Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-021-01203-4

ORIGINAL PAPER-EXPLORATION ENGINEERING

Improving drilling hydraulics estimations‑a case study

Rahman Ashena1,2 · Abdol‑Azim Hekmatinia3 · Ali Ghalambor4 · Bernt Aadnoy5 · Charissa Enget6 ·
Vamegh Rasouli1

Received: 11 March 2021 / Accepted: 29 May 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
Accurate pressure drop estimation is important for drill string and bit nozzles design and optimized fluid circulations as well
as identifying the drilling problems such as bit nozzle(s) washout or plugging. In this study, the Bingham Plastic model has
been modified by applying a coefficient to its turbulent pressure loss calculations. This coefficient encompasses the effects of
the drill pipe tool joints and other effects in estimation of pressure losses. The range of the coefficient was determined in field
applications for different hole sizes and mud types. The results showed that applying a correction coefficient of 1.08–1.12 to
turbulent pressure loss equations (depending on borehole size and mud type) improves the pressure loss estimation. By apply-
ing this coefficient, the estimated pressure losses are increased to compensate the under-estimation of the Bingham Plastic
model. This is considered a significant contribution to accurate calculation of borehole hydraulics and in-time detection and
identification of borehole problems and reduction of invisible lost time. The findings also showed that this enhanced effect
is independent of the mud type. The use of this coefficient removes the necessity of using rather complex mud rheological
models such as the Herschel–Bulkley model.

Keywords Drilling hydraulics · Modified pressure estimation · Updated bingham plastic model · Total pressure loss

Introduction Accurate hydraulics estimations are greatly important for

managed pressure drilling (MPD) systems.
The fluid pressure varies widely along the circulation loop Presenting a simple real case example may clarify the
including the standpipe, the drill-string, across the bit noz- importance of hydraulic pressure prediction in safe and eco-
zles and along the annular space. In most drilling opera- nomic drilling operation. Assume that during drilling a 17
tion, single-phase liquid muds are used (as is focused in ½-in hole, the mud logger or the drilling supervisor does
this work), whereas multiphase fluids such as aerated muds not notice a small standpipe pressure (SPP) drop of 60–70
may be used in some specific situations (Guo et al. 2004 psi (out of SPP of 2900 psi). The consequence of this could
and Sun et al. 2006). Accurate hydraulics pressure predic- be the pipe twist-off and failure which requires the timely
tion is of great interest in drilling during the planning phase and costly fishing operation to remove it from the wellbore.
(hydraulics design) and the execution phase for detection This incident could be avoided if an automated hydraulic
and identification of drilling problems in a real-time manner. model were in place to monitor the variation in the expected
total pressure loss and compare it with the actual SPP. This
system is equipped with an alarm system which goes off
* Rahman Ashena as soon as the trend of pressure exceeds beyond a certain
[email protected]
threshold as an early warning. For instance, under constant
1
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA fluid rheological and circulation parameters, hydraulics cal-
2
Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation (APU), culations confirm that SPP is expected to increase slightly
Kuala‑Lumpur, Malaysia during drilling due to depth increase. During drilling, any
3
Ahvaz, Iran
small reduction in SPP will activate the alarm. A change in
4
pressure, depending on magnitude and increase or decrease,
Oil Center Research International, Lafayette, USA
is an indication of borehole-associated problems such as bit
5
University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway plugging or washout, tight holes, well control (kick flows),
6
Denver, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

mud loss, unrepresentative mud properties, errors in mud Nozzle(s) washout/lost jet
logging sensors readings, and cuttings accumulation in devi-
ated holes. If a bit nozzle comes off its port/opening in the bit, jet effect
Several sophisticated relations and models to incorporate is lost at the nozzle and a decrease in bit pressure drop and
different hydraulic parameters (e.g., eccentricity or rough- SPP occurs. This results in a rate of penetration (ROP)
ness) have been developed recently and incorporated into decrease. To calculate the magnitude of the expected pres-
sophisticated simulators to improve the prediction. However, sure drop, first the area of one nozzle is replaced by the area
these simulators require a large amount of processing time. of a full-open port which will result in larger total flow area
For pressure changes to be caught in-time, adequate estima- (TFA). Then, the bit pressure drop is calculated using the
tion speed of around 1 HZ (one estimation per second) is larger TFA. Hydraulics calculations can contribute to the
required. This suggests the use of simple relations and mod- detection of the problem. If the magnitude of the calculated
els for real-time estimations of automated hydraulics during pressure drop due to nozzle washout is close to the mag-
drilling. Several researchers (Fruhwirth et al. 2006; Zoell- nitude of the actual pressure drop, nozzle washout can be
ner et al. 2011; Wang and Salehi 2015; Shahri et al. 2018) inferred. The implication of this is that if nozzle washout
have proposed using artificial intelligence (AI), particularly is not identified, the drilling rate is adversely affected and
artificial neural networks (ANN) for hydraulics prediction. cones of rock bits or teeth of the PDC bits are severely dam-
In this work, first, pressure-associated drilling problems aged. This results in accelerated bit wear and a premature
and necessary measures to be taken to overcome problems need for a bit change causing a halt in the drilling progress.
are discussed. The role of accurate hydraulics calculations
is considered one of the most important measures. Different Drill string washout and pipe twist‑off
sources of errors in hydraulic estimations will be discussed.
Using measured field data and data fitting techniques, cor- If there exists washout along the drill pipe, depending on
rection coefficients are developed in different hole sizes, in the location of the washout, the amount of SPP drop differs.
order to compensate the difference between the actual stand- The nearer the washout location to the surface, the shorter
pipe pressure and the total system pressure drop. the flow path, and the greater the drop in SPP. Conversely,
the nearer is the washout spot to the bit, the lesser the pres-
sure drop will be, and the more difficult to notice it. This
Pressure‑associated drilling problems low pressure drop may be as low as 50 psi depending on the
and hydraulics role location of the washout. A consequence of failing to detect
the washout in a timely manner would be the pipe twisting
Most borehole-related problems during drilling affect SPP off, resulting in fishing operation to remove the junk pipe. In
measurements. In one type of classification, these problems this case, in addition to the SPP drop, drilling string weight
can fall into two categories. In the first category, due to a loss would be experienced. Pipe twist-off is considered a
mechanical failure in the drill string, the mud flow path is serious borehole problem as it requires fishing operations
either shortened or an impediment is placed against the and a considerable halt in drilling progress.
path causing pressure disruptions. Some examples of this
are bit nozzle washout, bit nozzle or drill string plug, and Opening of already plugged bit nozzles
drill string washout and twist-off. These problems affect the
SPP directly. The second category of problems is related to Consider a situation where the DPs have been flushed prop-
wellbore geomechanics (an example work is Ashena et al. erly following cementing operations. In this case, some
2020), such as kicks and tight holes. These are indirectly flakes or scales may stay and stick to the inner sides of the
related to hydraulics, but they also affect SPP as one of the pipes. If the driller does not conduct a full inspection before
surface indications. running them back in the hole during the next shift, some
In another classification, downhole pressure-associated of these flakes may come off and plug the bit nozzles. If
problems are categorized depending on their effect on this occurs, the plugging will not be detected by the driller
decrease or increase in the SPP. These are discussed in the or drilling supervisor (through this should never happen).
following subsections: Depending on the pump flow rate, it is possible that the
debris will be removed from the nozzles and plugged noz-
Decrease in SPP zles will be unplugged which would indicate a decrease in
SPP. Therefore, accurate hydraulics pressure calculations
A decrease in SPP may occur in the following cases: will allow detecting both nozzle plugging and unplugging.

