See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311304921

Mathematical Modelling of the Flow Rate in a Marsh Funnel

Article · November 2016

CITATION READS

1 155

5 authors, including:

Ahmad Sedaghat
Australian College of Kuwait
172 PUBLICATIONS   1,117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Review of Research in Conversion of Solid Waste Materials to Energy View project

Wind energy potential and feasibility and economic studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Sedaghat on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

1 Article

2 Mathematical Modelling of the Flow Rate in a Marsh

3 Funnel
4 Ahmad Sedaghat 1*, Mohamed Abdulsalam Ali Omar 2, Sadeq Damrah 3 and Mohamed Gaith 4
5 1 School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait;
6 a.sedaghat@ack.edu.kw
7 2 School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait;

8 m.omar@ack.edu.kw
9 3 School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait;

10 s.damrah@ack.edu.kw
11 4 School of Engineering, Australian College of Kuwait, P.O. Box 1411, Safat 13015, Kuwait;

12 m.gaith@ack.edu.kw
13 * Correspondence: a.sedaghat@ack.edu.kw; Tel.: +965-182-8225

14 Academic Editor: name

15 Received: date; Accepted: date; Published: date

16 Abstract: Marsh Funnel is the practical method to measure viscosity of drilling fluids.
17 Nanoparticles may be added to drilling fluids to reduce skin friction, reduce energy consumption,
18 and increase life cycle of drilling equipment for an energy efficient environment in oil and gas
19 industry. The discharge time is the only measured parameter during operation. However, it is
20 possible to measure the funnel volume discharge rate and the corresponding time from which it
21 may be possible to determine some additional rheological parameters such as yield point, apparent
22 viscosity and plastic viscosity of drilling lubricants. In this study, a new approach is introduced for
23 mathematical modelling of the discharge flow rate in the Marsh Funnel using a deformable control
24 volume representation of continuity equation. Accurate calculation of discharge rate is the
25 fundamental parameter for determining other rheological properties of complex non-Newtonian
26 fluids particularly when nanoparticles are added for enhancing lubrication or for protecting shale
27 against instabilities. Results of the present mathematical modelling is compared with some
28 experimental available measurements of Newtonian fluid in the Marsh Funnel and explained.

29 Keywords: Drilling fluids; Marsh Funnel; Newtonian fluid; Rheological properties; Sustainability.
30

31 1. Introduction

32 Marsh Funnel is widely used device to measure viscosity of drilling liquids by measuring
33 discharge time of nearly 1.5 liters of fluids [1-3]. Since some other rheological properties of these
34 fluids are attempted using Marsh Funnel [4-6], a closer look at the geometry and mathematical
35 modelling of Marsh Funnel seems inevitable which is also used in cement preparations [6-8]. It
36 appeared that there is a gap for modelling correct volume of truncated cone of Marsh Funnel within
37 the models developed in literature. The simplified models for the volume of cone may affect the
38 accuracy of other rheological properties of drilling fluids such as calculating yield, apparent and
39 plastic viscosity which may dependent on small amount of liquids within the Marsh Funnel.

40

1|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

41 Table 1. Geometrical dimensions of the standard Marsh Funnel.

Dimension BG units SI units

Diameter of cone at mesh (2RC) 5.62 inch 14.27 cm
Height of cone at mesh (HC) 11.25 inch 28.58 cm
Diameter of copper tube (2RT) 3/16 inch 0.47625 cm
Height of copper tube (HT) 2 inch 5.08 cm
42
43 Figure 1 describes the geometrical shape of a Marsh Funnel which consists of a truncated cone
44 with diameter of 2RC at mesh location and cone height of HC. The truncated cone is connected to a
45 copper tube with diameter of 2RT and the height of HT. The standard dimensions of the Marsh
46 Funnel are listed in Table 1.
47
Mesh 2RC
48
C.V.

