing well depth and complexity in geometry
such as horizontal or extended reach wells (ERWs) gives rise to more compli-
cated hydraulics than would be encountered in shallower slightly deviated or
vertical wells. Proper study of hydraulics in a well is crucial as it translates to a
reduction of risk, improvement in efficiency, decrease in the overall cost of well
operation and reduction in non-productive time (NPT). Of all hydraulics en-
countered in well operations, drilling hydraulics is perhaps the most important
because it covers more aspects in downhole operations than the others [1]. The
aspects encountered in drilling hydraulics are downhole circulating pressures,
surge and swab, equivalent circulation density (ECD), bit optimization, hole
cleaning and volumetric displacement. Three basic factors affect drilling hydrau-
lics in oil wells. These are the fluid, the hole and the drillstring (DS). Fluid could
be Newtonian or non-Newtonian. Drilling fluids (DFs) are subjected to forces,
downhole and they shear differently according to their rheological behaviour.
Fluid rheology affects the character and deformation of DFs. Fluid rheology typ-
ically depends on the fluid type (whether Newtonian or non-Newtonian), flow
regime (laminar or turbulent) and particle size distribution in the fluid (wa-
ter-based or oil-based, inhibitive or non-inhibitive) [2] [3]. Fluid velocity, den-
sity, viscosity, size and shape of flow channel determine if the flow regime is la-
minar or turbulent or in a transition zone [4]. Fluid rheology helps to character-
ize fluid flow which helps in the determination of friction factors and frictional
pressure losses (FPLs). Accurate knowledge of the FPL in the well helps to check
against formation damage or fluid influx into the well. Oil well DFs are very sen-
sitive to pressure and temperature conditions downhole, this makes fluid rheol-
ogy an important factor in drilling hydraulics [5] [6]. Hole geometry affects the
movement of fluids and rock particles in the well. In vertical wells, the influence
of cuttings on drilling hydraulics is not profound. Cuttings deposition increases
when wells deviate from vertical and become highest in horizontal wells [7] [8].
Cuttings deposit at the lower side of the well and require additional energy to
displace them thereby increasing the friction factors and frictional pressures.
Additionally, the hole condition also affects drilling hydraulics. If the hole is
cased, then frictional pressure is not expected to be as high as when the well is
open-hole. Open holes are noted with the presence of micro-doglegs and mi-
cro-tortuosities which increase the roughness of the hole and its frictional pres-
sure [9]. The orientation of the pipe in the hole affects the flow pattern and
hence its hydraulics in the well. Pipes in the hole can be concentric or eccentric
depending on their placement in the hole. The pipe is said to be concentric when
its axis coincides with the axis of the outer pipe or hole; otherwise, the pipe is
said to be eccentric. Concentric pipes are usually modeled with less difficulty,
but complexity in modeling increases as eccentricity increases [10]. Eccentric
pipes in hole are usually the situation most encountered in reality. Eccentricity

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 130 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

affects the pressure loss (PL) and fluid flow in the annuli. Over the years, many
scholars have investigated the influence of pipe eccentricity on FPL in wellbores.
[11] conducted one of the earliest works regarding pipe eccentricity. He pro-
vided analytical solution of Newtonian fluids in eccentric annuli. Later [12] de-
veloped a general equation for laminar flow of fluids in ducts of varied shapes.
Their equations are used for calculating Reynolds numbers utilizing annular
Poiseuille flow. [13] used numerical methods in evaluation of laminar flow of
non-Newtonian fluids in eccentric annuli. He calculated the velocity profile,
viscosity profile, flowrate vs FPL gradient for annulus of varying pipe eccentrici-
ties. He developed a correlation based on the model-generated data which helps
in the easy calculation of PLs in the eccentric annuli. [14] presented correlations
for power-law fluids for eccentric annuli. They utilized finite difference tech-
nique in numerically solving the laminar flow equation for Yield power-law flu-
ids. They discovered that the velocity profile is substantially altered in the annu-
lus when the inner pipe shifts from being concentric. [15] developed means to
practically approximate flow through eccentric annuli. They achieved this by
considering the annulus to be made up of infinite concentric annuli having va-
riable annuli. This model neglects the circumferential shear force variation. [16]
evaluated the effects of the rheological model, pipe eccentricity and equivalent
roughness. They discovered that pipe eccentricity and roughness are vital para-
meters in the determination of PLs in the circulation of non-Newtonian fluids
through the annulus. [17] provided numerical models for the laminar flow of
yield power law fluids in eccentric annuli. They utilized finite differencing in
solving the momentum equations. [18] [19] used experimental methods to eva-
luate the performance of Kozicki models for eccentric annuli. They called this
model the pipe equivalent approach and suggested application of computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) for a better results. [20] presented a means to calculate
PLs in eccentric annuli. They based their study on an empirical definition of ef-
fective diameter which considers both geometry and rheology. They correlated
pressure loss ratio (PLR) with pipe eccentricity, flowrate, rheology and rotational
speed. [21] developed similar model to that of [20] but used field data. His mod-
el considered the effects of eccentricity on the rotational speed of DS. [22] made
comparisons on the results of PL from CFD simulations and equivalent diameter
method. They realized that CFD model gave a better performance. [23] used
CFD in the investigation of the effect of pipe eccentricity on FPL. They consi-
dered the tangential velocity, axial velocity and effective viscosity of the fluid.
[24] went further on the work of [21]. They used seven different definitions of
equivalent diameter in the estimation of PL in eccentric annuli. They discovered
the hydraulic diameter definition to be most essential in their study. [25] used
CFD method to compute FPLs in eccentric annuli. They investigated the effects
of flowrate, mud type and mesh size. They solved the problem using finite vo-
lume method. [26] analyzed the effect of eccentricity on PL and velocity profile.
[27] noted that eccentricity effect in laminar flow is more profound than in tur-