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Mud loss string weight, the drill string is twisted-off and a pipe fish is
in the hole. If pressure drop is rather small (say 50–200 psi),
If a severe mud loss occurs, SPP decreases. The magnitude it may be the drill string washout. If a significant pressure
of the pressure drop is obtained by replacing the new circu- increase is observed, it may be due to nozzle plugging. If
lation rate in the annulus. The new circulation rate is calcu- a small increase in SPP is observed, it may be due to tight
lated by subtracting the rate of mud volume loss from the holes. Therefore, dummy trips or wash-and-reams may be
circulation rate and recalculating the annular pressure drop. attempted to remove the tight hole, which makes the SPP
back to normal.
Kick flow Due to the important role of hydraulics in pressure-asso-
ciated drilling problems, two issues are important. First, it
When a kick flow occurs, a minimal reduction in SPP and is suggested that the mud logging units be equipped with
a minimal increase in pump flow rate occur as a secondary an accurate hydraulics estimation of system pressure loss
indication. These are attributed to the contribution of the to compare it with the actual SPP in real time. Therefore, in
kicking formation pressure to fluid displacement. Therefore, an emergency, the drilling supervisors do not need to do the
improving the accuracy of hydraulics calculations in this time-consuming calculations by themselves. Second, guar-
work contributes to detection of possible discrepancies and anteeing high accuracy of hydraulics calculations is impor-
kick flows. tant for proper identification of problems which is discussed
in the rest of this paper.
Increase in SPP

Nozzle(s) plug Improving accuracy of hydraulics

calculations
During drilling, one or several bit nozzles may become
plugged. The plugging material can come from lost circula- Sources of errors
tion materials (LCMs) in case of pumping LCM pills, pos-
sible barite sag or settling of weighting materials, or the There are several sources of errors in conventional hydrau-
cement flakes from the cement scales (which may come off lics calculations which are discussed as follows:
from the inner side of the DPs). If nozzle(s) are plugged,
depending on the number and size of the plugged nozzles, Tool joints
SPP will increase suddenly. This sudden increase is usually
detected by the driller or supervisor, but any delay in detec- Tool joints have smaller inside diameters (IDs) than the pipe
tion may consequently lead to washout of the pin of the bit body. This causes some restriction against flow in pipes with
or even the drill string. In severe cases, the bit may cut at its contraction and expansion of the fluid as it enters and exits
pin and fish down the hole. To calculate the magnitude of (Jeong and Shah 2004). This effect is considerable as fluid
the increase, simply eliminate the area of the nozzle(s) from velocity in the string is high and flow pattern is turbulent.
the TFA. As for the implication, in case the detection of the They have also larger outside diameters (ODs) than the
problem is not made in time, it could lead to poor hydrau- pipe body. Therefore, the annulus clearance across a tool
lics and hole cleaning, bit balling of the bit (on the side of joint is smaller than the annulus clearance across the pipe
plugged nozzles), or a drop in ROP. body which creates some restriction against flow. However,
the effect is minimal because fluid velocity is so low in the
Tight borehole annulus.
In addition, partial diversion of fluid flow occurs at tool
Tight borehole regions may exist in the open-hole annulus. joints, which means that the direction of part of the stream
These can be present in drilling marl or shale-bearing forma- is altered. Both of these effects alter the characteristic flow
tions which are accompanied with high drilling torque. In pattern and create further turbulence or elevation of the tur-
these cases, SPP may increase. bulent friction factor (White et al. 1996). Therefore, exist-
In case of observing standpipe pressure (SPP) changes, a ence of tool joints causes extra pressure losses in the drill
method of identifying the problem, hydraulics calculations pipes and their annuli. Since drill collars do not have tool
are performed to find the total or system pressure loss and joints and their inside diameter is usually constant, this effect
compare it with the actual SPP. Accuracy of hydraulics cal- does not apply to them. The API recommended RP 13D
culations is significantly important. If the pressure drop is (2003) for drilling hydraulics calculation techniques does
considerable (say 500 psi), it may be due to nozzle(s) wash- not include the tool joint effect (Ochoa 2006). The API RP
out. If a pressure drop occurs along with a loss of the drill 13D (2009) just cited some recent research works (White

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

et al. 1996 and Jeong and Shah 2004), but did not mention Therefore, plastic viscosity enters the Blasius equation
the equations in detail. Some researchers have theoretically through the Reynolds number. This is an assumption which
modeled this and experimentally investigated or developed may not be necessarily correct.
empirical correlations (Denison 1977; Mccain 1994; Jeong
and Shah 2004; Simoes 2005; Ochoa 2006; Calcada et al. Critical Reynolds number
2012). Various bit manufacturing companies use some of
these models. Ignoring the “tool joint effect” causes consid- There is a discrepancy in researchers’ opinions on the value
erable error in pressure loss calculations. It affects both the of the critical Reynolds number. Some researchers such as
pressure drops in the drill pipe and in the annulus. Moore (1986) considered the value of 2000 as the critical
number, whereas in drilling mostly the value of 3000 is con-
Ignoring pipe roughness sidered (Rabia, 1985), but these are all empirical values.

