IADC/SPE 112544
Annular Pressure Loss Predictions for Various Stand-off Devices
Dongping Yao, University of Houston and Samuel G. Robello, Halliburton DED
Copyright 2008, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., 4–6 March 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have
not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of
Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution,
or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.
Abstract
During drilling and cementing operations, many stand-off
devices, such as centralizers, stabilizers, reamers, turbulators,
cutting bed impellers, and friction reduction devices are
widely used. Some of these devices are designed to enhance
the displacement efficiency during cementing operations, to
increase hole cleaning efficiency, or to reduce torque and
drag during drilling operations. The hydraulics program for
the deep and especially ultra deep wells constitutes a
significant portion of the well planning. Challenges
associated with extreme depth and different types of
downhole tools used in the drillstring translate to additional
problems to the well design. Few studies have explored the
pressure losses arising from these attached devices in the
drillstring or casing string, and the pressure losses caused by
them are assumed either negligible or ignored. The
geometrical designs of these devices are relatively irregular
and complicated, which is one of the major difficulties for
pressure loss calculations. Non-Newtonian drilling fluids
further complicate the problem. A study is necessary to
determine the impacts of these devices on the pressure loss
calculations and thereby the effects on downhole circulating
density. These devices alter the flow stream and especially
the angular bladed type cause the flow to swirl. This flow is
complex, which underpins the effects of the pressure drop
calculation across these devices. The paper describes a
method and equations to calculate the pressure losses due to
the stand-off devices.
Introduction
The challenge of drilling, running casing and cementing the
casing to its desired target depth using various stand-off
devices such as friction reduction devices, drillpipe
protectors, and different types of centralizers require a more
comprehensive in-depth analysis of pressure loss calculations
than currently used. Such analysis is of great importance
when rigid centralizers that create additional frictional
pressure drop due to the nature of the external profile are
used. Generally, when such type of rigid centralizers are
used, they are treated as tooljoints and pressure drop across
these devices are estimated by considering them as solid
pieces even when they have complicated external geometry.
Sometimes equivalent outside diameter is calculated based on
the flow-by area[1]. Such techniques may be acceptable for
elementary analysis; however, the basic approaches are
considered inadequate and may result in overestimation of
the frictional pressure drop thereby equivalent mud weight.
Although the annular pressure loss against these devices may
be negligible, at times incremental pressures from the large
number of stand-off devices in a narrow clearance wellbore
are potentially detrimental to the well.
Increasingly more difficult wells are being drilled
nowadays with a narrow margin between pore and fracture
pressures. When these types of stand-off devices are used
swab and surge pressures also need to be considered and
must be maintained within narrow limits during tripping,
casing running and cementing operations. Operating outside
this window for even short duration has historically led to the
onset of costly wellbore problems. Monitoring downhole
pressures in real-time with downhole drilling data
measurement tools is, in principle, a reliable method and is
common practice in critical wells; however, it is not currently
possible to run such devices with casing strings. Several
studies have been done with regard to torque and drag [2,3,4]
and only limited research has been carried out to estimate the
pressure losses when complex geometries are associated with
the stand-off devices.
This study examines the effect of the various geometrical
parameters of the commonly used devices, flow rate, and
rheological properties on the annular pressure loss using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). For laminar flow,
Navier-Stokes equation is used. The turbulent flow
calculation is based on k-ε model. The detailed description of
the model is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper
presents the results of the study of the alteration and effects
of various rheological models on the flow profile and annular
pressure losses. This systematic parametric study conducted
explores the importance of the geometrical and operational
parameters and presents a simple set of equations and
guidelines to calculate the pressure losses for commonly used
devices. These equations and guidelines are useful in the
determination of the number of devices required and their
optimum placement in the string. This paper also presents an
example in which the pressure losses were not negligible in
addition presenting the importance of using the new,
compact, and integrated equations.
2 IADC/SPE 112544

