SPE

SPE 11057

Society of Petroleum Engineers of A1M E

Simulation of the Wellbore Hydraulics While Drilling, Including the

Effects of Fluid Influxes and Losses and Pipe Washouts
by Keith K. Millheim, Amoco Production Co., and Said Sahin Tulga, Drilling Resources

Development Corp.
Members SPE

Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was presented at the 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
held in New Orleans, LA, Sept. 26-29,1982. The material IS subject to correction by the author. Permission to
IS restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, P.O. Drawer 64706, Dallas. Texas

This paper presents a method to simulate the

circulating system while drilling a well. For any
given pump rate the pressure losses through the surface system, down the drill pipe, through the bit,
and up the annulus can be determined. The algorithm
also has the capability of simulating a washout in
the drill string, losing fluid to the formation,
having fluid produced into the annulus, and fracturing the formation(s).

importance of the mud-circulation system, there has

been widespread interest in trying to predict the
pressure losses in the system for various fluid
types and downhole wellbore conditions.

The algorithm is general enough to calculate

pressure losses for turbulent and laminar flow,
simultaneously. This covers the situation where
multiple flow regimes exist in the same circulation
loop.

Bobo 1 ,2 and Moore 3 were two of the earlier

investigators who developed algorithms for the
drilling circulation system that would calculate the
pressure losses for a given pump rate. Other investigators like Fontenot,4 Zamora,s Denison,S Schuh, 7
and Kendal 8 presented findings on downhole hydraulics. Some of the work concentrated on a single
aspect of the circulation system, whereas other
studies referred to the entire circulation system.
Special hydraulics manuals and slide
rules,9,lO,11!12 and computer programs were developed for the drilling person.

Formulation of the algorithm is presented,

showing how a network type of solution is used to
calculate the pressures and flows. The iterative
solution converges rapidly and can be used for real
time and faster than real time simulation.

Comparisons of field data with the calculated

results generated from the various techniques did
not always give satisfactory results. In part, this
is due to the oversimplification of the algorithms
derived to simulate the mud-circulation system.

Detailed surface pressure data was obtained

from two wells in Texas. The circulation simulation
program was used to calculate pressure losses at
various depths in each well for a variety of circulation rates. Results presented in this paper show
close agreement with the field data.

Fontenot and Clark 4 recognized the need for

including the variation in fluid properties, wellbore geometries, and drill string properties. They
presented an algorithm designed for the computer to
determine the pressure losses for a multivariant
mud-circulation system.

To show the versatility of the simulation

algorithm a series of idealized circulation system
simulations are presented. These include various
downhole circulation situations such as lost circulation, circulation without returns, and fluid production response as a function of permeability and
pressure, and circulating with a hole in the drill
string.

After reviewing the existing algorithms it was

decided that a new approach was necessary to better
simulate the multivariant downhole conditions. The
basic idea was to develop an algorithm that was general enough to simulate almost any circulation situation with any type of fluid, wellbore, and drill
string configuration.
This paper is the first reporting of the algorithm and its utilization.

INTRODUCTION
CIRCULATION SYSTEM MODELING
The mud-circulating system is one of the major
components in the drilling system. Because of the
paper.

The downhole hydraulic circulation mechanism is

illustrated in Fig. l(a). Drilling fluid pumped by
the mud pumps travels through the surface equipment

SIMULATION OF THE WELLBORE HYDRAULICS WHILE DRILLING,

INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF FLUID INFLUXES AND LOSSES IN PIPE WORKOUTS

11057
/

and down the drill stem to the bit. Once the

drilling fluid is out of the bit, it travels through
the annulus between the drill string and wellbore
where it interacts with the geological formations.
Depending on the drilling fluid, formation pore
pressures and permeabilities, some fluid may be lost
to the formations or some formation fluid may be
gained in the wellbore. The net flow in the annulus
is then diverted into the shale shaker or through
the choke manifold. In addition, both the blowout
preventer and choke manifold may be closed. If this
is done, a casing head pressure may develop,
depending on the drilling fluid and formation pore
pressures. Another consideration which affects the
downhole hydraulics is the Occurrence and gradual
enlargement of a washed out hole somewhere on drill
string. Such a hole will divert some of the fluid
in the drill string into the annulus before it
reaches the bit. Another situation is where the
pressure in the annulus exceeds the formation fracture pressures, in which case, some of the formations could be fractured and substantial amounts of
drilling fluid could be lost.
Since the flow rates for the permeable formations and the washed out hole and subsequently the
net flow in the annulus are not known a priori, a
fluid network solution procedure is needed to compute the pertinent variables.
The time dependent solution strategy is:
1. Obtain a steady-state response for the
network model for a particular interval of
time.
2.

