IADC/SPE 87182 Analysis of Tool Joint Effects for Accurate Friction Pressure Loss Calculations

Yeon-Tae Jeong, SPE and Subhash N. Shah, SPE, Well Construction Technology Center University of Oklahoma

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 24 March 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract The prediction of friction pressure losses is very important in many oil-field operations, including drilling, completion, fracturing, acidizing, workover and production. Many theoretical and experimental studies have dealt with the flow of fluids through pipes and annuli for friction pressure loss calculations. Most of these studies have concentrated upon the fluids rheological models, pipe roughness, and geometrical parameters. However, the important effect of tool-joint in conjunction with the drillpipe in estimating the friction pressure loss in annulus has yet not been investigated. The tool joint is a necessary part to extend the drillpipe. The space between the tool joint and casing is narrower than the space between drillpipe and casing because of the larger diameter of the tool joint than the drillpipe. Therefore, there will be an additional pressure loss due to effect on the fluid flowing in the annulus expansion and contraction. This paper presents the experimental data of the tests performed with three different fluids and discusses the results in light of the effect of tool joints on the annular friction pressure loss. It is found that the effect of the presence of tool joints on the annular friction pressure is significant and an accurate prediction method for annular pressure loss is proposed. Introduction The prediction of accurate frictional pressure loss in annulus is important in the present well construction technology. The frictional pressure loss of fluids in circular pipe is strongly influenced by the rheological properties of fluids1-3, pipe roughness4,5, and the geometry of conduit6-10. The rheological behavior of simple fluids can be described by Newtons law of viscosity while for non-Newtonian fluids several constitutive

equations or models are available. The most simple and widely used model is the Ostwald de-Waele or power law model. The rheological behavior of fluids used in this study can be characterized by this model. The pipe roughness can be neglected under laminar flow condition but is significant in turbulent flow. Friction losses are higher in rough pipes for both Newtonian and nonNewtonian fluids. The correction to account for pipe roughness is incorporated in the calculation of friction factor4,5. For concentric annular flow, the geometry of conduit can be expressed by the equivalent diameter. Several equivalent diameter definitions are proposed6-10. However, for simplicity and convenience, the following two equations are widely used. First equation is based upon the definition of the hydraulic radius, rH, which is the ratio of the cross sectional area to the wetted perimeter of the flow channel. The equivalent diameter, de1, is equal to four times the hydraulic radius and for concentric annulus it is the difference between the internal diameter of the outer conduit, and the outside diameter of the inner conduit, i.e. d e1 = (d 2 d1 ) . The second most popular equivalent diameter equation used is based upon Lambs work11 and the slot flow approximation for annulus2. Lamb developed the relationship between pressure gradient and total flow rate in laminar flow regime in annulus. As the outer diameter of pipe approaches to zero, Lambs equation reduces to the pipe flow equation. This equation is compared with the annular flow equation that is approximated as a rectangular slot. Therefore, the second equivalent diameter equation available is, d e 2 = 0.816(d 2 d1 ) . The design engineer simply extends the pipe flow equations to annular geometry. The same equations, which are used for pipe flow, are used to calculate the Fanning friction factor, f, and generalized Reynolds number, Nreg, for annular flow by simply replacing the pipe diameter with an equivalent diameter. Obviously, the annular friction factors calculated with de1 are higher than those calculated with de2. To be on the conservative side, the values of friction factor calculated in this study are based upon de1. The conventional drillpipe is still widely used in many oil field applications in spite the increased use of coiled tubing in some applications. The tool joints are essential parts with drillpipe. The gap between the tool joint and casing is narrower than the gap between the drillpipe and casing because of the larger diameter of tool joint compared to the drillpipe. Therefore, for the fluid flow in the annulus, there

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

will be an additional pressure loss due to the expansion and contraction effects. In this study, to investigate the tool joint effect on the annular flow friction loss, experiments are conducted with water and two types of polymeric fluids. This paper presents the results of additional pressure losses associated with the tool-joints and discusses how they can be handled to predict the accurate friction pressure loss. Theoretical The friction pressure loss calculation for the flow of fluid in a conduit generally considers only the surface resistance. However, there are other losses due to changes in cross sectional area of flow, which depend on the geometrical form of the conduit. Any such change in cross section disturbs the normal fluid velocity distribution in the conduit12. A tool joint set can be simplified and magnified as a sudden contraction and enlargement geometry as shown in Fig. 1. The mechanical energy loss between two different successive annular spaces can be expressed by comparing Bernoulli equation at two points. Sudden enlargement loss with turbulent flow is given by the following equation12-13:
Fe =