Owing to the chaotic nature of fluid particle movement in Temperature and pressure effects on mud rheology
turbulent flow, it is extremely difficult to arrive at an exact
analytical method for determining pressure losses (Rabia During drilling, the drilling mud is subjected to its own hydro-
1985). To resolve the issue, simplification of friction factor static pressure and formation temperature. Mud properties are
equation is essential. typically measured at ambient pressure and a lower tempera-
Blasius equation is a simple equation commonly used in ture than the hole, including the rheological parameters (plas-
drilling sources to find the Darcy friction factor in turbulent tic viscosity PV, yield point YP, gel strength GS, and mud
pressure drop (see Blasius 1913), and this was later used and weight MW) which are directly used in hydraulics calcula-
cited by Schlumberger (1984); Rabia (1985), and Moore tions. The pressure and temperature differences between the
(1986). This equation is popular as it only depends on the hole and the surface are considerable, particularly in HPHT
Reynolds number and is independent of roughness. This equa- wells and at low circulation rates (Osisanya and Harris 2005).
tion was originally derived from Navier–Stokes equations Higher bottomhole temperature causes mud expansion
for Newtonian fluids, and its coefficients were found using which lowers mud weight and rheological parameters (White
researchers’ experiments. Different researchers used differ- et al. 1996). Conversely, greater bottomhole pressure causes
ent coefficients for the equations (Rabia 1985; Moore 1986; slight fluid compression and increases the aforementioned
Kelessidis and Bandelis 2004; Guo and Liu 2011, see Table 5 parameters. These two conflicting effects almost cancel out
in Appendix) which is therefore considered an uncertainty in in oil-based muds in vertical wells. However, in water-based
the equation. Using the effective viscosity concept, the equa- muds, the temperature effect is much larger than the pressure
tion is applicable to non-Newtonian fluids (Weltmann 1956). effect (Rommetveit and Bjorkevoll 1997; Patel and Chaudhari
Another equation recommended by API (2009) for finding the 2014). To consider these effects, it is required to accurately
turbulent friction factor is Churchill (1977) which is similar know the pressure and temperature dependence of the density,
to Blasius (1913), independent of roughness. viscosity, and gel strength of the actual mud system as well as
As the Blasius equation ignores pipe roughness, it is only the temperature profile in the well. These effects are not con-
proposed for the calculation of pressure drop in smooth pipes. sidered in normal hydraulics calculations and are considered
Drill pipes are sometimes rather old and have rough interior a source of error, particularly in HPHT wells.
surfaces. Therefore, the common use of Blasius equation in
hydraulics equations in turbulent flow is considered a source Rotation and eccentricity effects
of error (White et al. 1996). API (2009) and Bourgoyne et al.
(1991) generally suggested that ignoring the roughness does A number of studies were done on the effect of drill string
not cause significant errors, whereas White et al. (1996) men- rotation on annular pressure drop (APL) and equivalent cir-
tion noticeable effect of the roughness even for plastic-coated culating density (ECD) (Walker and Al-Rawi 1970; Luo and
pipes. Peden 1987; Bailey and Peden 2000, Ooms et al. 1999; and
Ravi and Hemphill 2006). Rotation is known to lower APL
Assumption about effective viscosity in turbulent flow and ECD at low rotation speeds and increase APL beyond
a certain rotation speed (Ravi and Hemphill, 2006). The
The Blasius equation includes a term for the Reynolds model proving this was presented in Hemphil et al. (2008). In
number. The Reynolds number is found by multiplying the inclined boreholes, drill strings are eccentric in the hole and
mud density, velocity, and hydraulic diameter and dividing pipe rotation has some effect on that. Eccentricity also causes
by the effective viscosity. In turbulent flow, it is assumed the reduction of annular pressure loss in laminar and turbulent
that the effective viscosity is equal to the plastic viscosity flow. A model of the effect of eccentricity on hydraulic pres-
(PV) divided by 3.2 (Rabia 1985 and Moore 1986, p. 256). sures was proposed by Haciislamoglu (1994) which is also

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

cited in the API RP 13D (2009). A more recent model was sensors in the drill string and annulus, White et al. (1996)
given by Zamora et al. (2005). However, relationships that found that actual drill string pressures (turbulent) are signifi-
consider the combined effects of pipe rotation, and eccen- cantly higher than predicted by API equations which accounts
tricity and drill string instabilities (API 2009) are not readily for discrepancies between the actual SPP and estimated total
available, although some works involving these were done by pressure losses using rheological models. The theoretical rea-
Ravi and Hemphill (2006). sons for this observation are given as follows:

Discharge coefficient (­ Cd) Simplified turbulent flow equations

The actual mud exit velocity out of bit nozzles is lower than Due to the assumptions and simplified equations presented in
the calculated values by conventional equations. This is attrib- the previous section to calculate pressure drop (e.g., Blasius
uted to frictional losses and an eddy in the nozzles. To account equation), the possibility of error is greater in the turbulent
for this, a correction factor called discharge coefficient (­ Cd) flow than that of the laminar flow regime. However, possible
was introduced. The value of C ­ d was experimentally found to error in the laminar flow regime is low since equations are
range up to 0.99 depending on the shape and design of noz- based on robust analytical equations with few assumptions.
zles and the back-pressure on the nozzles (Eckel and Bielstein Similarly, possibility of error in the calculation of bit nozzle
1951; Kristler 1953). However, the value of 0.95 is used by pressure drop is limited as their pressure drop calculations are
most publications though some practitioners recommend 0.98. rather accurate and nozzles are very short in length.
As a source of error, “0.95” may not necessarily be the exact
value of ­Cd for nozzles used in a specified drilling job. The Higher velocities and pressure drops in turbulent flow
exact results must be experimentally found.
Due to low velocities in laminar regime, laminar pressure
Cuttings losses are minimal. Because of higher velocities in the drill
string, most of the system pressure loss occurs where the tur-
Cuttings are generated at the bit face and are transported to the bulent flow exists. Generally, the deviation from the actual
surface by the mud through the annulus. This means a greater value (error) is more where there are greater pressure magni-
mud weight exists in the annulus which causes greater APL tudes (i.e., turbulent regime). Therefore, the tool joint effect
than what is calculated. The greater the ROP, the greater the is much more considerable inside the drill string compared
generated cuttings, the mud weight in the annulus, and the to the annulus.
APL. The effect of cuttings is more in deviated and slim-hole Assuming the mud weight/density in the annulus is the
wells (API 2009). same as the drill string, the total pressure drop in a mud cir-
culation system is estimated as follows:
Laminar pressure estimation errors ∑ ∑
ΔPtotal = ΔPsurf + ΔPbit + ΔPlam + ΔPturb (1)
In laminar flow regime, some pressure drop occurs. Several
models such as the Power Law and the Bingham Plastic are where ΔPsurf is the pressure drop in the surface lines; ΔPbit
∑
used to estimate pressure drops in the laminar regime. The is the bit pressure drop; ΔPlam is the sum of the laminar
Herschel–Bulkley model is considered a more accurate and pressure drops (which can be found using either Bingham
∑
accepted model for the calculation of oil-well drilling fluid Plastic or Power Law model); and ΔPturb is the sum of the
rheology and hydraulics (Klotz and Brigham 1998; Bern et al. turbulent pressure drops in the drill string.
2006). This is because it accommodates the existence of a Considering the parameters of Eq. 1, it is assumed that the
yield point as well as the nonlinearity of the relationship of discrepancy between the estimated total pressure drop and the
shear stress to shear rate (Power and Zamora 2003). However, actual SPP is mainly related to the turbulent pressure drops in
this equation is complex since it includes iterative methods. the drill string. Regardless of the correctness of this assump-
Therefore, most drilling companies and rigs still prefer to use tion, a correction coefficient called Ct is multiplied by pressure
simpler models, particularly the Bingham Plastic model. drops in turbulent regimes in the drill string with the objec-
tive of compensating the mentioned discrepancy. In fact, the
Correction coefficients and data fitting turbulence correction coefficient (­ Ct) considers the errors in
the turbulence flow regime as well as the other errors in the
Most of the errors in hydraulics calculations are attributed to laminar regime and the bit nozzles. In other words, this coef-
the turbulent flow regime, particularly in the drill string. This ficient will cover all possible sources of errors.
has been confirmed experimentally, but it can be accounted The corrected total pressure drop estimated in Bingham
for theoretically. Using downhole pressure and temperature Plastic model (ΔPtotal.Bing,c ) is found by incorporating the