49

50 r

51
HC
52
C.V.
53
h
54

55 2RT
HT
56

57

58 Figure 1. Schematic presentation of geometry of the Marsh Funnel.

59

60 2. Mathematical modelling of the Marsh Funnel

61 For the mathematical modelling of Marsh Funnel, some researchers have assumed the Marsh
62 Funnel as a complete cone and not a truncated cone. This will cause little different volume content
63 actual measuring Marsh Funnel compared with a complete cone which is important for measuring
64 some properties such as yield point, apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity [4-5]. The effect of the
65 height of tube section is also ignored which may exhibit important contribution to calculating yield
66 point and the potential head for determining the discharge flow rate. Based on the schematic

2|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

67 presentation of the March Funnel geometry in the Figure 1, the volume of the truncated cone, , of
68 Marsh Funnel is calculated as follows:

69 And the volume for the tube part, , is calculated by The cross
70 sectional area of tube is given by . This means the total volume of Marsh Funnel from the
71 mesh section to bottom part of tube is 1.577 litres and not 1.5 litres. With assumption of a complete
72 cone shape rather than the truncated cone, the total volume will be 1.524 litres which induces 3.36%
73 error to real problem and 1.6% error if the volume of Marsh Funnel will be assumed 1.5 litres.

74 For the volume of the standard marsh funnel at any optional time, shown by the control
75 volume in Figure 1, the following formula can be used:

76 (1)

77 For the marsh funnel, the following relation is found between the liquid surface radius, r, and
78 the temporal height of marsh funnel, h, at the optional time of t, as follows:

79 (2)

80 Inserting equation (2) into equation (1) and using the values for the dimensions of the marsh
81 funnel given in Table 1, the volume of the control volume (in mili litre) at any time is related to the
82 height of liquid from the bottom exit to the top liquid free surface, i.e. h, in centimetre (cm) as
83 follows:

84 (3)

85 The values of the constant coefficients in relation (3) are listed in Table 2 for the standard
86 marsh funnel to determine the volume of control volume in cm3 at any desirable height, h. Here, h is
87 the height of liquid from the bottom exit to the top liquid free surface measured in centimetre (cm).
88 The values of the constant coefficients in relation (1) are listed in Table 2 for the standard Marsh
89 Funnel to determine the volume of control volume in cm3 at any desirable height, h. In references [2,
90 5], the volume of Marsh Funnel is given by with , which leads to the total
91 discharge volume of 1.517 litres or a modified value of which leads to the volume of
92 1.821 litres, by ignoring the height of the tube. These discrepancies may justify detailed calculation
93 of the volume of the Marsh Funnel as described above.

94 Emphasize here is that the correct volume calculation is seen from a mathematical or
95 theoretical point of view. In practical application, the Marsh funnel volume varies around 1.5 litres.
96 In general, this fact should be added to certain error deviations as fundamental for experimental
97 results. However, the developed methodologies in literature for calculating other rheological
98 properties from Marsh Funnel are based on laboratories measurements. This can be done as
99 accurately as possible within the accuracy of laboratory devices which are far more accurate than
100 field testing.

3|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

101

102 Table 2. The constants in equation (3).

Constant Value
(cm3) -3.33587797
(cm3) 3.065229161
(cm3) -0.748852943
(dimensionless) 0.0609830131
(cm2) 0.1781393481
103

104 3. Conservation of mass in the Marsh Funnel as a deforming control volume

105 For the control volume shown in Figure 1, the following assumptions are made:

106 - Flow inside the Marsh Funnel is one-dimensional;

107 - Fluid flow is incompressible;
108 - The free surface is plane;

109 The continuity equation for the deforming control volume can be written as:

110 (4)

111 is the mass of control volume at any instant of time, is the sum of all mass flow rates
112 out of control volume (here is the outlet mass flow rate from tube), and is the sum of all mass
113 flow rates coming into the control volume (here no inlet mass flow rate).

114 For inviscid flow rate out of the control volume, the outlet velocity is simply obtained as
115 from free fall of mass particles under gravitation. For viscous flows, it is generally accepted that the
116 outlet velocity is modified by a flow coefficient factor K, for correcting discharge rate of viscous
117 Newtonian flows, such that the outlet velocity is given by in which the flow coefficient
118 factor is determined from experimental measurements [10]. In non-Newtonian fluids however it
119 may be necessary to find a variable K to fit experimental data. At this first stage of research, the K
120 value is assumed constant here.