- d

AgQ

(2)

The formation fluid viscosity ~ is in

function of temperature and pressure.

~(T) = 2.566 - 0.291 T

- 3.108 x 10- 7

+ 1.422

+ 2.4173 x 10-

4 2
10- T
(3)

10

T4

and for oil:

~(T,p)

(1 + 0.001 P )

(5,81153 e

-9.1228 x 10- 3T

(4)

It is noted that in the current model only

liquid formation fluids are considered. Incorporation of a gas kick simulation capability is cUrrently underway.
The fundamental relationship used in the analysis of one dimensional fluid flow problems is the
Bernoulli's equation modified for the pressure loss.
For a pipe flow, Bernoulli's equation written for
points 1 and 2 is: 14 (see Fig. 3)
2

Invoke the material balance requirement to

calculate the fluid level in the wellbore
and the element fluid properties for that
time interval.

The network model for the drilling circulation

system which is made up of drill stem, annulus and
geological formation elements, is shown in
Fig. l(b). In this model, every drill string pipe,
tool joint, collar, and annulus section is modeled
as a separate pipe element with different fluid and
geometric properties (see Fig. 2). The effective
hydraulic diameter for annulus elements is:
d

3.13 x 10 5 ~ In r
kh
d

In drilling probl ms, the magnitude of kinetic

2
energy terms p (v /2) are negligible as compared to
the other terms. Therefore:

(6)

Hence, the net pressure difference between two

points in a pipe section is due to hydrostatic pressure difference and the pressure loss between these
two points.

(1)

The advantage of having pipe and annulus elements with different fluid properties is the added
capability of being able to simulate the variation
of rheological properties, solids distribution and
concentration, and other varying properties. By
using this approach viscosity sweeps, pumping cement
with spacers, and other such fluid displacements or
the spotting of fluids can be simulated. Also,
influxes of the different formation fluids are handled with little difficulty.
Each geological formation with a nonzero permeability is modeled as a formation element with a
pressure loss characteristic governed by the radial
fJow version of Darcy's law 13 (see Fjg. 2).

In the current version of the model, the

drilling fluid is modeled as a power law fluid 15
(see Fig. 4) for which:

(7)

The power law constant K and power factor n can be

determined graphically or calculated from yield
point t and plastic viscosity ~ measurements made
with a otational viscometer, de~igned for Bingham
plastic fluids 15 for which:

(8)

KEITH MILLHEIM & S. SAHIN TULGA

11057

The values of K and n can be calculated from:

Re

3.32 log

(9 )

cr

3470 - 1370 n

for laminar flow

4270

for turbulent flow

(17)

1370 n

The pressure loss at the bit can be determined from

Bernoulli's equation using Equation (18).

(10)
100(1022)n

(18)

For power law fluids, the Reynolds number and

sure loss for drill stem and annulus flow l6 ,1

-n
Re

2a8 b (n-l)

Q2-b(2-n)

p8
Re

2-n
Q

1-b Kb [3n +
4n

1J

are:

(11 )

bn

2-b(2-n)

Ap Q

(12)

1-n
(13 )

where C is a correction factor used to incorporate

b
the frictional pressure loss. A value of 0.95 to
0.98 is utilized for Cb'

For one-dimensional fluid circulation systems,

there may be additional pressure losses due to the
changes in flow cross section and/or in flow direction. Any change in flow cross section or flow
direction disturbs the normal velocity distribution
and subsequently mechanical energy is converted into
heat through the action of turbulence. Such pressure losses are called minor losses. The name is a
misnomer however, because in some cases minor losses
may be more important than frictional losses. The
magnitude of minor losses can be determined either
analytically through the use of momentum and Bernoulli's equations or experimentally. For the
drilling circulation system as explained in this
paper, the significant minor losses occur at the
entrance and exit of tool jOints and annulus elements, and at the blowout preventer and choke manifold valve restrictions. Also a minor pressure loss
will occur at the bit exit due to 180 0 change in
flow directi on.
The minor pressure losses are usually in the
form:

pM _Q2
2gA

(19 )

where M may be a function of geometry and/or flow

parameters.
2-b(2-n)
Q

A Q2-b(2-n)

(14 )

for which the Fanning friction factor constants a

and bare: 16,7

24

for laminar flow

0.02 log n + 0.0786

for turbu1ent flow

(15)

for laminar flow

(16)

0.25

0 143 log n

for turbulent flow

The critical Reynolds numbers are:

16

For various tool joint secLi ons, Deni son 6 determined the minor loss coefficient M, experimentally, as a function of Reynold's number. For the
blowout preventer and choke manifold valve
restrictions M is analytically determined 8 as:

!J

20 A

'1

(20)

There are no known analytical or experimental

results to determine the magnitude of minor lo~ses
at the bit exit due to the 180 0 change in flow
direction. Hence as an approximation, experimentally determined values 9 for M for pipe elbow connections are used.