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 1  Input data used for hydraulics calculation for several cases in the 8 ½-in borehole.
Case Depth Drill pipe length [in] Mud Plastic Yield point Noz- Circulation rate Down- SPP [psi]
weight viscosity, PV [Ibf/100ft2] zle size [Gallon/min] hole
[ppg] [cp] [1/32in] motor

1 3,104 m/10,184 ft 2,674 m/8,773 ft 10.6 32 11 3 × 20 490 Yes 2700

2 2,485 m/8,153 ft 2,297 m/7,536 ft 9.9 8 6 3 × 32 300 No 400
3 2,566 m/8,419 ft 2,378 m/7,802 ft 9.89 9 8 3 × 32 300 No 500
4 3,305 m10,844 ft 3,129 m/10,266 ft 9.9 24 10 3 × 32 330 No 735
5 2,806 m/9,206 ft 2,633 m/8,639 ft 9.63 22 9 3 × 16 470 No 1900
6 2,854 m/9,364 ft 2,701 m/8,862 ft 8.96 25 12 7 × 32 250 No 420
7 3,022 m/9,915 ft 2,870 m/9,416 ft 8.96 5 11 7 × 32 290 No 400
8 3,178 m/10,427 ft 3,025 m/9,925 ft 8.96 32 14 7 × 32 255 No 590
9 2,937 m/9,636 ft 2,683 m/8,803 ft 19.6* 56 19 3 × 32 238 No 930
10 1,771 m/5,810 ft 1,620 m/5,315 ft 8.82 5 13 6 × 14 450 No 700
11 1,804 m/5,919 ft 1,653 m/5,423 ft 8.82 5 12 6 × 14 450 No 700
12 1,851 m/6,073 ft 1,700 m/5,577 ft 8.82 5 12 6 × 14 450 No 710
13 1,922 m/6,306 ft 1,771 m/5,810 ft 8.82 5 12 6 × 14 450 No 720
14 1,947 m/6,388 ft 1,796 m/5,893 ft 8.82 5 13 6 × 14 450 No 705
15 3,370 m/11,057 ft 3,192 m/10,473 ft 9.22 18 11 3 × 16 400 No 1500

It is noted that the drill pipe outside diameter was 5 in and the drill collars outside diameter was 6 ½ in
*
The mud weight used in this case was exceptionally super-high (19.6 ppg)

Table 2  Explanatory calculation of correction coefficient (Ct ) for the cases in the 8 ½-in borehole size
Case Total pressure Surf. lines Bit Laminar Turb Difference (Final) Least square (Final) Correction coefficient
loss (measured)
SPP ΔPsurf ΔPbit ΔPlam,Bing ΔPturb 𝛿 L.S Ct
(Eq. 4) (Eq. 5)

1 2700 39 275 319 2011 130.54 1.70E + 04 1.092 ~ 1.1

2 400 12 15 78 266 4.78 2.29E + 01
3 500 12 15 110 274 63.18 3.99E + 03
4 735 17 5 213 470 13.74 1.89E + 02
5 1900 30 565 165 852 208.87 4.36E + 04
6 420 10 2 357 64 18.63 3.47E + 02
7 400 10 2 164 230 26.92 7.25E + 02
8 590 10 2 479 70 22.46 5.04E + 02
9 930 18 20 620 175 81.26 6.60E + 03
10 700 20 202 101 358 14.69 2.16E + 02
11 700 20 202 97 362 14.10 1.99E + 02
12 710 20 202 99 368 13.60 1.85E + 02
13 720 20 202 104 377 17.94 3.22E + 02
14 705 20 202 113 381 46.04 2.12E + 03
15 1500 21 392 234 630 164.69 2.71E + 04

The data were gathered from seven wells. The word “Final” indicates that all the iterations were done, and good data fitting was achieved
*Existence of a downhole motor and measurement while drilling (MWD) system caused the pressure drop of 850 psi in the system. This value
was added to the total pressure drop

∑ ∑
multiplier Ct to update the sum of turbulent pressure drops ΔPtotal.Bing,c = ΔPsurf + ΔPbit + ΔPlam.Bing + Ct × ΔPturb .
∑
(Ct × ΔPturb): (2)

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 3  Comparison of estimated total pressure drops with the actual standpipe pressure (SPP) and calculation of errors in average absolute per-
cent errors (AAPEs) and least square (L.S.) and mean square errors (MSEs).
Case Total Errors
(Estimated) (Actual) AAPE % Least Square (L.S.)
SPP
ΔPtotal,Power ΔPtotal,Bing ΔPtotal.Bing,c Power Bing Corrected-Bing Power Bing Corrected-Bing
(Eq. 1) (Eq. 1) (Eq. 2) (Eq. 7) (Eq. 5)