121 Therefore, the continuity equation can be written at the time t, with fluid free surface at height
122 of h and at radius r as follows:

123 (5)

124 Using , chain rule, and substituting outlet velocity by , equation (5)
125 can be rewritten as:

126 (6)

4|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

127 Taking derivative of equation (3) versus h, the relation (6) can be re-written as:

128 (7)

129 By separating variables h and t, the following integrations can be carried out analytically to
130 find a relation between time, t, and the height of marsh funnel, h.

131 (8)

132 Employing the values of the standard marsh funnel dimensions given in Table 1 and using the
133 gravitational acceleration value as g=981 cm/s2, the solution to discharge time as a function of height
134 is obtained as follows:

135 (9)

136 The dimensionless flow coefficient factor, K, will be obtained from correlating the above
137 analytical solution (9) to measured experimental data. The constants and are
138 obtained from the above analysis and for the standard marsh funnel their corresponding values are
139 given in Table 3. Note that the height, h, should be inserted in centimetre (cm) in equation (9) to
140 obtain time in seconds.

141 Table 3. The constants in equation (9).

Constant Value
(cm1/2) 40.75912570
(dimensionless) -0.7769330270
(cm-1) 0.1265394426
(cm-2) 0.1017682603
(cm1/2) -0.4515236410e-1
(dimensionless) 40.75912570

142

143 4. Results and Discussions

144 Based on the analysis on the previous section, a sample of experimental results provided in
145 reference [5] is compared with the present analytical solution as shown in Figure 2.

146

5|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

35
Analytical (full length)
Experimental
30
Analytical (cone length)
Discharge Height (cm)

25

20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Discharge Time (sec)
147
148 Figure 2. Comparison of height variation of liquid versus time in the Marsh Funnel with experimental data of
149 [5]

150 For this comparison, the flow coefficient factor K=0.072 is used to match up with the
151 completion discharge time of 553.292. The present analytical results are presented with and
152 without considering the height of tube. Apart from different method used for determining the height
153 from volume in reference [5], the height of tube was neither considered in their calculations. This
154 explains discrepancy between our analytical method and their height measurements. The total
155 height of the Marsh Funnel from the mesh to the bottom of tube is 33.66 cm as calculated from the
156 geometrical values given in Table 1. Figure 2 also shows that two method of calculating volume of
157 Marsh Funnel have also contributed to this discrepancy.

158 Abdulrahman et al. [9] have conducted a series of experiments for water based mud using
159 Marsh Funnel for 8 suspensions as listed in Table 4. Specification of the mud fluids are listed in Table
160 5. The fluid suspensions values [9] and the corresponding flow coefficient from the present
161 modeling are presented in Table 6. The flow coefficient is chosen in a way that the final discharge
162 time of the experiment matches with the present theoretical method. A comparison is made between
163 experimental results of [9] and the present mathematical method in Figure 3, with eight numbers of
164 experiments. Experiments 1 and 8 data was used assuming the volume and height of marsh funnel
165 described in this study. Based on this, it is evident that the present analytical method can match with
166 experimental data very accurately; hence, the height versus time relation (9) can be effectively used
167 in further development of methods for determining other rheological properties.
168
169
170
171
172

6|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

173

174 Table 4. Marsh Funnel reading by Abdulrahman et al. [9] for water based mud.

Volume Time (s)