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 131 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

bulent flow. [6] used a CFD modeling approach to estimate FPLs in an eccentric
annulus having inner pipe rotation. They considered this for the circulation of
yield power law fluids. They considered eight fluids to have a wider range of di-
mensionless parameters. Their results agreed well with experimental data. De-
spite much literature studies on eccentricity, remarkable attention was not paid
to the impacts of Fluid Rheology and DS eccentricity on the entire drilling hy-
draulics. In this study, Fluid Rheology and DS eccentricity effects on drilling hy-
draulics are investigated using well plan T&D software. Field data for model va-
lidation were collected from Niger delta field.

2. Pipe Eccentricity and Fluid Rheology

2.1. Pipe Eccentricity in Wellbore
In reality, concentricity is almost never achieved as pipes tend to deviate from its
center to one side of the wellbore. Sometimes centralizers are used to achieve a
near-concentric annuli, this is the case with casing centralizers that are used to
keep casings from contacting the wellbore. But even with the use of centralizers,
the casing between centralizers could still deform leading to contact with the
wellbore [28]. Centralization describes how off-centered a pipe is within another
pipe or an Openhole. It is mainly expressed as a percentage. Thus a 0% eccen-
tricity implies a concentric annulus while a 100% eccentricity implies that the
pipes have contact with the outer pipe or wellbore. Centralization is important
because it aids in casing wear studies and hole cleaning especially in the low side
of the wellbore. In an eccentric annulus fluid preferentially flows through the
wider annulus and thus there would be reduced velocity of fluid flow in the nar-
rower annulus leading to build up of cutting beds due to gravity [7] [29]. As cut-
tings build up in the lower side of the annulus, hole cleaning becomes a problem
and high tendency for pipe sticking exists. Research has shown that drill pipe
eccentricity is affected by hole inclination angle, weight on bit and the size of the
hole. Figure 1 depicts DS eccentricity in annulus.

Figure 1. Drillstring eccentricity in annulus [29].

Well geometry and string stiffness plays profound part in annular eccentricity.
In deviated wells, the DP should be fully eccentric over much of the deviated
wellbore. In medium inclined sections of the deviated well, such as between 0˚ -
30˚, the drill strings tend to lie on the high side of the wellbore. Meanwhile in

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 132 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

high inclined sections or in horizontal wellbores, the DS lies on the lower side of
the wellbore. Eccentricity will affect both the flow and the velocity distribution
of fluids in the wellbore. It has been shown by research that the frictional pres-
sure drop in an eccentric annulus is known to be less than the frictional pressure
drop in a concentric annulus although this varies with fluid rheology type, the
difference being much profound in Newtonian fluids than in non-Newtonian
fluids [29]. Standoff is usually used to represent eccentricity expressed in per-
centage. An eccentricity of 100% implies a standoff of 0% and means that the
inner pipe is in contact with the outer pipe or hole at the low side. Meanwhile,
an eccentricity of 0% implies a standoff of 100% and means that the inner pipe is
perfectly centered in the outer pipe or wall; this is a concentric situation [7].