1 2559 2644 2831 2700 5.22 2.07 4.83 1.99E + 04 3.13E + 03 1.70E + 04
2 332 371 395 400 17.08 7.36 1.20 4.66E + 03 8.67E + 02 2.29E + 01
3 358 411 437 500 28.36 17.72 12.64 2.01E + 04 7.85E + 03 3.99E + 03
4 612 705 749 735 16.75 4.06 1.87 1.52E + 04 8.92E + 02 1.89E + 02
5 1554 1612 1691 1900 18.22 15.15 10.99 1.20E + 05 8.29E + 04 4.36E + 04
6 270 433 439 420 35.82 3.02 4.43 2.26E + 04 1.61E + 02 3.47E + 02
7 335 406 427 400 16.20 1.41 6.73 4.20E + 03 3.17E + 01 7.25E + 02
8 347 561 568 590 41.14 4.90 3.81 5.89E + 04 8.36E + 02 5.04E + 02
9 552 833 849 930 40.65 10.48 8.74 1.43E + 05 9.50E + 03 6.60E + 03
10 646 681 715 700 7.74 2.64 2.10 2.93E + 03 3.43E + 02 2.16E + 02
11 646 681 714 700 7.68 2.78 2.01 2.89E + 03 3.80E + 02 1.99E + 02
12 654 689 724 710 7.86 2.89 1.92 3.12E + 03 4.22E + 02 1.85E + 02
13 666 703 738 720 7.47 2.37 2.49 2.90E + 03 2.91E + 02 3.22E + 02
14 676 716 751 705 4.08 1.52 6.53 8.28E + 02 1.16E + 02 2.12E + 03
15 1186 1277 1335 1500 20.97 14.87 10.98 9.89E + 04 4.98E + 04 2.71E + 04
Average error: 18.35 6.22 5.42 3.47E + 04 1.05E + 04 6.88E + 03
(MSE, Eq. 6)

In most cases, the Corrected Bingham model shows to have the least errors compared with the other models; in some few cases, its error is not
the least because of the nature of regression and the regressed ­Ct

By adding this coefficient, it is expected that the corrected errors were calculated in two formats: using the average abso-
total pressure drop tends to the actual SPP: lute percent error (AAPE) and mean square error (MSE).
Then, as the innovation in this work, measured datasets were
ΔPtotal. Bing,c ≅ SPP. (3) used to tune the Bingham Plastic model by multiplying an
To find an optimal ­Ct in practical sense, a least square optimized correction coefficient C ­ t by its turbulent pressure
regression or data fitting method was carried out using field drops and then finding the total system pressure drop (Equa-
measurements from fields in southwest Iran. To do this, first, tion-1). An optimized value of the target ­Ct was found by
54 datasets were gathered from different borehole sizes of 14 applying the ordinary least square (OLS) regression method
onshore vertical wells. Data quality control and filtering was to the data to minimize the mean square error (MSE). To do
performed in order to ensure that the input data to the model this, first an initial (guess) value is given for Ct in equation-2
are reliable. The input parameters consisted of hole size, drill (e.g., value of “1”). Next, considering equation-3, the differ-
string depth, drill collar (DC) diameters and lengths, drill pipe ence 𝛿 is found for each case (i) as follows:
(DP) diameters and lengths, casing size and depth, mud prop- [ ∑ ∑ ]
𝛿i = (SPP − ΔPsurf − ΔPbit − ΔPlam.Bing ) − Ct × ΔPturb .
erties, circulation rate, bit nozzles number and sizes, and the i
actual SPP (which represents the total system pressure loss). (4)
They were classified based on the borehole sizes wherein Using 𝛿, the least square (L.S.) for each case is found as:
the measurements were made. In particular, it is important
that the rheological parameters are carefully measured at the L.S.i = 𝛿i 2 . (5)
time of the recording the data (Ugochukwu 2015). Also, it
Next, the mean square error (MSE) is found for all the
was ensured that data were not taken when mud losses were
data as:
occurring.
Next, the total system pressure drops were found by using
the Power Law and the Bingham Plastic model. The model

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 1  Average absolute percent 17 1/2-in Hole (Ct=1.094)

errors (AAPEs) of predicted
total pressure drops from actual
standpipe pressures for different
cases in 17 ½-in hole. The opti- 23.05
mized value of the correction
22.60
coefficient ­Ct is 1.094 20

18 17.45

16

14
AAPE [%]

12
9.89 10.12
9.66
9.34
10 8.17 8.19
8.33
7.78 7.67
7.32 6.87
8
5.89 5.72 5.99
6.10
4.74 4.84 5.38
6 5.01
4.53 4.70
3.49 4.11 3.57
2.54 2.80 2.77 3.50
4 3.392.22
2.29 1.76
2.54 2.77
3.13 2.24 2.14 1.87
2 0.90 1.51 0.82
1.09
0.59
0.07 0.27
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Avg

Case No.

AAPE (Corr. Bing) AAPE (Bing) AAPE (Power)

∑n
L.S.i | SSP − ΔPtotal |
MSE = 1
(6) AAPE(%) = || | × 100
| (7)
n | SSP |
where n is the number of cases. This error is considered the where ΔPtotal is the total pressure drops by using either esti-
main criterion of data fitting in this work. mation method (the Power Law, the Bingham Plastic, or Cor-
The regression is continued in an iterative manner such that rected Bingham Plastic model).
MSE is minimized. After several iterations, the regressed Ct
is found when the minimum possible MSE is obtained. The
above process was done first using measured data for each Results and discussion
borehole size separately and then using combined data of all
borehole sizes. Finally, optimized values of ­Ct were compared Data fitting
with each other including the case of all combined borehole
sizes. It is noted that the reason to find ­Ct for each borehole To explain the data fitting method, first the required input data
size separately was to consider the possible effect of different for one of the borehole sizes (8 ½ in) are given in Table 1.
geometries of different hole sizes on errors and the correction Table 2 shows the steps of the least square regression to find
coefficient. the correction coefficient ­(Ct).
It is noted that the error can be also calculated using the Table 3 lists and compares the total pressure drops and
average absolute percent error (AAPE) as follows: their errors using the different models of Power Law, Bing-
ham Plastic and Corrected Bingham Plastic. Similarly, Figs. 1,

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 2  AAPEs of predicted 12 1/4-in Hole (Ct=1.12)

total pressure drops from actual
standpipe pressures for different
cases in 12 ¼-in hole. The opti- 41.63
mized value of the correction 37.96
coefficient ­Ct is 1.12 35
32.71

30
25.76

AAPE [%]
25

18.19
20

14.79 15.2915.60
14.49 14.57
13.75 14.48 13.28
12.95 13.10 13.57 13.26
15 12.29
11.8311.60 11.85
10.16 9.78 9.64
9.04 9.30
8.90 7.93
10 8.22 7.46
7.15 7.41 6.72
5.87 6.15 6.10
6.07 6.62 7.95
5.82
4.014.28 4.26 4.75
4.13 4.33 4.004.51
5 3.47
2.84 2.77 2.83 3.06 2.95
2.45 2.24
1.48 0.49 1.44
0.43 0.66 0.44 0.11
0
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Avg

Case No.