CFD Design and Setup Simulations Results and Discussions

For the present study CFD analysis is carried out using Initially baseline validation is carried out using Newtonian
commercial CFD software package. Extensive simulations fluid with and without the device. The calculated pressure
were carried out using different geometries of the stand-off drop without a device using the Newtonian fluid properties is
devices, out of which one such type of stand-off device used further compared against the results with the device. The
for analysis in this study is shown in Figure 1. difference between the two provides pressure drop caused by
the device.
For the case of flow through vertical annulus, without any
restriction, analytical solution can be given as[5].
8 µLV
p1 − p 2 = R2 (1)
1 − κ 4
1−κ 2 
 − 
 1 − κ
2 ln(1 κ ) 
where
r = inner radius, m
R = outer radius, m
V = velocity, m/s
ρ = density, kg/m3
κ = ratio of inner and outer radius, r R
µ = viscosity, Pa·s
L = length of the device, m

The numerical results from CFD simulations matched very

Figure 1 – Device geometry closely with this analytical solution, whose results can be
seen in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows the pressure vs. Velocity
Figure 2 shows the mesh generated in the zone of interest and viscosity.
across the annular region. For most cases in this study, the
number of meshes is between 10,000 and 16,000. Finer and
coarse grids are also used for the closer analysis of the region Viscosity, Pa.s
across the stand-off device blades. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
700

600 Analytical Solution

500 Numerical Results

Pressure,Pa

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Velocity, m/s

Figure 3 – Analytical Solution vs. Numerical Results

The fluid properties used for the base case analysis are listed
in Table 1.
Figure 2 – Mesh Zones Blade Blade
Velocity Viscosity Density OD ID
Length Width
For the fluid analysis option, for a typical momentum m/s Pa*s kg/m3 inch inch
inch inch
transport problem, 3D Navier-Stokes equation can be solved 0.5 0.1 1000 8 1/4 5½ 8 0.5
numerically by finite element method. The choice between
direct method and iterative method depends on the size of the Table 1 – Parameters for Base Case
problem and the criteria of the convergence.
IADC/SPE 11254 3

Parameteric Study
Blade Width: Viscosity, Pa.s
Several simulations have been carried out with various stand- 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
off device profiles, dimensions and fluid properties. The 300 150
following paragraphs describe the results of the parametric

Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

250 125
study on the blade width, blade length and blade angle using
fluid properties shown in Table 1. Figures 4 and 5 depict the 200 100
predicted pressure drop across the device for different blade
widths. Density and viscosity show linear effect on the 150 75

pressure loss; whereas a quadratic increase is observed with 100 50

the velocity. A close examination of these plots reveals that Blade length: 5"
the velocity effect is fairly significant on the pressure drop 50
Blade length: 8"
25
across the device. Wider blade causes increased pressure
0 0
drop across the device. Wider blade also shows a rapid 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
increase than the narrower ones as anticipated. This is Velocity, m/s
attributed to the increase channel flow area thereby decrease
in flow velocity. Blade widths were varied in increments of
0.25”. Figure 6 – Viscosity and Velocity

Blade Length:
Viscosity, Pa.s Blade length with a dimension of 5” inch has been studied for
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 comparison. The results are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.
450 180 It can be seen that lower blade length results in lower
400 160 pressure drop across the device as expected. The same effect
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

350 140 is seen with respect to viscosity also but a linear effect is
300 120 observed. It should be noted that the effects presented is for
250 100 the Newtonian fluids with the properties as described in
200 80 Table 1.
150 60
Blade width: 0.25" 40
100
Blade width: 0.50" Effects of Blade Length on Density
50 20
Blade width: 0.75"
0 0 120
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

Velocity, m/s
100

80

Figure 4 – Blade Width and Viscosity Effects 60

Blade length: 5"

40
Effects of Blade Width on Velocity Blade length: 8"
20
450
400 0
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

Blade width: 0.25"

350 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Blade width: 0.50"
300 Density, kg/m^3
Blade width: 0.75"
250
200 Figure 7 – Blade Length and Density Effects
150
100 Blade Angle:
50 Blade angle is an important parameter as it may cause the
0
fluid stream velocity to change inducing localized turbulence.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 There are different blade styles and common styles available
Velocity, m/s are straight and spiral. Spiral blades result in swirling flows
and swirling flows are those flows where the velocity
component is dominant in azimuthal direction and the
Figure 5 – Blade Width and Velocity Effects hydraulics with this flow is fundamentally different.
4 IADC/SPE 112544

consistency index k and power law index n are listed in Table

Viscosity, Pa.s 2.
0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
800 800 k,
R600 R300 R200 R100 R6 R3 n
700 700 lb·sn/100ft2
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