Equations for Eccentricity in Annulus

Eccentricity in the annulus is given by the equation:
e e
ε= = (1)
c ro − ri

where: e = distance between the centers of inner and outer circle, inch
ε = eccentricity ratio “the ratio of offset distance to radial clearance”;
ro = inner radius of outer pipe, inch;
ri = outer radius of inner pipe, inch.
A correlation was developed by Salem and El-Din (2006) to determine the
distance “e” called Ymax
Ymax
ε= (2)
ro − ri
Ymax = e (3)

Ymax =
5.68 EI

  0.176Wb sin θ ( 5.68 EI )
0.5

sinh
(
X ( 0.176Wb cos θ )
0.5
)

Wb cos θ EI (Wb cos θ ) 2 ( EI )
0.5 0.5

 (4)
( 0.176Wb cos θ )
0.5
 0.5 X 2 q sin θ 
− + 
( EI )
0.5
 4 EI 
 
wb = weight on bit, (Ib), E = modulus of elasticity, (psi), θ = hole inclination
angle, (degree), I = moment of inertia of the drill pipe (inch), X = drill pipe ho-
rizontal projection, 1000 inches, q = axial component of weight of drillpipe per
unit length, lb/ft.
The pressure drop in eccentric annular flow is given as:
 dPf   dPf 
 dL  = Ce  dL  (5)
 e  c
where Ce represents the correction factor for eccentricity.
Ce = f ( ε , ri ro , n, k ,τ o ) (6)

where: ε = drill pipe eccentricity, ri ro = welbore parameter

n, k ,τ o = fluid rheological parameters.

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 133 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

2.2. Fluid Rheology

The rheology of the fluid affects its eccentricity values and hydraulics in general.
Fluid rheology affects fluid shearing with the walls of the annulus or pipe [28].
Newtonian fluids behave differently from non-Newtonian fluids [30]. Most flu-
ids used in well operations are adequately model as non-Newtonian fluids. These
fluids have no direct proportionality between the shear stress and the shear rate
unlike Newtonian fluids. Bingham plastic fluids became popular in usage in the
oil industry because of its relative ease and simplicity of use in calculation of
flow resistance and hydraulics. The disadvantage of the Bingham plastic fluid
model is that it does not fully represent the behaviour of drilling fluids at low
shear rates such as encountered in the annulus or at high shear rates such as en-
countered at the bits. Power law and Herschel Bulkley fluids models give a more
definitive representation of practical drilling fluids in use today in oil and gas
operations. However, Herschel Bulkley gained wider acceptance in usage be-
cause it accommodates yield point characteristics of Bingham plastics and the
shear stress – shear rate characteristics of power law [28].

2.2.1. Bingham Plastic Model

The model for Bingham Plastic is characteristically defined by equation (7) be-
low:
τ= τ 0 + µP γ (7)

Pressure loss calculation is done with reference to flow regime of the fluid. For
Laminar flow, Pressure loss in the annulus using Bingham plastic model is given
as
 µp va τy 
=∆Pa  +  La (8)
1000 ( D2 − D1 )
2
200 ( D2 − D1 ) 

Similarly, for turbulent flow, Pressure loss in the annulus using Bingham plas-
tic model is given as
f ρ v2
∆Pa = a a La (9)
21.1( D2 − D1 )

2.2.2. Power Law Model

The equation for power law fluid model is given as
τ = Kγ n
For laminar flow of power law fluids, the pressure drop in the annulus is cal-
culated using the equation below
na
 1 
K a vana La  2+ n 
∆Pa =  a 
(10)
(1+ n )
144000 ( D2 − D1 ) a  0.0208 
 
 
Moreover, for turbulent flow of power law fluids, the pressure drop in the
annulus is calculated using the equation below. The pressure drop equation re-

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 134 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

quires the determination of friction factor in the annulus for turbulent flow re-
gime.
f ρ v2
∆Pa = a a La (11)
25.8 ( D2 − D1 )

2.2.3. Herschel Bulkley Fluid

The equation that defines the behaviour of Herschel Bulkley fluids is given as
τ τ Y + Kγ n
= (12)
The yield stress for Herschel-Bulkley fluid is calculated at low shear rate and is
given as
τ=
Y 2θ3 − θ 6 (13)
The pressure loss in the annulus for Herschel Bulkley fluids is given as
na
 1 
K a vana La  2+ n 
∆Pa =  a 
(14)
(1+ n )
144000 ( D2 − D1 ) a  0.0208 
 
 
For turbulent flow, of Herschel Bulkley fluids in the annulus, annular friction
factor is required. Thus, the equation that characterizes the pressure drop for
turbulent flow of Herschel Bulkley fluids in the annulus is given by
f ρ v2
∆Pa = a a La (15)
25.8 ( D2 − D1 )