AAPE (Corr. Bing) AAPE (Bing) AAPE (Power)

2, 3, and 4 display the performance of the different models size. Data fitting using combined data of all hole sizes showed
in different borehole sizes (respectively, 17 ½ in, 12 ¼ in, 8 the average value of C ­ t is 1.1 (Table 4). Since the value of
½ in, and 6 1/8 in/5 7/8 in) by comparing their errors using ­Ct remains near 1.1 for each hole diameter, it indicates that
the AAPEs. For the 17 ½-in borehole, Fig. 1 shows that the change of hole sizes does not have considerable effect on ­Ct,;
Corrected Bingham has the best prediction performance however, it does not mean that the error in all the cases was
with 3.5% error. In Case 15, a considerable error of 17.45% the same. Therefore, by adding around 10% of turbulent pres-
occurred probably because of inaccurate field measurements sure losses to the Bingham predicted pressure, the errors of
for this case. For the 12 ¼-in borehole, Fig. 2 shows that the the model were eliminated, and the estimated total system
Corrected Bingham has the best prediction performance with pressures are close to the actual SPP (Fig. 5).
4.75% AAPE. In Case 27, a considerable error of 32.71% Water-based muds were used in 17 ½-in and 12 ¼-in, 6
occurred probably because of inaccuracy in the field meas- 1/8-in/5 7/8-in boreholes, and oil-based muds (OBMs) were
urements. For the 8 ½-in borehole, Fig. 3 shows that the Cor- used in 8 ½-in borehole. Some practitioners hypothesize that
rected Bingham has the best prediction performance with hydraulics calculation errors in OBMs are greater than those
5.42% AAPE. For the 6 1/8- and 5 7/8-in boreholes, Fig. 4 in WBMs. As each borehole size was drilled with totally dif-
shows that the Corrected Bingham has the best prediction ferent parameters (such as depth and mud weight) from the
performance with 6.8% AAPE. others, any comparison between the OBMs and WBMs is
The optimized values of C ­ t were found in each borehole not logical. Despite that, Table 4 compares the OBM in the
size using data fitting performed with the OLS method. Using 8 ½-in borehole with the WBM in the 17 ½-in as both bore-
Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the ­Ct values are 1.094 (17 ½-in hole), hole sizes have rather comparable mud weights. Based on this
1.120 (12 ¼-in hole), 1.092 (8 ½-in hole), and 1.085 (6 1/25- table, the average AAPE of the OBM is larger than that of the
and 5 7/8-in holes), with the lowest value for the smallest hole WBMs. It is noted that there is some hydraulics error in the

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 3  AAPEs of predicted 8 1/2-in Hole (Ct=1.092)

total pressure drops from actual
standpipe pressures for differ-
ent cases in 8 ½-in hole. The
optimized value of correction
coefficient ­Ct is 1.092. The 45 41.14 40.65
Power Law model has the worst
performance (greatest error),
whereas the Corrected Bingham 40 35.82
model has the best performance
(lowest error) 35
28.36
AAPE [%] 30

25 20.97
18.22 18.35
17.08 17.72 16.75
20 16.20
15.15 14.87
15 12.64
10.99 10.48 10.98
7.74 7.68 7.86 7.47
10 7.36
5.22 8.74 6.22
4.90 6.53 4.08
4.06 6.73
4.83 5.42
3.02 2.64 2.78 2.89 2.37
5 2.07 4.43 1.413.81 1.52
1.87 2.10 2.01 1.92 2.49
1.20
0
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Avg

Case No.

AAPE (Corr. Bing) AAPE (Bing) AAPE (Power)

super-heavy WBMs (up to the mud weight of 20.7 ppg) used pressure drop using graphs given by Gabolde and Nguyen
in 12 ¼-in borehole size, due to solids settling and inconsist- (2006) causes some error. Therefore, it is proposed that a pres-
ent mud weight in the drill string and annulus. However, based sure sensor is installed so that this pressure drop is measured
on Table 4, since the value of ­Ct is found to be consistent in rather than estimated. The second point is related to calibra-
different borehole sizes regardless of the drilling fluid type, tion of the hydraulic pressure drop estimations in the drill
the improvement due to the model in this study is independent string. Therefore, it is proposed to use downhole pressure
of drilling fluid type. measurements in the measurement while drilling (MWD)
The aforementioned table shows that the Corrected system, which is a practice particularly in offshore operations.
Bingham model showed the best performance of all with Using such a sensor, by changing the circulation flow rates,
the lowest error in the considered hole sizes (AAPE = 4.93, the effect on the drill string pressure drop measurements is
MSE = 16,179). This shows that the correction coeffi- found and compared with calculations.
cient from this study has significantly improved the Bing-
ham Plastic model’s pressure estimation (AAPE = 7.65%,
MSE = 37,441). The Power Law model showed the lowest Conclusions and future work
performance with the highest error (AAPE = 12.83% and
MSE = 64,411). The followings are summary of the conclusions drawn from
this study:
Other considerations
1. The proposed method in this work (called the Corrected
For future works, two points should be considered. The first Bingham Plastic model) applies a correction coefficient
point is related to a possible error related to the pressure drop to turbulent flow pressure drops with the aim of cover-
in the surface system (from the mud pumps through connec- ing all sources of errors and eliminating or reducing the
tion lines to the standpipe and swivel). Estimation of surface

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 4  AAPE of predicted total 6 1/8 & 5 7/8-in Holes Hole (Ct=1.085)
pressure drops from actual
standpipe pressures for different
cases in 6 1/8″ and 5 7/8-in
boreholes. The optimized value
of the correction coefficient ­Ct
22.86
is 1.085. The Power Law model
has the worst performance
(greatest error), whereas the 25
Corrected Bingham model has
the best performance (lowest
error)
20

14.54
14.86 12.25

15 10.11 10.05
AAPE [%]

9.23
8.45
5.98
10 6.87 7.07
7.63
6.80

5
2.96
1.76

0
51 52 53 54 Avg

Case No.