SIMULATION OF THE WELLBORE HYDRAULICS WHILE DRILLING,

INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF FLUID INFLUXES AND LOSSES IN PIPE WORKOUTS

11057

as app le
0
are illustrated
The washed out hole is modeled as a circular
hole with a hydraulic diameter d. The washed out
hole diameter is assumed to be aWfunction of time
and flow rate as: (see Fig. 5)
for t < O.lOSt

(2la)

for t > O.lOst

(21b)

1.0-e

-r

In the solution method used in this project,

first, the flow rates for all the pipe sections are
calculated. Once these flow rates are determined,
pressures at desired points are evaluated.
For each junction point, one linear equation
for mass conservation can be written as:
(25)

where the time constant r is a function of the

washed out hole flow rate Q as:
w

r =a

(22)

Qt3

where Q are the pipe section flow rates. In Equation (2S) Q t are known values. Hence, there are j
linear alge5~aic equations as function of pipe section flow rates. For each minimum loop in the pipe
network:

L?-.Q2-b(2-n) + LpM

where a and t3 are experimentally determined constants.

The pressure loss characteristic of the washed
out hole diameter cannot be determined analytically
by the aid of the momentum and energy principle
because the magnitude of the lateral force on the
wall is not known. However, if the pressure loss at
the washed out hole is assumed similar to that of a
minor loss, application of Bernoulli's equation will
yield: (see Fig. 6(a)
2

(26)

where summation L is over all pipes in the loop.

Equation (26) states that the total pressure loss
around the minimum loop must be zero. Finally, c-l
equations can be written for all of the constant
pressure points as:

(27)

2
+

(23)

P3 + pM
2gA

The pressure loss at the washed out hole as calculated from Equation 23 for three different values of
M are plotted in Fig. 6(b), as well as experimentally determined values for three different hole
diameters for a similar system as a function of flow
rate ratio Q2/ Ql' As seen from Fig. 6(b), for the
range of wasned out hole diameters encountered in
drilling operations, a constant value of M = 0.5 is
most appropriate for use in this algorithm.

where ~p is total pressure difference between the

two constant pressure nodes and again the summation
I is over all the pipes in the loop.
Hence Equations (25) through (27) represent a
set of r simultaneous algebraic equations in terms
of pipe flow rates Q, for a network of r pipe sections. Equations (26) and (27) are nonlinear in Q,
whereas Equation (24) is linear. The nonlinear
terms in Equations (26) and (27) can be linearized
about an operating point as (see Fig. 8):

l-b(2-n)
+ p
op

In a fluid network, the nwnber of pipe sections

is given by:

[2-b(2-n)] ?-.Q

r ::: j + Q + c - 1

2-b(2-n)
[1-b(2-n)] gQoP
+

(24)

where r is the number of pipe sections. A pipe section includes all the pipe, annulus and formation
elements connected in series with a common flow
rate. "j" is the nwnber of junctions which is
defined as a point where three or more pipe sections
meet or a point where flow of known quantity is put
in or removed from the system. "2," is the number of
minimum loops which is defined as a closed pipe circuit which does not contain any other closed pipe
circuits. "c" is the nwnber of constant pressure
points which are defined as points in the system
where both the pressure and elevation are known.

Q
op

Qop

Q+

eQ + f

(28)

Replacement of nonlinear equations with the linearized versions yields a set of r simultaneous linear
algebraic equations with r unknown flow rates as:

-;.

(29)

KEITH MILLHEIM & S. SAHIN TULGA

11057

where A is a nonsymmetric, sparse, square matrix,

whose elements are 1, -1 and linearized pressure
loss equation slopes for the pipe sections. Q is a
vector of unknown pipe section flow rates and B is a
vector storing the external flow rates, the hydrostatic component of pressure differences between the
constant pressure points and linearized pressure
loss equation constants for the pipe sections.

If the annulus element pressure corresponding

to an already fractured formation for a particular
time step is less than the formation fracture pressure, i.e if

Since nonlinear simultaneous equations are to

be solved for the pipe section flow rates, an iterative solution procedure must be used. The solution
technique utilized to calculate the steady state
response is as follows:

then the fracture is modeled as closed and the formation element assumes its properties prior to fracturing for the next time step.