600 600 123 70 50 29 4 3 0.83 0.407
0 degree
500 500
15 degree Table 2 – Sample Rheology for Non-Newtonian Fluid
400 30 degree 400

300 300

200 200 1400

100 100 0 degree

1200
15 degree

Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

0 0
30 degree
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1000
45 degree
Velocity, m/s
800

600
Figure 8 – Blade Angle and Viscosity Effects
400
The curvature of the blades increases the pressure drop due to
the secondary flow effect at the exit side of the devices due to 200

coriolis effect. The effect of blade angle on frictional 0

pressure drop across this device is shown in figures from 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Figure 8 to Figure 10. From these plots, it can be observed Velocity, m/s
that the blade angle is an important parameter to reckon with
showing the significant effect on the pressure drop. It is seen
that effect of blade with a blade angle of 30° is much higher Figure 10 – 5” Blade Length with 45° Blade Angle
than pressure drop with a blade angle of 15°. When the blade
angle is 45°, as seen in Figure 10, the extra pressure drop Figure 11 to Figure 13 show the effects of various fluid
increase is appreciable. High angle devices are not properties on the pressure loss prediction. The analysis is
uncommon, and the pressure drop influence is much higher carried out for various consistency indices. When power-law
and should be taken into account while using such types of index or consistency index is smaller, the fluid is less viscous
devices. and so the extra pressure drop is less. The effects of velocity
and density of power-law fluids are same as the results of
Newtonian fluids described earlier and shown in Figures 7
Effects of Blade Angle on Density
and 8 respectively.
500
450
Power-Law Fluid
Addtional Pressure Drop, Pa

400
0 degree 200
350
15 degree
300
30 degree
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

250
150
200 n = 0.70
n = 0.80
150
n = 0.90
100 100
50
0
50
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Density, kg/m^3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 9 – Blade Angle and Density Effects Velocity, m/s

Non-Newtonian Fluid Effects:

The effects of blade width, blade length and blade angle have Figure 11 – Power-Law Index and Velocity Effects
been studied for Non-Newtonian fluids. Extensive
simulations were carried out and the rheological properties of
a sample fluid used in the study with the calculated
IADC/SPE 112544 5

The shaded area represents the blades in the device, and the
Power-Law Fluid
total blade area can be calculated using the following
120 equation:
  w  2
Ash =  R 2 arc sin 2
/ 2 + w R −(w/ 2)  2
Additional Pressure Drop, Pa

100
  2R  
(2)
80
 2 w 2 2
− r arc sin  / 2 + w r − ( w / 2 )  2
60   2r  
where
40 n = 0.70
n = 0.80
r = inner radius, m
20 n = 0.90
w = blade width, m
R = outer radius, m
0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Total annulus area is:
Consistency Index, K
(
A = π R2 − r 2) (3)
The unshaded part in the Figure 14 representing flow channel
Figure 12 – Power-Law Index and Consistency Index where the fluid flow can pass through can be given as
Effects Ac = f c A = A − NAsh (4)
where
Power-Law Fluid f c is the area ratio between the channel and the total area,
and N is the number of blades.
200
When f c is close to 1, the blade width is not significant.
The wetted perimeter can be derived as
Addtional Pressure Drop, Pa

n = 0.70
150 n = 0.80   w   w 
n = 0.90 S = 2π (R + r ) − 2 N  Rarc sin  + rarc sin 
  2R   2 r  (5)
100
+ 2 N  R 2 − (w 2 )2 − r 2 − (w 2 )2 
 
50 where
N= number of blades
The hydraulic diameter is further calculated as:
0
A
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 DH = 4 c (6)
Density, kg/m^3 S
Total pressure drop:
The total pressure drop ∆p, across the device can be given in
Figure 13 – Power-Law Index and Density Effects Eq.7, which comprised of different pressure components. The
details of these components and their effects are discussed
Model Development further in detail.
Figure 14 shows the schematic of the annular cross-section The total pressure drop (∆p) is given as
with a device. ∆p = ∆p s + ∆p f + ∆pv + ∆p fitting (7)
where
∆p s = static presser drop across the device
∆p f = frictional pressure loss component
∆p v = pressure drop due to velocity change
∆p fitting = pressure loss due to exit effect
Static pressure drop: ∆ps
Static pressure drop is caused by gravity effects and can be
expressed by:
∆p s = ρgL cos θ (8)
where
θ is the device angle from vertical position.
ρ = density, kg/m3
Figure 14 – Schematics of Cross Section Friction loss: ∆pf
The friction losses for common geometries, such as circular
tube and annulus sections, have analytical solutions.
6 IADC/SPE 112544