For 45< 180,

K gc = 0.5 sin

(1 R )
2

.(4) .(5)

K ge = 1 R 2

The angle of convergence and divergence of tool joint in our study was approximately 52. The gradual contraction and expansion losses can be calculated by replacing Kc and Ke to Kgc and Kge into Eqs. (1) and (2). Experimental Facility & Test Procedure Tool Joint Test loop To investigate the effect of the tool joint, a test loop consisting of the two annular friction loss sections, one with tool joints and the other without the tool joints were designed. The tool joint test loop setup is shown in Fig. 2. A 211 ft of 2-7/8-in. drillpipe and 191 ft of 5-1/2-in. casing were used for tool joint test loop. Seven drillpipes (six tool joints) and five casings were used. The pressure losses were measured across 191 ft of drillpipe and 171 ft of annular section. The entrance and exit lengths were 10 ft each. The annular reference friction loss section used was is 57 ft long and used the same size of casing and drillpipe but without tool joint sets. The entrance and exit lengths were 12ft, and 10 ft respectively. The pressure losses were measured across 35 ft (see Fig. 2). Test Fluids Fresh water was used for calibrating the test loop as well as in determining the friction losses of a Newtonian fluid from the present experimental setup. Two types of polymer solutions were also used as non-Newtonian fluids. Test Procedure The test fluids were first prepared in the fluid rheology laboratory and their rheological properties were determined. After the laboratory tests, the test fluids were prepared at desired concentration in 50 bbl capacity mixing tank. It was ensured that the tank sample results were agreed well with the laboratory results The test with water was first conducted for system clean-up and calibration. Water test results were also used for the data analysis. The polymer fluid was then pumped through the tool joint test setup (191ft drillpipe section, 171 ft annular section with tool joint parts) and then through 35 ft reference section without tool joints. The flow rate was increased stepwise in 30 gpm increment and then lowered in stepwise manner to ensure the quality of gathered data. Three fluid samples were taken from the sampling point: at the beginning, at the highest flow rate, and at the end of each test. Rheological measurements of these samples were conducted by a model 35 Fann viscometer and Bohlin rheometer18. Data Analysis The flow rate, pressure losses, density, and temperature data from the tool joint section, reference section, and drillpipe were collected by the Fluke hydra data acquisition system.

(V2 V1 )2
2 gc

V22 2 gc

A V2 1 2 = K e 2 A1 2 gc

.(1)

Sudden contraction loss for turbulent flow is given by12-14:

Fc = K c V22 2 gc

.(2) The contraction loss coefficient, Kc, can be derived from the momentum equation with the Bernoulli equation. Both Freeman13 and Weisbach12,14 made measurements of the contraction loss coefficient and are presented in Table 1. It is evident that their results are very similar. Kc value for our test is approximately between 0.21 and 0.26 because A2/A1 ratio was 0.589. The pressure loss then is calculated by multiplying the fluid density with the mechanical energy loss for sudden contraction or enlargement.
dPc , e = Fc , e

.(3)

Bendict et al.15 reviewed the conventional loss coefficients for sudden contraction and enlargement, and proposed loss parameters. However, they could not be applied without pressure measurements between a tool joint set. The tool joint actually is not exactly a sudden contraction and enlargement geometry with 90 angle of convergence and divergence. In general, lower the angle of convergence and divergence, less is the pressure loss. Therefore, pressure losses obtained from Eqs. 1 and 2 would be overestimated. Gibson16 investigated the losses due to gradual enlargement in pipe. The losses due to gradual contraction in pipe were established by Crane17 using the same approach as of Gibson. Equations for calculating Kc and Ke depend on the angle of convergence or divergence, , as shown below.