(cm3) Fluid 1 Fluid 2 Fluid 3 Fluid 4 Fluid 5 Fluid 6 Fluid 7 Fluid 8
100 3.77 3.25 2.1 2.9 2.32 2.6 2.52 3.33
200 7.64 5.1 5.44 5.7 5.27 5.1 5.76 5.43
300 11.29 7.22 8.83 9 8.35 8.1 7.91 7.57
400 14.63 10.03 11.91 12.2 11.08 11 9.1 10.49
500 18.59 12.82 14.54 15.3 14.24 13.7 13.23 13.19
600 22.6 14.33 17.85 19 17.02 16.4 16.37 15.99
700 26.51 18.92 21.12 22.1 19.71 19.1 18.92 19.22
800 30.48 23 24.13 25.8 22.81 22.9 22.07 22.54
900 35.04 26.02 27.88 29.6 26.16 25.9 25.65 25.68
1000 38.96 29.66 31.38 32.6 29.29 29.35 29.2 29.51
1100 43.81 31.51 34.78 36.6 31.39 32.4 31.92 33.07
1200 48.59 40.43 38.43 40.1 35.53 35.7 35.3 38.41
1300 54.01 42.6 42.53 44.3 39.53 39.5 38.73 43.12
1400 59.59 48.78 46.22 49.2 43.29 43 42.63 49.62
1500 67.69 52.26 49.5 54 47.94 52.31 51.81 53.71
175

176 Table 5. Specification of different drilling fluids used by Abdulrahman et al. [9].

Fluid composition Density

Fluid 1 Bentonite 30gm PAC LV 5gm XC Polymer 5gm 1020.41

Fluid 2 Bentonite 60gm PAC LV 2.5gm XC Polymer 2.5gm 1042.02
Fluid 3 Bentonite 50gm PAC LV 2.5gm XC Polymer 2.5gm 1036.01
Fluid 4 Bentonite 70gm PAC LV 5gm XC Polymer 5gm 1026.41
Fluid 5 Bentonite 40gm PAC LV 2gm XC Polymer 1gm 1032.41
Fluid 6 Barite 119gm Caustic soda 1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 20 ml KCl 5gm 1056.42
Dolvis 6 gm
Fluid 7 Barite 119 gm Caustic soda1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 25 ml KCl 7gm 1050.42
Dolvis 6gm
Fluid 8 Barite 119gm Caustic soda 1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 30 ml KCl 9gm 1042.02
Dolvis 6gm
177

178 Table 6. Fluid density values for mud suspensions in Table 4 [9] and the corresponding flow
179 coefficients from present mathematical model.

Fluid suspensions Fluid 1 Fluid 2 Fluid 3 Fluid 4 Fluid 5 Fluid 6 Fluid 7 Fluid 8
Density (lb/gal) 8.72 8.90 8.85 8.77 8.82 9.03 8.79 8.90
Flow coefficient, K 0.59 0.76 0.81 0.74 0.83 0.76 0.77 0.74
180

7|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

Bentonite 30gm PAC LV 5gm XC Polymer 5gm

40
Analytical (K=0.59)
35 Experimental (Fluid 1)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Discharge Time (sec)
181

Bentonite 60gm PAC LV 2.5gm XC Polymer 2.5gm

40
Analytical (K=0.76)
35 Experimental (Fluid 2)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Time (sec)
182

8|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

Bentonite 50gm PAC LV 2.5gm XC Polymer 2.5gm

40
Analytical (K=0.81)
35 Experimental (Fluid 3)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Discharge Time (sec)
183

Bentonite 70gm PAC LV 5gm XC Polymer 5gm

40
Analytical (K=0.74)
35 Experimental (Fluid 4)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Time (sec)
184

9|Page J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

Bentonite 40gm PAC LV 2gm XC Polymer 1gm

40
Analytical (K=0.83)
35 Experimental (Fluid 5)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Discharge Time (sec)
185

Barite 119gm Caustic soda 1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 20 ml

KCl 5gm Dolvis 6 gm
40
Analytical (K=0.76)
35 Experimental (Fluid 6)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Time (sec)
186

10 | P a g e J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

Barite 119 gm Caustic soda1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 25 ml

KCl 7gm Dolvis 6gm
40
Analytical (K=0.77)
35 Experimental (Fluid 7)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Time (sec)
187

Barite 119gm Caustic soda 1.5gm PAC LV 2gm Silicate 30 ml

KCl 9gm Dolvis 6gm
40
Analytical (K=0.74)
35 Experimental (Fluid 8)
Discharge Height (cm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Discharge Time (sec)
188

189 Figure 3. Comparison of height variation of liquid versus time in the Marsh Funnel for eight drilling fluids;
190 experiments [9] (symbols) and the present analytical model (lines).