Analogically comparing with these well-known solutions, the V is the fluid bulk velocity
pressure drop in this case can be expressed in the form of: ρ is the fluid density
V µL Entrance and exit effect: ∆pfitting
∆p f = C f c (9)
Ac Pressure losses also occur as the flow enters and leaves
It should be noted here that in Eq.(9), the pressure drop devices and it can be estimated to be:
calculated is not dependent upon the density and is treated as ρV 2
constant. So this quantity can be read from y-axis intercepts ∆p fitting = C fitting (14)
2
in the density plots. The pressure loss calculated above relates to the specific
Eight simulation data were analyzed and the results with the characteristic values of Cfitting. Blade width can affect the
geometrical parameters are listed in Table 3. value of Cfitting, as it changes the entry and exit stream
velocity. The effect of blade width on Cfitting has been studied
Blade Blade Blade in Figure 15. It can be seen from the figure that the effect is
Case Length, Width, Angle, V, m/s Cc not appreciable and almost constant for smaller blade width.
inch inch °
1 8.0 0.50 0 0.5 234.1 1
2 8.0 0.50 0 0.3 236.3 0.9 Blade width: 1/4"
3 8.0 0.50 0 1.0 232.4 0.8 Blade width: 1/2"
4 8.0 0.75 0 0.5 231.4 0.7 Blade width: 3/4"

Fit Coefficient
5 8.0 0.25 0 0.5 230.2 0.6
6 5.0 0.50 0 0.5 241.3 0.5
7 8.0 0.50 15 0.5 227.4 0.4
8 8.0 0.50 30 0.5 243.6 0.3
0.2
Table 3 –Simulation Cases and Results of Cc
0.1
0
The values of coefficient Cc are found to be in the range of
0 500 1000 1500
227 to 243. The average of the values 235 is used in our
Reynolds Number
calculations.
To account for the non-Newtonian effects on the pressure
drop calculation, the Reynolds number can be added to the Figure 15 – Fitting Coefficient
Eq.(9) without dimensionally changing the equation and can
be expressed as: For three blade widths, the Cfitting coefficients can be
V 2 DρL averaged as 0.22, 0.41, and 0.61 respectively. The correlation
∆pc = 235 c cos θ (10)
A ⋅ Re to calculate the C fitting for various blade widths is found to
where be:
θ = device deviation from vertical position, ° C fitting = 32.2 w (15)
Considering the blade angle of the devices, the effective Where
width, effective length and effective velocity are given as w is the width of the blade in meter.
below Cfitting is zero when the blade width is zero.
w' = w cos ϕ ∆p fitting = 16.1wρV 2 (16)
L' = L cos ϕ (11) Furthermore, the angle of the blades will have appreciable
V ' c = Vc cos ϕ influence on the pressure drop as described in the foregone
paragraphs. Based on the analysis the effects the pressure
where drop including the blade angle can be given as
φ is the blade angle
Pressure drop caused by velocity change: ∆pv ∆p fitting = (16.1e 0.052ϕ w) ρV 2 (17)
This term represents the pressure drop caused by velocity Using all the components of the pressure drop the total
change and can be given as: annulus pressure loss due to a stand-off device can be

∆p v =
(
ρ Vexit 2 − V 2 ) (12)
predicted by using Eq.(7). The respective components can be
estimated with the equations given in Eq.(8), Eq.(10), and
2 Eq.(16). The equations have to be corrected using Eq.(11),
Using the blade angle, the exit velocity can be written as
Eq.(12) and Eq.(17) if the stand-off devices have angular
V blades.
Vexit = (13)
cos ϕ
where The following case study presents results from model
analysis together with pressure drop predictions.
IADC/SPE 112544 7