3. Case Study
Well NDX2 is a well in the Niger Delta field and the well’s drilling data are given
below. The data was utilized for hydrauics simulation to determine the effect of
Fluid rheology types and drillstring eccentricity on the hydralic parametres: an-
nular pressure loss, ECD, gel breaking pressure, minimum flowrate of fluid. The
well data are:
Fluid weight: 10.7 ppg;
Cased hole section: 9 5/8 in OD, 8.65in ID, 47 ppf casing from top to 7254 ft,
8.625in OD, 7.63 in ID, 44 ppf casing run from 7254 ft to 9280 ft;
Open hole section: 7.25 in hole size with 0.3 OHFF;
Eccentricity ranges from concentric (e = 0) to various eeccentric annuli (e =
0.1 to e = 1.0).

4. Results and Discussions

The results from the Wellplan T & D simulation are given below for Herschel
Bulkley, power law and Bingham Plastic fluid rheology models at various pipe
eccentricities.

4.1. Pressure Losses for Hershel Bulkley Fluid in Concentric

Annulus
The overall pressure losses when Herschel Bulkley fluid model was utilized are

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 135 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

presented in Figure 2 for a concentric annulus. The system pressure loss com-
prises all the pressure losses experienced in the system from the surface to the
bit. It includes the surface pressure losses if there is any, the string pressure
losses (DS i.e. drill pipe, drill collar, etc.), the APLs, and bit pressure losses. The
pressure loss estimation helps to know the pump size and horse power require-
ment for efficient pumping of fluid into the wellbore and controlled hydraulics
operations. From Figure 2, the system pressure loss line touches the maximum
pump pressure line at 527 gpm pump rate. Thus to overcome the pressure losses
prevalent in the system in pumping the fluid, the flowrate must be greater than
527 gpm. Generally, the pressure losses increase with increase in pump flowrate.
The APL is the lowest; this is because of the wider annular space as compared to
the bit or the DS. However, all the pressure losses in Figure 2 happen at the la-
minar flow regime.

Figure 2. Pressure losses for Herschel Bulkley fluid for a concentric annulus as a Pump
Rate function.

4.2. Minimum Flowrate for Hershel Bulkley Fluid in Concentric

Annulus
Presented in Figure 3 is the minimum flowrate as a depth function for Herschel
Bulkley fluid in a concentric annulus. This helps to determine the minimum or
critical pump flow rate at which cuttings bed will begin to form. To avoid cut-
tings bed formation, it is required to maintain a flowrate at each particular depth
greater than the minimum flowrate. The variation in minimum flowrate is a
function of depth and geometry of strings at that depth. Therefore, cuttings will
only be avoided if the flowrate is greater than the minimum flowrate at that
depth. Because of the variation of minimum flowrate at each depth, the pump
rate should be greater than the greatest minimum flowrate for the well. From the

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 136 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

figure, the greatest minimum flowrate occurs at the last casing shoe which is at
9280 ft and it corresponds to 398 gpm. Since ECD is the density of the DFs un-
der dynamic conditions, ie when the pump is on and there is circulation. For the
Hershel Bulkley fluid for concentric annulus, the ECD at casing shoe is 11.24
ppg and at the bit it is 11.36 ppg. Thus the ECD both at the shoe and at the bit is
considerably higher than the static mud weight which is 10.7 ppg. Knowledge of
ECD is therefore important in that it helps to avoid fracture of the formation
during circulation because the mud appears to have greater weight.

Figure 3. Minimum flowrate as a depth function for Herschel Bulkley fluid in a concen-
tric annulus.

4.3. Effect of Pipe Eccentricity on APL for Hershel Bulkley Fluid

Eccentricity affects APLs because of variations in annular flow area called the
radial clearance. Higher drill string eccentricity entails higher flow area. Since
pressure is indirectly proportional to area, conduits with greater area will have
lesser pressure. Thus, it is expected that eccentric annuli will have less annular
pressure drop than concentric annuli. This being the case, then APL should de-
crease with increasing drill string eccentricity and the lowest annular pressure
drop should occur when the drill string touches the wellbore (fully eccentric
case). Depicted in Figure 4 is the APL for Hershel Bulkley fluid at various pipe
eccentricities. From Figure 4, it can be observed that the highest APL occurs
when eccentricity is zero, i.e. when the DS is concentric in the annulus. The
green line at the top most part of the plot represents the APL profile for concen-
tric annulus. Conversely, the APL begins to decrease with increasing eccentrici-
ties from 0.1 to 1.0. At 1.0, the APL becomes lowest. The dark blue line at the
bottom of the plot represents the annular pressure profile for Herschel Bulkley
fluid for fully eccentric annulus. The result from Figure 4 show that APL de-