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

These data were analyzed as discussed below. Newtonian Fluid The equations used in the analysis of Newtonian fluid data are based on the equivalent diameter, de1=(d2-d1) and are as follows: Reynolds number is defined as:
N Re = 928 Vd e1

fluids data encompass both the laminar as well as turbulent flow regime. Newtonian Fluid Figure 4 is the Fanning frictional factor vs. Reynolds number plot showing only the water data. The drillpipe data are compared with the Chen correlation for straight pipe. The experimental data agree reasonably well when a roughness projection value of 0.0013 in. is used. It means that the drillpipe used here had some degree of pipe roughness. The Chen correlation can also be used to calculate friction loss in annulus with an equivalent diameter definition. It shows that reference section results agree well with the Chen correlation when the roughness projection value of 0.0027 in. is used. This roughness factor is nearly double the value used for the drillpipe. It is not surprising considering the fluid flow in the annulus between the drillpipe and casing, where the roughness of the outer surface of drillpipe and inside surface of the casing contributes to the friction loss. The tool joint section friction factors are higher than reference section. Thus, it is obvious that additional pressure loss is observed in the presence of tool joint sets. If one can estimate the additional pressure loss for the tool joint set, then the pressure loss in the tool joint section can be calculated based on the reference section pressure loss. Lets try to calculate the pressure loss in the tool joint section based on the pressure loss from the reference section without the tool joint sets as shown in Fig. 5. First, the pressure loss in the wide annulus, dPw, is obtained or calculated from the reference section data. Second, the contraction, dPc, and enlargement losses, dPe, are calculated from Eqs. 1 and 2 with Kgc and Kge from Eqs. 3 and 4. Third, the pressure loss in narrow annulus, dPn, is estimated from the Chen correlation for Newtonian fluid with a roughness factor of 0.0027 inch. Thus, the total calculated friction loss is written as:
dPcalculated = dPw + dPc + dPe + dPn

q . 2 2.448 d 2 d 12

.(6)

where, V =

.(7) is calculated from the

Fanning friction following equation:

f = 25.8d e1 P V 2 L

factor

. (8)

Non-Newtonian Fluids The power law model is used for the rheological characterization of non-Newtonian polymeric fluids. Expressions for annular wall shear rate, apparent viscosity, annular flow consistency index, and generalized Reynolds number are presented below. The annular wall shear rate is defined as:
&w =
96V d e1

.(9)

The apparent viscosity of power law non-Newtonian fluid is given by the following expression:
a = 47880 k a ( w ) n 1
.

...(10)

The flow consistency index, kv, obtained from the viscometer data is converted to annulus ka by using the following equation:
2n + 1 ka = kv 3n
n

.(14)

.(11) where, is a constant and is defined as follows:

=
1 2 n ( 1 2 /n )

.(12)

Figure 6 shows the comparison of the experimental friction factor data of water from the tool joint section with the calculated results based on Eq. 14. The average difference between the calculated and experimental pressure loss is less than 3 %. It can thus be concluded that the pressure loss of water in the annulus with tool joints can well be estimated by Eq. 14. Non-Newtonian Fluids Two polymeric fluids were used as non-Newtonian fluids. Rheological parameters were calculated from a model 35 Fann viscometer data. Table 2 shows the rheological parameters of these fluids. It can be seen that the polymer B fluid is more viscous than polymer A fluid. Figure 7 depicts the plot of pressure loss vs. flow rate data for two polymeric fluids. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that for both fluids the effect of tool joint on the friction pressure is very significant, particularly at higher flow rates. This effect is more dramatic for polymeric B fluid than polymeric A fluid. It may be because of higher viscosity of the polymeric B fluid than polymeric A fluid. At 5 bbl/min, polymeric A fluid

Generalized Reynolds number is defined as:

N Re g = 928 Vde1

.....(13)

Results and Discussion The Fanning friction factor and generalized Reynolds number data of all three fluids tested are depicted in Fig. 3. The data obtained from the annular section with tool joints and the reference section which has no tool joints are compared for all three fluids. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the friction factors of all fluids in the presence of tool joints are significantly higher than those without the tool joints. Water data are obtained only in the turbulent flow regime while polymeric