Case Study – Well A

The data given below are from the Well A and has been used Summary and Conclusions
for the pressure drop analysis with stand-off devices. Details • The model described in this paper provides improved
are given below: predictions of the pressure losses with stand-off devices.
The model will be of value during both planning and
Well Design Geometry: operational phases.
Casing: 13-3/8-in. to 4,675 ft • Rigid centralizers can result in a significant frictional
Open Hole: 12.350-in. to 29,160 ft pressure drop and could in some cases prevent casing
Open Hole Length: 24,984 ft reaching its target depth.
Casing: 9-5/8-in, 40 ppf, L-80, BTC • This systematic parametric study provides the
Maximum inclination at TD: 92° importance of geometry of the device as well as
Azimuth change: from 50 to 100° placement when they are used in large number in the
Maximum doglegs: 2.93 (°/100 ft) at 29,700 ft, string.
5.04 (°/100 ft) at 1890 ft • The simple set of equations and guidelines to calculate
Maximum absolute tortuosity: 3.18 (°/100 ft) at 2623 ft the pressure losses for commonly used devices
No tortuosity applied. incorporate easy to use parameters. These equations and
guidelines are useful in the determination of the number
Stand-Off Devices: of devices and of their optimum placement in the string.
Number of Stand-off Devices: 60 • Although the annular pressure loss against these devices
Number of Blades: 4 may be negligible, analysis shows that at times
Blade angle: 33 deg incremental pressures from the large number of stand-off
Blade Length: 12 in devices or in a narrow clearance wellbore are potentially
Blade Width: 0.65 in detrimental to the well.
Placement: alternate joints • Further, these equations and calculations can be used for
stabilizers, other hole cleaning devices with similar
Mud Data external profile.
Fluid Density: 10.68 ppg
PV = 45 cP Acknowledgement
YP = 20 lbf/100 ft2 The authors would like to express their appreciation to
Halliburton as well as Petroleum Department of University of
Analysis: Houston for the opportunity to present this paper.
Figure 16 shows the wellbore inclination and azimuth change
for the Well A. The calculated results show an increase in the Nomenclature
annulus pressure of 106 psi. This pressure translates to an
k = consistency index, Pa·sn
equivalent mud weight of 0.66 ppg, which may result in
n = power-law index
serious problems due to the close window of pore and
fracture pressures. r = inner radius, m
w = blade width, m
A = annulus area without device, m2
Degree C = coefficient
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 D = hydraulic diameter, m
0 L = length of the device, m
N = number of blades
5000
R = outer radius, m
10000 Re = Reynolds number
15000 S = wetted perimeter, m
Depth, ft

Inclination
V = velocity, m/s
20000
azimuth
θ = device deviation from vertical position, °
25000 ϕ = blade angle, °
30000 ρ = density, kg/m3
35000 κ = ratio of inner and outer radius, r R
40000 µ = viscosity, Pa·s
∆p = pressure drop, Pa

Figure 16 – Depth vs. Inclination and Azimuth Subscripts

for well - A. c = channel
f = friction
s = static
8 IADC/SPE 112544

sh = shadded area
1 = inlet
2 = exit

References
1. Samuel G. Robello “Downhole Drilling Tools –
Theory and Practice for Students and Engineers”
Gulf Publishing, 2007.
2. Hank Rogers, Adil Baryramov, Samuel G. Robello,
“Integral Centralizer Sub and Enhanced Torque and
Drag Calculations Improve Casing Installation”,
Deep Offshore Technology Conference &
Exhibition, 28-30 Nov. 2006, Houston, TX.
3. Peterson, E.M., Greener, M.R., Davis, E.R., Craig,
D.T., “How Much is Left of Your Centralizer after
Exiting a Casing Window in an Extended Reach
Horizontal Multilateral? Modeling, Yard Tests, and
Field Results from Alaska’s West Sak
Development” SPE/IADC 105766, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, Feb. 2007.
4. Samuel G. Robello, Collin J. Mason “Surge and
Drag Analysis for Extended Reach Casing and
Casing Flotation Operations with Centralizers: A
design Challenge?”, Annual Technology Conference
& Exhibition, 11-14 Nov. 2007, Anaheim, CA.
5. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E., Lightfoot, E.N.,
“Transport Phenomena”, John Wiley & Sons, 2nd
Edition (2002), Chapter 2.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cPx 1.0* E–03 = Pa.s

ft x 3.048* E–03 = m
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm
lbf x 9.869 233 E–00 = N
md x 6.894 757 E–04 = µ m2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa

Conversion factors exact