AAPE (Corr. Bing) AAPE (Bing) AAPE (Power)

Table 4  MSE, AAPE, and the optimized values of the correction coefficient, C
­ t in different borehole sizes
Hole size
17 ½ in 12 ¼ in 8 ½ in 6 1/8 in and 5 7/8 in All
WBM (MW = 9.4– WBM (MW = 12.5– OBM (MW = 8.82– WBM (MW = 8–18.6 –
13.6 ppg) 20.7 ppg) 10.6 ppg) ppg)

Ct (for Corr. Bing) 1.094 1.123 1.092 1.085 1.1

AAPE [%] Corr. Bingham 3.5 4.75 5.42 6.8 4.93
Bingham 5.99 9.64 6.22 9.23 7.65
Power Law 6.87 13.28 18.35 12.25 12.83

WBM and OBM stand for water-based mud and oil-based mud, respectively. As each borehole size was drilled with totally different parameters
from the others, a logical comparison between the OBMs and WBMs is not possible. Despite that, comparing the OBM in the 8 ½-in borehole
with the WBM in the 17 ½-in (as both borehole sizes have rather comparable mud weights), the average AAPE of the OBM is larger than that of
the WBMs. It is noted that there should be some hydraulics error in the super-heavy WBMs (up to 20.7 ppg mud weight)

discrepancy between pressures estimated by the Bingham all borehole sizes. As this value is close to values of each
Plastic model and actual standpipe pressures. borehole, it indicates that different geometries of borehole
2. Using field measurements, optimized values of the cor- sizes do not have a considerable effect on ­Ct. On aver-
rection coefficient (­ Ct) were found to range from 1.08 to age, by adding around 10% of turbulent pressure losses,
1.12 in different borehole sizes of one of the fields in Iran. the errors of the Bingham model are eliminated, and the
The value of 1.1 was found using the combined data of

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 5  Estimated total system

pressure drop versus actual 3000
All Holes
standpipe pressure using the
Power Law, Bingham Plastic,
and Corrected Bingham model

2500

2000
∆P_total [psi]

1500

∆P_total,meas (SPP)

1000 ∆P_total, Corr.Bing

(MSE=16,179/AAPE=4.93%)
∆P_total,Bing
(MSE=37,441/AAPE=7.65%)
∆P_total,Power
(MSE=64,441/AAPE=12.83%)

500

0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Length of Drill String [
]

estimated total system pressures would be almost equal drops. Therefore, accurate hydraulic estimations can con-
to actual standpipe pressure. tribute to comparison with the standpipe pressure and that
3. Results showed that the Corrected Bingham model can help us to detect hole problems.
showed the greatest accuracy/lowest error of all (aver- 6. As a future work, it is recommended that such data be
age absolute percent error (AAPE) of 4.93% and mean gathered from different regions and similar data analysis
square error (MSE) of 16,179). Results also show that this be carried out in order to compare, refine, and better vali-
model’s improvement is independent of the type of mud. date this model.
4. Placing the estimated system pressure calculated by the
Corrected Bingham model as a display parameter at the
rig-site mud logging data can complement measured Appendix
standpipe pressure to detect and identify pressure-asso-
ciated borehole problems And for application in managed Several researchers discussed using the Blasius equation to
pressure drilling (MPD). By using new filtered data dur- calculate the turbulent friction factor. Each researcher used
ing drilling, the correction coefficient can be empirically their own coefficients (Rabia 1985; Moore 1986).
optimized in real time for each region. See Table 5.
5. This work presents a practical yet simple method in
improving the accuracy of estimated hydraulics pressure

13
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 5  Different coefficients of Blasius’ equation for turbulent fan- oil well drilling. Braz J Petrol Gas, V. 6n.4, p. 145–157, ISSN
ning friction factor “f” in terms of Reynolds number “Re” in different 1982–0593
literature works Churchill SW (1977) Friction factor equation spans all fluid-flow
regimes. Chem Eng 7:91–92
Rabia (1985) Moore (1986) Colebrook 1938, Kelessidis Colebrook CF (1938) Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular reference
et al. (2004), and Guo et al. to the transition region between the smooth and rough pipe laws.
(2011) JICE 11:133–139
Denison E (1977) Pressure losses inside tool joints can alter drilling
f = 0.057 × Re−0.2 f = 0.046 × Re−0.2 f = 0.079 × Re−0.25 hydraulics. Presented at the energy technology conference and
exhibitions, Houston, 18–22 September
Eckel JT, Bielstein WJ (1951) Nozzle design and the effect on drilling
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Mr. Mark Enget for his rate and pump operations. API Drilling and Production Practices,
constructive comments to improve the technical quality of the paper. p. 28–46
Fruhwirth RK, Thonhauser G, Mathis W (2006) Hybrid simulation
using neural networks to predict drilling hydraulics in real time.
Funding The authors received no funding for this work.
SPE 103217-MS, presented at SPE annual technical conference
and exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September. doi:
Declarations https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​103217-​MS
Gabolde G, Nguyen J (2006) Drilling data handbook. ISBN: Editions
Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interests in this work. Technip. ISBM: 9782710809715
Guo B, Sun K, Ghalambor A, Xu C (2004) A closed form hydraulics
Ethical approval All ethical matters have been regarded in this paper. equation for aerated mud drilling in inclined wells. SPE Drill
Completion J 19(2):72–81
Guo B, Liu G (2011) Applied drilling circulation systems, Gulf Profes-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- sional Publishing
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Haciislamoglu M (1994) Practical pressure loss predictions in realis-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long tic annular geometries. SPE 28304-MS, presented at SPE annual
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, technical conference and exhibition, 25–28 September, New
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Orleans, Louisiana. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​28304-​MS
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Hemphill T, Ravi K (2005) Calculation of drill pipe rotation effects on
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated axial flow: an engineering approach. SPE 97158-MS, presented
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in at SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, 9–12 October,
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Dallas, Texas. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​97158-​MS
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Hemphill T, Ravi K, Bern PA, Rojas J (2008) A simplified method for
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a prediction of ECD increase with Drillpipe rotation. SPE 115378-
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. MS, presented at SPE annual technical conference and exhibition,
21–24 September, Denver, Colorado, USA. doi: https://​doi.​org/​
10.​2118/​115378-​MS
Jeong Y, Shah S (2004) Analysis of tool joint effects for accurate fric-
References tion pressure loss calculations. In: IADC/SPE Drilling Confer-
ence, Paper SPE 87182- MS, Dallas, Texas. doi: https://​doi.​org/​
API RP 13D, 2003 and 2009. Recommended practice on the rheology 10.​2118/​87182-​MS
and hydraulics of oil-well drilling fluids. Fourth edition. American Kelessidis VC, Bandelis GE (2004) Flow patterns and minimum sus-
Petroleum Institute pension velocity for efficient cuttings transport in horizontal and
Ashena R, Elmgerbi A, Rasouli G, A., Rabiei, M., Bahrami, A. (2020) deviated wells in coiled-tubing drilling. SPE 81746-PA, Published
Severe wellbore instability in a complex lithology formation in SPE Drilling and Completion Journal, Vol. 19 (04). doi: https://​
necessitating casing while drilling and continuous circulation doi.​org/​10.​2118/​81746-​PA
system. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Klotz JA, Brigham WE (1998) To determine Herschel-Bulkley coef-
s13202-​020-​00834-3 ficients. J Pet Technol (JPT) 50:80–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​
Bailey WJ, Peden JM (2000) A generalized and consistent pressure 52527-​JPT
drop and flow regime transition model for drilling hydraulics. SPE Kristler AW (1953) the effect of back pressure on ’Nozzle characteris-
J Drill Completion 15:44–56 tics, a thesis submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the
Blasius H (1913) Das Aehnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgangen in requirements for the degree of Master of Science in mechanical
Flussigkeiten. VDL Forsch, 131–137 engineering in the Rice Institute, Houston, Texas, USA
Bern PA, Morton K, Zamora M, May R, Moran DP, Hemphill T, Luo Y, Peden JM (1987) Flow of drilling fluids through eccentric
Saasen A (2006). Modernization of the API recommended prac- annuli. SPE 16692-MS, presented at SPE annual technical confer-
tice on rheology and hydraulics: creating easy access to integrated ence and exhibition, 27–30 Sep., Dallas, Texas, USA. doi: https://​
wellbore fluids engineering. SPE 98743-MS, Presented at IADC/ doi.​org/​10.​2118/​16692-​MS
SPE Drilling Conference, 21–23 February, Miami, Florida, USA. McCain RC (1994) Pressure Loss in Tool Joint. Texas: Mobil, Dallas
doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​98743-​MS MI Drilling Fluids Co., 1991. Drilling Fluid Engineering Manual,
Bourgoyne AT, Millheim Jr KK, Chenevert ME, Young Jr FS (1991) Chapter 12, p. 13.
Applied drilling engineering, SPE Textbook Series Vol. 2, ISBN: Moore PL (1986) Drilling practices manual. Second Edition, Published
978–1–55563–001–0 by PennWell Publishing Company
Calcada LA, Eler FM, Paraiso ECH, Scheid CM, Rocha DC (2012) Ochoa MV (2006) Analysis of drilling fluid rheology and tool joint
Pressure drop in tool joints for the flow of water-based muds in effect to reduce errors in hydraulics calculations. Submitted to the
Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial

13
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Phi- - North America, 5–6 September, Midland, Texas, USA. doi:
losophy, Texas A&M University, USA https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​191797-​MS
Ooms G, Burgerscentrum JM, Kampman-Reinhartz BE (1999) Influ- Simões SQ (2005) The effect of tool joints on ECD while drilling
ence of Drillpipe rotation and eccentricity on pressure drop over with power law fluids. Master’s Dissertation, University of Tulsa,
borehole during drilling. SPE 56638-MS, Presented at SPE annual Oklahoma, USA
technical conference and exhibition, 3–6 October, Houston, Texas. Sun K, Guo B, Ghalambor A (2006) An analytical solution for aerated
doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​56638-​MS mud and foam drilling hydraulics in deviated holes. J Can Petrol
Osisanya SO, Harris OO (2005) Evaluation of equivalent circulating Technol 45(3):23–27
density of drilling fluids under high pressure/high temperature Ugochukwu O (2015) Optimizing hydraulics for drilling operations. In:
conditions. SPE 97018-MS, presented at SPE annual technical Paper presented at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Confer-
conference and exhibition, 9–12 October, Dallas, Texas. doi: ence and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, August. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​97018-​MS 2118/​178478-​MS
Patel A, Chaudhari R (2014) Optimization of Well hydraulics for Walker RE, Al-Rawi O (1970) Helical flow of bentonite slurries. SPE
riserless deepwater drilling operations under high temperature 3108, Presented at fall meeting of the society of petroleum engi-
and high pressure environment. SPE 172304-MS, presented at neers of AIME, 4–7 October, Houston, Texas. doi: https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
SPE annual Caspian technical conference and exhibition, 12–14 10.​2118/​3108-​MS
November, Astana, Kazakhstan. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​ Wang Y, Salehi S (2015) Drilling hydraulics optimization using neural
172304-​MS networks. SPE 173420-MS, Presented at SPE digital energy con-
PowerD, Zamora M (2003) Drilling fluid yield stress: measurement ference and exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 3–5 March.
techniques for improved understanding of critical drilling fluid doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​173420-​MS
parameters, paper aade-03-ntce-35 presented at the 2003 AADE Weltmann RN (1956) Friction factors for flow of non-Newtonian mate-
technical conference, Houston, 1–3 April rials in pipelines. Ind and Eng Chem 48(3):386–387
Rabia H (1985) Oilwell drilling engineering. Published by Graham and White WW, Zamora M, Svoboda CF (1996) Downhole measure-
Trotman, Principles and Practices ments of synthetic based drilling fluid in offshore well quantify
Ravi k, Hemphill T (2006) pipe Rotation and hole cleaning in eccentric dynamic pressure and temperature distributions. SPE 35057-MS,
annulus. SPE 99150-MS, Presented at IADC/SPE drilling confer- Presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 12–15 March, New
ence, 21–23 February, Miami, Florida, USA. doi: https://​doi.​org/​ Orleans, Louisiana. Vol. 12 (3), p. 149. doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​
10.​2118/​99150-​MS 2118/​35057-​MS
Rommetveit, R., & Bjorkevoll, K. S., 1997. Temperature and Pressure Zamora M, Roy S, Slater K (2005) Comparing a basic set of drilling
Effects on Drilling Fluid Rheology and ECD in Very Deep Wells. fluid pressure loss relationships to flow-loop and field data. AADE
SPE 39282-MS, Presented at SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling National Technical Conference and Exhibition
Technology Conference, 23–25 November, Bahrain. doi: https://​ Zoellner P, Thonhauser G, Lueftenegger M, Spoerker HF (2011) Auto-
doi.​org/​10.​2118/​39282-​MS. mated real-time drilling hydraulics monitoring. SPE 140298-MS,
Schlumberger (1984) Cementing technology. Dowell Schlumberger presented at SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition, 1–3
Publications March, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. doi: https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.2​ 118/​
Schlumberger, 2005. The oilfield glossary: where the oil field meets the 140298-​MS
dictionary, Available at: http//glossary.oilfield.slb.com/ (accessed
in July 2020) Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Shahri M, Kutlu B, Thetford T, Nelson B, Wilson T, Behounek M, jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ashok P (2018) Presented at SPE liquids-rich basins conference

13