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

exhibits 35 % increase in friction pressure in presence of the tool joint compared to 29 % increase for polymeric B fluid. Similar values for polymeric A and B fluids at 8.5 bbl/min are 43 % and 75 % respectively. Polymer A fluid: Figure 8 shows the logarithmic plot of Fanning friction factor vs. generalized Reynolds number for polymer A fluid. As discussed earlier, the friction factors from the tool joint section are higher than those obtained from the reference section. Experimental results show smooth trends both in laminar and turbulent flow region. In laminar flow regime, the difference between the tool joint section and reference section friction factor data is not significant. Therefore, in this study, only the turbulent flow friction data were further analyzed. The similar approach as that of water data analysis was used for the analysis of polymer A fluid. The equation similar to Eq. 14 was used. The pressure loss in narrow annulus was estimated from the conventional correlation for nonNewtonian fluid. Shah correlation19 is fairly accurate for predicting frictional pressure losses of non-Newtonian fluids in straight pipes. Although this equation was developed for pipes, it is also very useful for annular flow friction pressure predictions when the equivalent diameter equation is applied. The Shah correlation is as follows:
B(n) f = f (n) + A(n)N Re g

Conclusions The tool joint tests were performed with water, and two polymeric fluids to investigate the effect of tool joint on the annular friction pressure. The following conclusions are drawn. 1. It is found that the effect of tool joint on the annular friction pressure loss of water and two different types of polymeric fluids is very significant. This effect results in approximately 30 % increase in friction pressure at 5 bbl/min and up to 75 % increase at 8.5 bbl/min for the flow of fluid in 5 1/2-in. - 2 7/8-in. annulus. 2. A method has been developed to estimate friction pressure loss of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids flowing through the annulus in the presence of tool joints. It incorporates the fluid contraction and expansion effects. It is shown that the new method predicts the friction factors well within 5 % of the experimental results. 3. The effect of tool joint on the annular friction pressure is fluid dependent. For water, the increase in friction pressure ranges from 60 to 80 % for the flow rates examined. For the polymeric fluids, the increase in friction pressure is in the range of 29 to 35 % at low flow rates and 43 % to 75 % at higher flow rates. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Coiled Tubing Consortium members for the financial support and are grateful to the research team of the Well Construction Technology Center (WCTC) at the University of Oklahoma. Nomenclature A(n) = empirical fluid parameter, (dimensionless) A1 = area of the wide part, (inch2) A2 = area of the narrow part, (inch2) B(n) = empirical fluid parameter, (dimensionless) = equivalent diameter, (inch) de d1 = outer diameter of drillpipe, (inch) d2 = inner diameter of casing, (inch) de1 = equivalent diameter, (d2-d1), (inch) de2 = equivalent diameter, 0.816(d2-d1), (inch) f = Fanning friction factor, (dimensionless) f(n) = infinite friction factor, (dimensionless) F = mechanical energy loss, (lbf ft/lbm) = conversion factor, (32.174 lbmft/lbfsec2) gc = rheometric consistency index, (lbf sn/ft2) kv = consistency index for pipe flow, (lbf sn/ft2) kp = consistency index for annular flow, (lbf sn/ft2) ka = sudden contraction coefficient, (dimensionless) Kc = sudden enlargement coefficient, (dimensionless) Ke Kgc = gradual contraction coefficient, (dimensionless) Kge = gradual enlargement coefficient, (dimensionless) L = drillpipe length, (ft) n = flow behavior index (dimensionless) NRe = Reynolds number, (dimensionless) NReg = generalized Reynolds number, (dimensionless) q = flow rate, (gal/min) R = ratio of diameters of the narrow to wide area, (dimensionless)

.(15)