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 137 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

creases with increasing DS eccentricities. The highest annular pressure drop was
witnessed for a concentric annulus (e = 0). The lowest APL was seen at a fully
eccentric annulus (e = 1.0). Cuttings bed formation due to gravity forces pulled
cuttings to the lower sides of the hole. These cuttings bed proves difficult to
clean and may result to severe well problem. [31] averred that these drilled cut-
tings and gelled DF are best removed through pipe rotation in narrow annulus.
This is due to the fact that, in eccentric annulus, if there is no pipe rotation the
DF will preferentially flow through wider annulus.

Figure 4. APL for Hershel Bulkley fluid at various pipe eccentricities.

[32] posited that pipe rotation creates rotational effect with an induced turbu-
lence and this forces the drilled cuttings and gelled DF out of the narrow annu-
lus. Figure 5 shows the percentage decrease to DS eccentricity in the annulus. It
can be seen from the figure that at 200 gpm, there is up to 54% percentage de-
crease in APL due to full eccentricity from the initial concentric annulus. The
lowest percentage decrease is seen at 800 gpm which is 19.2% decrease. It can be
observed from Figure 5 also that decrease in APL due to increasing eccentricity
gets smaller as flowrate increases. Thus, Eccentricity is important in estimation
of the APL because more than 50% reduction is achievable to eccentricity of the
annulus. Figure 5 shows that more than 50% reduction was realized for a change
to fully eccentric annulus. The reason for the reduction in APL is because of the
increase in flow area given by the increased radial clearance in the annulus. APL
is inversely proportional to the radial clearance. The higher the annular radial
clearance, the less the annular pressure drops.

Figure 5. Percentage Decrease from concentric to full eccentric annulus on Herschel

Bulkley fluids.

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 138 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

4.4. Effect of Pipe Eccentricity on ECD for Hershel Bulkley Fluid

Depicted in Table 1 is the ECD for various eccentricities. From Table 1, it can
be observed that the highest ECD both at the shoe and at the bit occurs when the
eccentricity is zero (concentric annulus) and the lowest ECD both at the shoe
and at the bit occurs when the eccentricity is 1.0 (Fully eccentric annulus). A
closer look at the table reveals that ECD decreases with increase in DS eccentric-
ity in the annulus.

Table 1. ECD at various annulus eccentricity for Herschel Bulkley fluid model.

Parameter e = 0 e = 0.1 e = 0.2 e = 0.3 e= 0.4 e= 0.5 e = 0.6 e= 0.7 e = 0.8 e= 0.9 e = 1.0

ECD at shoe,
11.24 11.2 11.18 11.16 11.13 11.11 11.09 11.07 11.05 11.02 11
ppg

ECD at bit,
11.36 11.32 11.3 11.28 11.25 11.23 11.21 11.19 11.17 11.14 11.12
ppg

4.5. APLs for Various Fluid Rheology Types

Depicted in Figure 6 are the APLs in the laminar flow regime for Herschel
Bulkley, power law and Bingham Plastic fluids rheology types. From the figure, it
can be observed that Bingham plastic fluid has higher pressure losses for lower
fluid pump rates. The pressure losses for Bingham plastic fluid is greater than
those of other rheology types considered until 275 gpm. Beyond 275 gpm, power
law fluids show higher APL as a function of the fluid pump rate. Power law show
higher APLs from 275 gpm to 725 gpm. From 725 gpm above, Bingham plastic
fluids again shows greater APLs for pump rates. It can be seen that Hershel
Bulkley fluids is almost in-between the Bingham plastic and power law fluids. At
low and higher pump rates, Bingham plastic model overestimates the APLs and
underestimates the APLs for moderate flowrate while power law fluids underes-
timates the APLs for low and higher pump rate but overestimates it for moderate
pump rates. However Hershel Bulkley models falls between the upper and lower
boundaries of the pressure losses and represents the best fit for the data.

Figure 6. APLs as a Pump Rate function for concentric annulus for various fluids rheol-
ogy types.