11 | P a g e J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW
 J|E|T|R
Journal of Energy Technology Research

191 5. Conclusions

192 Marsh Funnel is an interesting device for measuring viscosity of oil drilling liquids as well as for
193 developing simple mathematical models for calculating rheological properties of complex fluids. In
194 this paper, a mathematical model is introduced based on conservation mass of a deforming control
195 volume to accurately determine the flow rate in a marsh funnel. A flow coefficient is introduced to
196 correctly determine the discharge time in the marsh funnel. However, there are discrepancies
197 observed between some available experimental data with the present analytical results. The reasons
198 for these discrepancies are explained and the need for further accurate measurements is highlighted.
199 In order to determine some additional rheological parameters, such as yield point, apparent
200 viscosity and plastic viscosity of drilling lubricants, it is discussed that some more accurate
201 measurements are required. Present modelling may be extended to momentum and energy
202 equations which are laborious and requires symbolic programming software. Through such
203 modelling, it may be possible to predict rheological properties of complex fluids such as
204 non-Newtonian fluids combined with nanoparticles for enhancing lubrication or for stabilizing shale
205 instabilities.
206 Author Contributions: For this research article, A. S. have developed the methodology and analyzed the data;
207 M.A.A.O. contributed on literature review and provided data; S.D. assisted in mathematical development; and
208 M.G. assisted in proof reading and analyzing data.

209 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. There was no fund for this research work.

210 References
211 1. Meng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, F.; Chu, P. Effects of carbon ash on rheological properties of water-based
212 drilling fluids, J. of Pet. Sci. and Eng. 2012, 100, 1–8.
213 2. Guria, C.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, P. Rheological analysis of drilling fluid using Marsh Funnel, J. of Pet. Sci.
214 and Eng. 2013, 105, 62–69.
215 3. Sönmez, A.; Verşan Kök, M.; Özel, R. Performance analysis of drilling fluid liquid lubricants, J. of Pet. Sci.
216 and Eng. 2013, 108, 64–73.
217 4. Almahdawi, F.H.M.; Al-Yaseri, A.Z.; Jasim, N. Apparent Viscosity Direct from Marsh Funnel Test, Iraqi J.
218 of Chem. and Pet. Eng. 2014, 15(1), 51- 57.
219 5. Balhoff, M.T.; Lake, L.W.; Bommer, P.M.; Lewis, R.E.; Weber, M.J.; Calderin, J.M. Rheological and yield
220 stress measurements of non-Newtonian fluids using a Marsh Funnel, J. of Pet. Sci. and Eng. 2011, 77,
221 393–40.
222 6. Schoesser, B.; Thewes, M.; Marsh Funnel testing for rheology analysis of bentonite slurries for Slurry
223 Shields, ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly, May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar
224 Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
225 7. Cremonesi, M.; Ferrara, L.; Frangi, A.; Perego, U. Simulation of the flow of fresh cement suspensions by a
226 Lagrangian finite element approach, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 2010, 165, 1555–1563.
227 8. Mohammed, M.H.; Pusch, R.; Knutsson, S.; Hellström, G. Rheological Properties of Cement-Based Grouts
228 Determined by Different Techniques, Engineering, 2014, 6, 217-229.
229 9. Abdulrahman, H.A. et al., Calculation Rheological Properties of Water Base Mud Using Marsh Funnel,
230 B.Sc. Dissertation, Sudan University of Science and Technology, 2015.
231 10. Munson, B.R.; Huebsch, W.W.; Rothmayer, A.P. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 7th ed., Wiley, 2012.

232 © 2016 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the
233 terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license
234 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

12 | P a g e J. Energ. Technol. Res. 2016, 9, x; doi: FOR PEER

REVIEW

View publication stats