Infinite friction factor, f(n), and empirical fluid parameters, A(n) and B(n), are function of the power law parameter, n. These parameters were determined from the experimental data in smooth pipe. For rough pipe, the roughness correction5 is proposed by Shah and it is a function of the generalized Reynolds number and fluid viscosity at 170s-1. The reference annular section data of polymer A fluid are compared with the Shah correlation in Fig. 8. The Shah correlation slightly under predicts the experimental data of reference section in turbulent flow regime. Even through the Shah correction is not perfect to estimate friction loss values for the narrow annulus for tool joint section, as depicted in Fig. 9 the agreement between the experimental and calculated friction factors for polymer A is well within 5 %. Polymer B fluid: Figure 10 shows the logarithmic plot of Fanning friction factor vs. generalized Reynolds number for polymer B fluid. It shows that the friction factors from the tool joint section are higher than those obtained from the reference section just like other fluids examined. The Fanning friction factors of reference section match the Shah correlation well for the data in turbulent flow regime. Therefore, friction loss values for narrow annulus for tool joint section are very well estimated. Using Shah correlation for narrow annular friction pressure prediction, the total friction pressure for the tool joint was calculated. Figure 11 shows the comparison. It can be seen that the average difference between the experimental and calculated friction factors is within 3 %. Thus, the proposed method predicts the annular friction pressure in the presence of tool joints of water and polymeric fluids reasonably well.

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

rH V V1 V2 P dPc dPe dPn dPw

= = = = = = = = =

hydraulic diameter, (inch) average velocity, (ft/sec) average velocity in the wide annulus, (ft/sec) average velocity in the narrow annulus, (ft/sec) pressure loss, (psi) pressure loss for contraction effect, (psi) pressure loss for expansion effect, (psi) pressure loss in narrow annulus, (psi) pressure loss in wide annulus, (psi)

7.

8.

9. 10.

Greek Letters = ratio of bob to cup radius, (dimensionless) & = shear rate, (s-1) = constant for converting kv to ka, (dimensionless) = viscosity, (cp) a = apparent viscosity, (cp) = fluid density, (lbm/gal) w = shear stress acting on tube wall, (lbf/ft2) = angle of convergence or divergence, (degree) References 1. Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfood, E. N.: Transport Phenomena, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1960. 2. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., and Young, F.S. Jr.: Applied Drilling Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers Textbook series, 2nd edition, Vol. 2, Richardson, Texas, 1991. 3. Pilehvari, A., Serth, R., and Lagad, V.: Generalized Hydraulic Calculation Method Using Rational Polynomial Model, paper SPE 71403, presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept 30 Oct 3, 2001. 4. Robertson, J., Martin, J., and Burkhart, T.: Turbulent Flow in Rough Pipes, I & E. C. Fundamentals, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 253 265, 1968. 5. Shah, S.N.: Effects of Pipe Roughness on Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluids, SPE Production Engineering, p.151-156, May 1990. 6. Fredrickson, A.G., and Bird, R.B., Non-Newtonian Flow in Annuli, I & E. C. Fundamentals, Vol. 50, No. 3, March 1958.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

19.

Crittendon, B.C., The Mechanics of Design and Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments, presented at the 33rd annual meeting of SPE, Houston, Texas, July 1959. Kozicki, W., Chou, C.H, and Tiu, C., Non-Newtonian Flow in Ducts of Arbitrary Cross-sectional Shape, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 21, 1966, p.665-679. Cementing Technology, Dowell Schlumberger, Nova Communication Ltd, London, 1984. Reed, T.D., Pilehvari, A.A., A New Model for Laminar, Transitional, and Turbulent Flow of Drilling Muds, paper SPE 25456, presented at the POS held in OKC, March 1993. Lamb, H.: Hydrodynamics, Sixth Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1945. Rouse, H.: Engineering Hydraulics; Proceedings of the Fourth Hydraulic Conference at Iowa City, June 12-15 1949. Russell, G., E.: Text-Book on Hydraulics, Third edition, Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1925. Weisbach, J.: Theoretical Mechanics, Tenth American Edition, translated by Coxe, E. B., D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 1913. Benedict, R. P., Carlucci, N. A., and Swetz, S. D.: Flow Losses in Abrupt Enlargements and Contractions, Journal of Engineering for Power, Trans. ASME, Series A, Vol. 88, p. 73 81, January 1966. Gibson, A. H.: Hydraulics and Its Applications, Second Edition, Constable & Company Ltd., 1922. Crane Company: Flow of Fluids, Technical Paper 410, Crane Co., Chicago, IL, 1988. Chapter 4 of the 2003 semi-annual CTC report, presented at the Coiled Tubing Consortium Meeting held in Houston, TX, June 2003, prepared by the Well Construction Technology Center, University of Oklahoma. Shah, S.N.: Correlation Predict Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluids, Oil and Gas J., Jan. 16, 1984.