4.6. Minimum Flowrate for Various Rheology Types

Depicted in Figure 7 is the minimum flowrate as a depth function for concentric

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 139 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

annulus for Herschel Bulkley, power law and Bingham Plastic fluids rheology
types. From Figure 7, it can be observed that the Herschel Bulkley model gives
more minimum annular flowrate than Bingham plastic and power law fluids.
Thus, higher flowrate is required to prevent cuttings bed build up in Herschel
Bulkley fluids (for pump rates of 250 gpm and above) than in Bingham plastic
and power law fluids. Figure 7 shows the minimum flowrate. The minimum
flowrate represent the lowest flowrate needed to prevent the buildup of cuttings
bed in the wellbore. Analyses of Figure 7 reveal that higher flowrate is required
for Hershel Bulkley fluids to avoid the formation of cuttings bed. Cuttings depo-
sition increases the frictional pressure drop in the annulus and may lead to se-
vere well problem such as stuck pipe which translates to huge financial involve-
ment to remedy and requires pipie rotation to clean up as pointed out by [31].
When circulating Herschel Bulkley fluids, care must be taken to circulate at
higher pump rates in order to avoid the formation of cuttings bed.

Figure 7. Minimum flowrate as a depth function for concentric annulus for various fluids
rheology types.

4.7. ECD for Various Rheology Types

Table 2 shows the ECD for various fluids rheology types. It can be observed that
Bingham plastic model gives the lowest ECD at the shoe and at the bit. Power
law fluid gave the highest ECD values at the shoe and at the bit. Herschel Bulkley
fluids falls between the upper and lower values gotten from the power law and
Bingham plastic fluid models respectively. It can be observed that fluid rheology
affects the ECD. Herschel Bulkley model gives ECD value that falls between the
Power law and the Bingham plastic model. This result is in consonance with the
definition of Herschel Bulkley fluids that incorporates the low shear rates of
Bingham plastic fluids and the shear stress-shear rate of power law fluids. Thus
Hershel Bulkley model being a three-parameter model compensates for the in-
abilities of power law and Bingham plastic models and gives a better match to
field data.

Table 2. ECD for concentric annulus for different rheological models.

Rheology type ECD at shoe, ppg ECD at bit, ppg

Hershel Bulkley 11.24 11.36

Power Law 11.26 11.38

Bingham Plastic 10.97 11.04

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 140 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

5. Conclusions
The following conclusion is drawn from this study:
1) Drill pipe eccentricity leads to reduction of APLs;
2) ECD decreases with increasing eccentricity;
3) Bingham plastic and power law fluids give the lowest and highest ECD val-
ues respectively;
4) Drill string eccentricity has a considerable effect on APLs while circulating
Herschel Bulkley fluids. Pressure loss reduction of more than 50% was predicted
for the fully eccentric case. Thus, DS eccentricity must be fully considered dur-
ing drilling hydraulics planning and designs. The case is more severe in hori-
zontal and extended reach wells where high DS eccentricities are expected;
5) Hershel Bulkley fluids require more flowrate to prevent cuttings removal
than Bingham plastic and power law fluids;
6) Hershel Bulkley fluid model gives a more representative match on practical
DFs than Bingham plastic and power law fluids in the estimation of APLs.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] Ochoa, M.A. (2006) Analysis of Drilling Fluid Rheology and Tool Joint Effect to
Reduce Errors in Hydraulics Calculations. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University,
Texas.
[2] Ahmed, R. and Miska, S. (2008) Study and Modeling of Yield Power-Law Fluid
Flow in Annuli with Drillpipe Rotation. Paper Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Orlando, March 2008, Paper No. SPE 112604.
https://doi.org/10.2118/112604-MS
[3] Ahmed, R., Miska, S.Z. (2009) Chapter 4.1. Advanced Wellbore Hydraulics. In:
Aadnoy, B., Cooper, I., Miska, S., Mitchell, R.F. and Payne, M.L., Eds., Advanced
Drilling and Well Technology, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX,
191-219.
[4] Hemphill, T., Campos W. and Pilehvari A. (1993) Yield-Power Law Model More
Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology. Oil & Gas Journal, 91, 45-50.
[5] Erge, O., Karimi V.A, Ozbayoglu, E.M. and Oort, E. (2016) Improved ECD Predic-
tion and Management in Horizontal and Extended Reach Wells with Eccentric
Drillstrings. Paper Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Fort Worth, March 2016, Paper No. SPE-178785-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/178785-MS
[6] Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, E.M., Miska, S.Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A. and May, R.
(2016) Equivalent Circulating Density Modeling of Yield Power Law Fluids Vali-
dated with CFD Approach. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 140,
16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.12.027
[7] Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, E. M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A., May, R.
(2014) Effects of Drillstring Eccentricity, Rotation and Buckling Configurations on
Annular Frictional Pressure Losses While Circulating Yield Power Law Fluids. SPE