(1)

Assume pipe section flow rates Q,

(2)

Calculate the pressure loss constants for

pipe sections,

The assumption of incompressible fluid is no

longer valid for the leak-off test simulation
because mud compressibility plays an important role
in the system response. The drilling fluid compressibility for a pipe or annulus element is given by:

(3)

Linearize the nonlinear pressure loss

equations using the assumed flow rates,

(4)

Calculate the elements of the A matrix and

B vector,

(5 )

Solve

(6)

"AlIa

B for Q,

Compare the calculated Q with the assumed

If not converged, go
to (2) with the newly calculated Q as the
assumed flow rate vector. If converged,
calculate the pressures.

Pa < PFR

1 tJ.V
tJ.p V

(32)

(33)

The drilling fluid compressibility is in general a

function of temperature, pressure and fluid component densities and volumes.

Q for convergence.

The solution procedure for the leak-off test

simulation is as follows:
1.

Calculate the casing head pressure as:

An Euclidean error norm type of convergence

criteria is used:
(34)

< m

(30)

where P
is the casing head pressure and ZQf
are theCRet inflow to the wellbore (all calculated from the previous time step).
where m is a predetermined convergence constant.
this project m ~ 0.01 is used.

In

Once the steady state response is calculated,

the material balance requirement is used to calculate the fluid level and material properties for
that time interval.
Formation Fracturing Simulation
After all the element pressures are calculated,
the magnitudes of annulus element pressures are compared with the corresponding formation element fracture strengths. The formation element is assumed
fractured if:

2.

Determine the annulus pressure and the formation flow rates for the permeable formations.

3.

Check for formation fracturing.

In the computational implementation of the

model, six different operational conditions are
identified as "cases". This classification is based
on the status of pumps, blowout preventer, and choke
manifold as shown in Table 1. Furthermore, six
"subcases" for each case are identified based on
geometrical considerations as to the presence and
location of permeable formations and a washed out
hole. The description of the subcases and the order
of A matrices, Band Q vectors are shown in Table 2.

(31 )

COMPARISON OF FIELD AND CALCULATED RESULTS

and the formation element properties such as
permeability, thickness etc., are revised for the
next time step, as determined by a separate model.
If there is more than one formation element for
which Equation (31) is satisfied, then only the element with max(P
- Pa) is modeled as fractured.
FR

Surface pressure data from two wells drilled in

Texas were compared with calculated pump pressures
using the algorithm cited in this paper. Table 3
presents the comparison of the field and calculated
pressure results.

SIMULATION OF THE WELLBORE HYDRAULICS WHILE DRILLING,

INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF FLUID INFLUXES AND LOSSES IN PIPE WORKOUTS

The pressure data was obta~ned by a drilling

data logger at one-foot intervals. Various random
depths for each well were selected to calculate the
pump pressures.
A comparison of the measured pressure data :is
made with calculated values using a standard hydraulics computer program that is available via a time
sharing computer service. The pressure losses in
the drill pipe and collars are cited in the first
column. The second column presents the pressure
losses through the bit, and the third column is the
pressure losses in the annulus. The fourth column
is a summation of the pressure losses. Similar calculations arc made using a standard hydraulics calculating slide rule.
The results from the hydraulics algorithm presented in this paper are segmented into pressure
losses in the pipe, through the bit, annular losses,
and minor tool joint losses.
The differences in the three sets of results
are summarized in the last three columns. The
average percent deviation and the average absolute
percent deviation indicate that the new algorithm
calculates pressure losses closer to the actual
measured values than the other two methods.
What is interesting to note is some of the genera] differences in the calculations. Comparison of
the pipe and annular pressure losses indicates the
new algorithm generally calculates lower pressure
losses than the other two methods. Except for two
values in the one case and one in the other, the
computer and slide rule calculations consistently
predict higher surface pressures than observed in
the field, whereas the new algorithm has almost an
equal splil above and below the field measurements.
The reason for the closer results is primarily
because the new algorithm does not make as many simplifying assumptions as the other hydrauliCS
methods. Where flows arc laminar or turbulent,
pressure losses are calculated using the appropriate
relationships for each flow regime. Variability of
the drill string, collars, tool joints, and annulus
are all considered as well as fluid properties.
Note the minor pressure losses are small for most
cases; however, for increased circulation rates and
longer strings, minor losses could be as much or
more than the annulus losses.
USE OF THE CIRCULATION ALGORITHM TO snfULATE VAIU OUS
DOWNHOLE SITUATIONS .
The classic usc of a circulation algorithm is
to calculate normal pressure losses and circulation
rates for the drill string, bit, and annulus. In
actual drilling situations formations are encountered that have permeahilities that allow fluids in
the formation to flow into the annulus or for fluids
in the annulus to flow into the formation. Whether
the flow is an influx or fluid production depends on
the pressure difference between the formation pore
pressure and the Circulating or static pressure
opposite the formation.
Fig. 9 shows a situation where a 12-1/4 in.
hole is being drilled. A permeable formation is
encountered with a pore pressure of .44 psi/ft.
Using water as the drilling fluid it is apparent the
formation fluids will flow into the annulus unless
the pressure differential is reduced to zero. This

can

be

achlevecl by two methods for

11057

th~s

case:

(J) the density of the drilling fluid can be

increased or (2) the pressure loss above the formation can be increased such that the equivalent circulating density (EeD) balances the formation
pressure. The ECD is influenced by the mud properties, collar outside diameter and hole size, and
circulation rate. Fig. 9 shows for a given collar
and hole size and fluid properties how the change in
circulating rate for a given formation permeability
can affect the influx or fluid production of the
drilling and formation fluids. At approximately
300 gpm circulation rate the ECD balances the formation pressure. For circulation rates below 300 gpm
the formation produces at a given rate, dependent on
the permeability of the formation. Above 300 gpm
fluid from the annulus is lost into the formation.
This example shows how the algorithm can simulate a situation that is frequently encountered in
the field.
In the real drilling case a filter cake
could build up and retard the influx or fluid production. This mechanism is currently being added to
the algorithm.
In one field development for a secondary
recovery project, a lost circulation problem sometimes doubled the cost of drilling the well. The
simulation of the problem is presented by Fig. 10.
At approximately 4550 ft a high permeability zone is
encounlered and lhe annular fluid is lost into the
zone. Depending on the permeability of the zone,
partial or full returns are losl. Fig. 10 shows the
percent of flowline returns as a function of permeability. At a permeahility of 220 md full returns
are lost (actually the annular fluid level is 4 ft
below the surface). For 250 md the fluid level is
at a depth of 312 ft. This type of simulation makes
it possible to investigate the situation where it
might be necessary to drill with a floaling mud cap
(drilling without returns). The level of the fluid
column can be determined for a given circulation
rate, formation permeability, and fluid dp'llsity.
Using the network solution it would be possihle to
simultaneously pump down the dri I 1 pipe and the
annulus which has to he done sometimes to control
the well from a lower zone that could produce.
Fig. 11 shows a particular situation where
there arc two pcrmeaole intervals at different pore
pressures of .40 psi/ft and .48 psi/ft. This type
of situation is one of the most difficult drilling
prohlems to encounter. Drilling with a fluid density of water hath A and B zones can produce.
Increasing the mud weight to 9.0 ppg causes zone A
to lose circulation and zone B to still produce.
The amount of influx and production is a function of
flow capacity (kh). Tf the flow capacity is such
that the influx into interval A was 100 gpm (50 md),
it might oe possible to mix enough weighted mud to
conLJnue on wi Lhout prematurely setting casing.
Conversely the permeability could be too high where
it would be impossible to continue drilling. Casing
would have to be run. The main point is this type
of simulation algorithm makes it possible to analyze
complex drilling situations that are handled hy
experience and trial and error. Again it should be
remembered that the algorithm does not include the
effects of filler cake buildup which would generate
a skin and could reduce the fluid influx or flllid
production.

11057

KEITH MILLHEIM & S. SARIN TULGA

It can be argued that permeabilities and other

information for doing this type of analysis is difficult to obtain. However, the analysis of good
drilling data (from a drilling data logger) coupled
with logs and other information make it possible to
bracket the unknown formation properties in most
cases where a reasonable simulation study can be
made.

mUltiple fracturing, gas kick control, and the determination of a washed out hole location.
NOHENCLATURE
a

Fanning friction factor constant

A

This algorithm also can be used to simulate

multifluid circulation such as used for cementing,
well control, viscosity sweeps, and other such
cases.
Another case that can be simulated is when circulation is stopped the formations either take
fluids or produce. If the annulus is partially
restricted or closed, the algorithm can also simulate that situation. Although not active yet, the
algorithm can simulate reverse circulation.
Almost every possible downhole circulation
situation can be simulated using the network type of
solution. Future work will include the effects of
fluid filtrate loss and filter cake buildup, transient fluid flow for both radial and linear flow
geometries, and the handling of the more complex
fluid types.
The causality diagram for the mud circulation
system simulation module is presented by Fig. 12.

Coefficient matrix
Total bit jet area, sq. ft
~

Choke manifold pipe area, sq. ft

A
v

Choke manifold valve opening area, sq. ft

Fanning friction factor constant

Vector containing external flow rates linearized pressure loss constants and hydrostatic
pressure differences

Number of constant pressure points

Drilling fluid compressibility, psf

C
b

Bit pressure loss correction factor

Depth, ft

Annulus element effective hydraulic diameter,

ft

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Annulus element outer diameter, ft

In this report, a technique to analyze and simulate the complete downhole hydraulics of a drilling
operation is presented. This technique is based on
fluid network analysis methods and is capable of
modeling the interaction of the drilling mud with
geological formation fluids, formation fractures and
washed out holes which may form in the drill string.

Annulus element outer diameter, ft

Drilling mud is modeled as a power law fluid.

Both frictional and minor pressure losses are
included in the analysis.
It is observed that
(1) pressure losses are not very sensitive to small
changes in K and n; i.e., for small changes in K and
n, changes in pressure loss are small, and (2) minor
pressure losses are important and should be included
in pressure loss calculations.

Pipe element inside diameter, ft

Pipe element outside diameter, ft
d
d

Washout hole hydraulic diameter, ft

Linearized pressure loss equation slope

Linearized pressure loss equation constant

Gravitational acceleration

a
P

= 32.17

ft/sec 2

Geological formation element thickness, ft

Pipe element length, ft
Counter for pipe, annulus and formation flow
elements

Only liquid formation fluids are considered in

the present analysis. Modeling gas production and
air drilling are logical extensions of the technique
described in this report.
Sample case runs as compared to actual field
results show that the new technique predicts the
actual pressure losses closer than the other
hydraulic calculation methods and will be of value
in the field especially for drilling in problem formations. Moreover, the algorithm will let the
drilling person study the effects of the controllable hydraulic parameters, such as bit jet size,
pump flow rate, mud density and viscosity and devise
the most desirable mud circulation program. Also,
the algorithm forms a basis for the study and formulation of new methods to aid the engineer such as in

Radial formation bed outer diameter, ft

All configurational possibilities such as

blowout preventers and the choke manifold being open
and/or closed are modeled using the new technique.

-1

Number of junction points

k

Geological formation element permeability, md

Fluid constitutive law constant

Number of minimum loops

Minor loss coefficient

Fluid constitutive Jaw factor

order of A matrix
Number of permeable formations

SIMULATION OF THE WELLBORE HYDRAULICS WHILE DRILLING,

INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF FLUID INFLUXES AND LOSSES IN PIPE WORKOUTS

11057

ressure, ps

oss

Annulus element pressure referred to the

depth of the annulus element, psf

Fluid density, pcf

Casing head pressure

Tt

Phi number

Casing head pressure for previous iteration

Fluid shear stress, psf

Geological formation element fracture pressure, psf

Time constant for washed out hole diameter

enlargement

IJ f

Geological formation fluid viscosity as function of temperature and pressure, cp

Formation pressure

p.

Formation element wellbore pressure, psf

Fluid yield point, psf

Frictional pressure loss at bit, psf

Drilling fluid plastic viscosity, cp
Frictional pressure loss at the annulus elements, psf

= Minor

pressure loss, psf

= Frictional

pressure loss at drill stem ele-

The authors would like to thank Amoco Production Company for the permission to prepare and write
this paper.

ments, psf

Flow rate, cfs

= Flow

1.

Bobo, R. A., "Drilling Cheaper with Lower Pump

Pressures,"
Sept. 11,
1967, pp.

2.

Bobo, R. A., "Current Practices in Drilling

Hydraulics,"
Jan-Feb
1969, pp.

3.

Moore, P. L., "Five Factors That Affect

Drilling Rate," The Oil and Gas
Oct. 6, 1958.

4.

Fontenot, J. E. and Clark, R. K., "An Improved

Method for Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures
and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling Well,"
of Petroleum
Journal

5.

Zamora, M. and Lord, D. 1., "Practical Analysis

of Drilling Mud Flow in Pipes and Annuli," presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston, Texas, Oct. 6-9, 1974.

6.

Denison, E. B., "Pressure Losses Inside Tool

Joints,"
1 Sept. 26,
1977, pp.

7.

Schuh, F. J., "Computer Makes Surge-Pressure

Calculations Useful," The Oil and Gas Journal,
Aug. 3, 1964, pp. 96-104.

8.

Kendall, H. A. and Goins, W. C., Jr., "Design

and Operation of Jet-Bit Programs for Maximum
Hydraulic
, Impact Force or Jet
Velocity,"
Transactions AIME,
Vol. 219,

rate vector, cfs

Calculated flow rates from previous iteration, cfs

Pump flow rate, cfs
Washout hole flow rate, cfs
Reynolds number for annulus element
Re
Re

cr
p

Critical Reynolds number

Reynolds number for drill stem element

Number of pipes

Ratio of flow rate Euclidean vector errOr

norm to current flow rate Euclidean vector
norm

Time, sec

Temperature, of

Velocity, ft/sec

Volume, ft 3

Washout hole diameter time constant coefficient

Washout hole diameter time constant coefficient

9.

Y
A
a

Hughes Tool Co.

Fluid shear strain rate

= Annulus

element pressure loss constant

Drill stem element pressure loss constant

10.

Hydraulics for Jet Bits, Hughes Tool Co. (Jan

1956).

11057
11.

KEITH MILLHEIM & S. SAHIN TULGA

Reed Roller Bit Co., Hou-

1.

Metzner, A. B. and Reed, J. C., Flow of NonNewtonian Fluids, Correlation of the Laminar,
Transition and Turbulent Flow Regimes,"
Journal, December, 1955, p. 434.

17.

Savins, J. G., "Generalized Newtonian Pseudoplastic Flow in Stationary Pipes and Annulus,"
_______________~______.____ , 1958, p. 325.
Vennard, J. K., "Elementary Fluid Mechanics,"
John Wiley & Sons, 1970.

12.

Hydraulic Calculator, Security Engineering

Division, Dallas, Texas.

13.

Dake, L. P., "Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering," Elsevier, 1978.

14.

Streeter, V. L. and Wylie, E. B., "Fluid

Mechanics," Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1979.

18.

15

Wilkinson W. L., "Non-Newtonian Fluids," Pergamon Press, 1960.

19.

"Pressure Losses in Smooth Pipe

TABLE 1

PUMP
STATUS

BLOWOUT PREVENTER
STATUS

CHOKE MANIFOLD
STATUS

ON

OPEN

CLOSED

OFF

CLOSED

CLOSED

ON

CLOSED

OPEN

OFF

CLOSED

OPEN

OFF

OPEN

CLOSED

ON

CLOSED

CLOSED

CASE
NUMBER

TABLE 2

SUBCASE
NUMBER

PERMEABLE
FORMATIONS

WASHOUT

LOCATION OF
PERMEABLE FORMATIONS

ORDER OF
MATRICES

HOLE

SYSTEM
SKETCH
~

NO

NO

NO

~
~
~
~

YES

ANYWHERE

YES

NO

2*N +l

YES

YES

BELOW THE
WASHOUT HOLE

YES

2*N +4
f

YES

2*N f +3

ANYWHERE. ONE
PERMEABLE FORMATION
IS COINCIDENT WITH
THE WASHOUT HOLE

~
~

ANYWHERE. NO
PERMEABLE FORMATION
IS COINCIOENT WITH THE
WASIlUT HOLE

YES

YES

2*N +4
f

TABLE 3

Rf.SUUs FkoH txl!l1lNG

!!~~!!~~~~~ ~ ~~~ I ~II!1~

Rt;SIII,TS FMH HVDRJ\UI.ICS

______ Illi!;!

X,UEVIATJtJr-!

."

flOW'i
DEp'r"

JUS

(it,)

lin'. 11\.)

(gplII)

H~

,00

,0)
l)2

45'S

1161

S"

2~70

i)-lJ-lJ

OllU
0- I)~ 13
o~ Il~

IJ

o 15~ I S
0-15-15

no Il~ 14

hP

j.ltllll(l

~!

Il

0-12-13
O-IJ-lJ

~ ~I' lflt.l J

Al'pIP:'

()-12-11

o~ 12~

fo":1l111Wt'11 I

-(AI' SU~q~~~.tlIt
t
)

J"
,24
125

".
'IS
I"

24.

12Z

..

E,JIiI;tin8
Hyduul/otl;
AI8Qrilh.""

fool

RATE

17.25

839
900

15el
1469

'"
'\1
'"1000'0.

1554

115

'"
".

1408
IOU

131)0

"1,,1,,,,1 ho.

Ilydraul i rll 'Tab II'S

P!I!l!:!~~

"
,.""
,."
"""
69

136

Juluh

2260
12':i6
2Z87
2489

'"

246~

"..,.'"

20 ~I)
".
2181
09

2101
2'.36

S01
"0

111

190

,..

895

8"

"
.,6."

l'v$

1"68
1570

101

V59

53

2081

'"
"2
'"
m

465

8.5033

2162'

11>
5)8

1132
1168
1616
1574

IoiIlS
1.28

1044
1)03

II'
I"

nn
2282

24)8

,,.
'"

~OS4

2216

299

162

1~ 1
9"'9

1116
1113
1(;11$

)srs

1412
I~ 1~

46'

24

3.56I'
'J.1
2.

". ,.

11t'!2

1041

'0
J8

20S9

I),

20';11

20S)

14

2160

2001
2281
BlS
I!Hl

It
28
]0
12

20}1
2010
2(151
:;1'0111

102
4.4
\0.4
23.8
202

Hydraulilt-:
TabJ ... t.

10,9

8.0
111,1

21.3
1,,0

-o.~

0,0

669

i9)

-4.1

-1.1l

2010
840
186l

22
11
)4

2081

2)81

41

'.8
152
1:Z.J
17.1

;8'1
1816
2080

~verasl' l n<'vl"tjou
A"'/or"!!" Ah~ol ut /I' O\"V i ft

AUII

)9

,.5

Hi,)

"7:9

II ,2

'.1

6,5

KNOWN PRESSURE
TO SHALE SHAKER .......----.
BLOWOUT PREVENTORS

FORMATION
PORE PRESSURES
(Known at all times)

(b)

(a)

Fig. 1a-Diagram of a typical drilling circulation loop.

Fig. 1b-Nodal diagram of a drilling circulation

loop.

(e)

2
Fig. 2-Element descriptions.
Fig. 3-Bernoulli's equation written for points 1 and 2 at depths 01 and D2.

1y

Fig. 4-Drilling fluid models.

_. -

BINGHAM PLASTIC FLUID

POWER LAW FLUID

--

NEWTONIAN FLUID

0.1 dI

Fig. 5-Washed out hole diameter as a function of time.

1.0

.----r--~---r----,-_-_=----.

,..

.... ,.~M "0

0.8

P3 -PI

0.6

01

e-;;:z

0.4

0.2

o
Fig. 6a-Washed out hole case.

0.2 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

02
01
Fig. 6b-Washed out hole minor loss approximation.

~p

pM

2gA2 +

2 -b (2 -n)

~CONSTANT

~ PRESSURE

,?POINTS
JUNCTION POINTS

QOP

f.

Fig. 7-Definition of flow network.

Fig. 8-Linearization of Eqs. 25 and 26.

:E

c..

(,!)

+1.5

x
:=l

8" COLLARS

.....I
u..

+1.0

0::::

., "."'...

6. " - \

:s:

9u.. + .5

... .
~.

(44 psi/ft)

:z
0

i=

12.25"r-

<

~:- ........

:E

""''=............................
...................

0::::

E2

-.5

50MD

......... lOOMD
.............

' .'., -.....

.... ,.

.,

-1.0

100

200

300

150MD

". 200MD

400

500

PUMP RATE Q - GPM

Fig. 9-Example of fluid influx and production as a function of the ECD.

100

0
PUMP RATE AT SURFACE"'956 gpm
MUD PROPERTl ES :
YP 61b/100 tt 2
PV 8 cp
DENS I TY 9.0 ppg
JET SIZES: 14-14-14

80
V'l

:z
0::

::::J

4Ft@/
220 md

316 Ft @
250 md

I.I.J

60

9u..
u..
0

"

40

.....

.....
f5
0::

I.I.J

Q..

c:::
r2

20

:::0

4-lItORlll
PIPE

."

r-

c:::

r3 f'T'1
<
f'T'1

',-1422
"
1421

'."-,

Z
Z

~425
~4251423

3:

::I:

);>

\ PUMP PRESSURE (psi)

....J

."

t;
0::

f'T'1

""0
-t

r-

......

"- ,

1420

........

.......

, ~18

."

r+

......

0
0

100
200
300
PERMEABILITY (MO) OF LOST CIRCULATION ZONE

Fig. 10-Example of lost circulation as a function of the permeability of the lost circulation zone.

Q .. 300 gpm
.--

LEGEND
FORMATION A
FORMATION B

4-112" DRILL PIPE

~r-.

300

9000 tt

8" COUARS<--

Q.

200

lL .:. ;~O

A .:.; ....:....

E'

s:

tt

B :'::.-::::',

9u.. 100

---112-1f4"t'-__ x-

--

: :; '0 (,44 psi/tt)

300 tt
:.lOOtt:o,~; ('48psiltt)

__ x-.>l--

_--><----x----

8.3 ppg
8.3 ppg
9.0 ppg
9.5 ppg

-100
-200

-300

9 ppg

50

100
150
200
PERMEAB IL1TY (MO)

250

300

Fig. 11-Example of circulation with two permeable formations at different pore

pressures.

OPERATOR
CREATION OF
WASHOUT HOLE

MUD PUMPS

PUMP FLOW
RATE

I
I

GEOLOGY
DATABASE

DRILLSTEM
DATABASE

FORMATION
PROPERTIES

r-:~ETRATION

I
PUMP
PRESSURE

DEPTH

DRILLS'l'EM
PROPERTIES

RATE

I:

IT FLOW RATE
IT PRESSURE LOSS
BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE

FLAGS FOR

DOWNHOLE HYDRAULICS
MODEL

FLUID
PROPERTIES

EIAL

BOP AND eM

STATUS

lFORMATION
FLOW RATES

BALANCE

Fig. 12-Causality diagram of the hydraulics algorithm in the total drilling simulator.