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

Table 1. The Loss Coefficients for Sudden Contraction A2 /A1 Kc

* *

0 0.50 0.50

0.1 0.48 0.47

**

0.2 0.45 0.43

0.3 0.41 0.39

0.4 0.36 0.34

0.5 0.29 0.30

0.6 0.21 0.26

0.7 0.13 0.21

0.8 0.07 0.16

0.9 0.01 0.08

1.0 0.00 0.00

Kc**

: given by Weisbach, : given by Freeman. Table 2. Power Law Model Parameters of Polymer Fluids Tested Fluid Parameters n kv, lbfsecn/ft2 kp, lbfsecn/ft2 ka, lbfsecn/ft2 Temperature, F Polymer A Fluid 0.613 2.58 10-3 2.76 10-3 2.83 10-3 89 Polymer B Fluid 0.303 2.39 10-2 2.62 10-2 2.72 10-2 107

2.72 ft Casing Tool Joint OD: 3.845 in.

Drill Pipe

Figure 1 A Simplified Tool Joint of the 2 7/8 Drillpipe with Dimensions

191' 2 -7/8" Drillpipe 10' 10'

DP DP

10'

10'

170'

5-1/2" Casing

Tool Joint section with 6 Tool Joint Sets

DP

12'

35' 5-1/2" Casing

10'

Annular reference friction loss section with

2-7/8" Drillpipe

Disposal Tank Triplex Pump Triplex Pump

Micromotion

Centrifugal Pump

Tank

Figure 2 - The Experimental Setup for the Annular Flow and Tool Joint Effect at WCTC

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

0.100
Water Polymer A Polymer B

0.100
Reference Section Tool Joint Section Calculated TJ Section

Fanning Friction Factor

0.010

Fanning Friction Factor

f=16/Nre

Chen Correlation for Annulus

0.010

0.001 100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

0.001 10,000

100,000

1,000,000

Generalized Reynolds Number

Reynolds number

Figure 3 Fanning Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number (open symbol: reference section data, closed symbol: tool joint section data)
0.100
Reference Section Tool Joint Section Drillpipe

Figure 6 Comparison of Experimental and Calculated Friction Factors of Water

10
Polymer A

Chen Correlation for Pipe

Pressure Loss, psi/100 ft

Chen Correlation for Annulus

Polymer B

Fanning Friction Factor

6 43 4 75 % 35 %

0.010

29 %

0.001 10,000

0
100,000 1,000,000

10

11

Reynolds number

Flow Rate, bbl/min

Figure 4 Fanning Friction Factor vs. Reynolds Number Plot for Water Data dPw

Figure 7 Pressure Loss vs. Flow Rate Plot of Polymeric Fluids (dashed line: reference section data, solid line: tool joint section data)
0.100
Reference Section Tool Joint Section Shah Correlation

Fanning Friction Factor

0.010

dPc

dPn

dPe
0.001 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Figure 5 Sketch Showing Pressure Losses Associated with the Tool Joint Setup (dPw: pressure loss in wide annular area, dPc: contraction loss, dPe: expansion loss, dPn: pressure loss in narrow annular area)

Generalized Reynolds Number

Figure 8 Fanning Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number Plot for Polymer A Fluid

www.petroman.ir

IADC/SPE 87182

0.100
Reference Section Tool Joint Section Calculated Tool Joint Section

Fanning Friction Factor

Shah Correlation

0.010

0.001 1,000

10,000

100,000

Generalized Reynolds Number

Figure 9 Comparison of Experimental and Calculated Friction Factors of Polymer A fluid

0.100
Reference Section Tool Joint Section

Fanning Friction Factor

Shah Correlation

0.010

0.001 100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Generalized Reynolds number

Figure 10 Fanning Friction Factor vs. Generalized Reynolds Number Plot for Polymer B Fluid
0.010
Reference Section Tool Joint Section Calculated Tool Joint Section

Fanning Friction Factor

Shah Correlation

0.001 1,000

10,000

100,000

Generalized Reynolds Number

Figure 11 Comparison of Experimental and Calculated Friction Factors of Polymer B fluid

www.petroman.ir