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 141 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

Drilling & Completion, 30, 257-271. https://doi.org/10.2118/167950-PA

[8] Kerunwa, A. (2020) Contributory Influence of Drill Cuttings on Equivalent Circula-
tion Density Model in Deviated Wellbores. International Journal of Oil, Gas and
Coal Engineering, 8, 82-90. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ogce.20200804.12
[9] Erge, O., Ozbayoglu, E. M., Miska, S. Z., Yu, M., Takach, N., Saasen, A. and May, R.
(2015) Analysis and Model Comparison of Annular Frictional Pressure Losses
While Circulating Yield Power Law Fluids. Paper Presented at the SPE Bergen One
Day Seminar, Bergen, April 2015, Paper No. SPE 173840.
https://doi.org/10.2118/173840-MS
[10] Hansen, S.A. and Sterri, N. (1995) Drill Pipe Rotation Effects on Frictional Pressure
Losses in Slim Annuli. Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1995, Paper No. SPE 30488.
https://doi.org/10.2118/30488-MS
[11] Piercy, N.A.V., Hooper, M.S. and Winny, H.F. (1933) Viscous Flow through Pipes
with Core. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Jour-
nal of Science, 15, 647-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786443309462212
[12] Kozicki, W., Chou, C.H. and Tiu, C. (1966) Newtonian Flow in Ducts of Arbitrary
Cross-Sectional Shape. Chemical Engineering Science, 21, 665-679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(66)80016-7
[13] Haciislamoglu, M. (1989) Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow in Eccentric Annuli and Its
Application to Petroleum Engineering Problems. Ph.D Dissertation, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA.
[14] Haciislamoglu, M. and Langlinais, J. (1990) Non-Newtonian Flow in Eccentric An-
nuli. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 112, 163-169.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2905753
[15] Luo, Y. and Peden, J.M. (1990) Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids through Eccentric
Annuli. SPE Production Engineering, 5, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.2118/16692-PA
[16] Subramanian, R. and Azar, J.J. (2000) Experimental Study on Friction Pressure
Drop for NonNewtonian Drilling Fluids in Pipe and Annular Flow. Paper Presented
at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, No-
vember 2000, Paper No. SPE-64647-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/64647-MS
[17] Adariani, H.Y. (2005) Simulation of Laminar Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids in Ec-
centric Annuli. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
[18] Sestak, J., Zitny, R., Ondrusova J. and Filip, V. (2001) Axial Flow of Purely Viscous
Fluids in Eccentric Annuli: Geometric Parameters for Most Frequently Used Ap-
proximate Procedures. 3rd Pacific Rim Conference on Rheology, Vancouver, 8-13
July, 1-3.
[19] Ahmed, R., Miska, S.Z. and Miska, W.Z. (2006) Friction Pressure Loss Determina-
tion of Yield Power Law Fluid in Eccentric Annular Laminar Flow. Wiertnictwo
Nafta Gaz, 23, 47-53.
[20] Pilehvari, A. and Serth, R. (2009) Generalized Hydraulic Calculation Method for
Axial Flow of NonNewtonian Fluids in Eccentric Annuli. SPE Drilling & Comple-
tion, No. 24, 553-563. https://doi.org/10.2118/111514-PA
[21] Ahmed, R.M., Enfis, M.S., El Kheir, H.M., Laget, M. and Saasen, A. (2010) The Ef-
fect of Drillstring Rotation on Equivalent Circulation Density: Modeling and Analy-
sis of Field Measurements. Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confe-
rence and Exhibition, Florence, September 2010, Paper SPE 135587.
https://doi.org/10.2118/135587-MS
[22] Sorgun, M. and Ozbayoglu, M. E. (2011) Predicting Frictional Pressure Loss during

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 142 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

Horizontal Drilling for Non-Newtonian Fluids. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,

Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 33, 631-640.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567030903226264
[23] Sorgun, M. (2011) Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Pipe Eccentricity
Effect on Flow Characteristics of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 33, 1196-1208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2010.492381
[24] Anifowoshe, O.L. and Osisanya, S.O. (2012) The Effect of Equivalent Diameter De
finitions on Frictional Pressure Loss Estimation in an Annulus with Pipe Rotation.
Paper Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Gal-
veston, June 2012, Paper No. SPE 151176. https://doi.org/10.2118/151176-MS
[25] Vajargah, A.K. and Oort, E.V. (2015) Automated Drilling Fluid Rheology Characte-
rization with Downhole Pressure Sensor Data. Paper Presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, London, Paper No. SPE 173085.
https://doi.org/10.2118/173085-MS
[26] Mokhtari, M., Ermila, M. and Tutuncu, A.N. (2012) Accurate Bottomhole Pressure
for Fracture Gradient Prediction and Drilling Fluid Pressure Program—Part I. 46th
U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Vol. ARMA-2012-235, Chicago,
24-27 June 2012, 1-14.
[27] Vajargah, A.K. and Oort, E.V. (2015) Determination of Drilling Fluid Rheology
under Downhole Conditions by Using Real-Time Distributed Pressure Data. Jour-
nal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 24, 400-411.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.004
[28] Kristensen, A. (2013) Flow Properties of Water-Based Drilling Fluids. Master’s The-
sis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
[29] Akrong, J.A. (2010) Effect of Pipe Eccentricity on Hole Cleaning and Wellbore Hy
draulics. Master’s Thesis, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja.
[30] Kerunwa, A. (2020) Drillstring Buckling Prediction and its Impact on Tool-Joint
Effects in Extended Reach Wells. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Engi-
neering, 8, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ogce.20200806.16
[31] Hemphill, T. and Ravi K. (2006) Pipe Rotation and Hole Cleaning in an Eccentric
Annulus. Paper Presented at 2006 IADC/SPE, Miami, Florida, 21-23 February, Pa-
per No. SPE 99150.
[32] Pereira, F.A.R., Ataíde, C.H. and Barrozo, M.A.S. (2010) CFD Approach Using a
Discrete Phase Model for Annular Flow Analysis. Latin American Applied Re-
search, 40, 53-60.

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 143 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

A. Kerunwa et al.

Appendix
Table A1. String data.

Length Body STB/Tool Joint Linear Weight

Grade
Type Pipe Total OD ID OD ID Length NOM Actual Material Class

[ft] [ft] [in] [in] [in] [in] [in] [lb/ft] [lb/ft] [psi]

BIT 0.66 0.66 6.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0 CS

PDM 26.25 26.90 4.75 2.00 - - 29.9 42.91 42.91 110,000 CS

Stabilizer 1.15 28.05 4.75 2.25 5.75 2.19 3.3 40.00 40.00 110,000 CS

Hevi-Wate DP 10.17 38.22 3.50 2.25 4.75 2.188 20 25.00 25.00 55,000 CS

MWD 61.35 99.57 4.75 1.92 - - 29.9 50.00 50.00 110,000 SS

Hevi-Wate DP 30.51 130.09 3.50 2.06 4.75 2.125 20 25.00 25.00 55,000 CS

Drill Pipe 2577.76 2707.84 3.50 2.76 4.812 2.125 29.9 13.30 13.30 135,000 CS P

Hevi-Wate DP 367.29 3075.13 3.50 2.25 4.75 2.313 20 23.20 23.20 55,000 CS

Jar 12.50 3087.63 4.75 2.06 - - 20 37.50 37.50 110,000 CS

Hevi-Wate DP 1010.14 4097.77 3.50 2.25 4.75 2.313 20 23.20 23.20 55,000 CS

Hevi-Wate DP 370.73 4468.50 5.00 3.00 6.5 3 20 49.70 49.70 55,000 CS

Drill Pipe 6780.94 11,249.44 5.00 4.28 6.312 2.75 28.9 19.50 19.50 135,000 CS P

Nomenclature
ECD—Equivalent circulation density
ERW—Extended reach well
ERWs—Extended reach wells
APL—Annular pressure loss
APLs—Annular pressure losses
DF—Drilling fluid
DS—Drillstring
FPL—Frictional pressure loss
FPLs—Frictional pressure losses
τ = shear stress, lb/ft2
τ0 = Yield stress in lb/ft2
μp = Plastic viscosity, cp
n = flow behavior index
τy = Yield stress in lb/ft2
γ = Shear rate
K = Consistency index
∆Pa = Pressure loss for the annulus interval, psi
La = Length of the annulus interval, ft
fa = friction factor in the annulus
(D2 − D1) = anuular space, in
D2 = hole diameter or casing internal diameter
D1 = Pipe or drill collar inside diameter, in

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 144 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil

 A. Kerunwa et al.

na = Flow behavior index for the annulus (dimensionless)

θ6 = Viscometer reading at 6 rpm
θ3 = Viscometer reading at 3 rpm
Ka = Consistency factor in the annulus cP
va = Fluid velocity in the annulus, ft/s

DOI: 10.4236/ojogas.2021.64012 145 Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil