3rd Annual European Rheology Conference, Hersonissos, 2006

Choosing the best rheological model for bentonite suspensions

MAGLIONE Roberto and KELESSIDIS C. Vassilios 1 2

1
Consultant, Vercelli, Italy (contact: robert_jumper@yahoo.it)
2
Mineral Resources Engineering Department, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GREECE
(contact: kelesidi@mred.tuc.gr)
INTRODUCTION - Water-bentonite suspensions are encountered in a variety of chemical, petroleum and waste treatment industries and occur
in flow situations in complex geometries like pipe flow, concentric and eccentric annulus, and flow in rectangular ducts. Most of the time, flow
of these suspensions are laminar and analytical solutions have been developed for a variety of rheological models that have been proposed in the
past. Among these are the most commonly used Bingham plastic and power law models, and the Herschel-Bulkley, the Casson, and the
Robertson-Stiff models. Rheological parameters are obtained with Couette viscometer data, normally using Newtonian shear rates in the
viscometer. However, approaches have been suggested for using true, non-Newtonian shear rates1,2.
MATERIAL AND METHODS - Four water-bentonite suspensions (S1, S7, S10, and S23), with different concentration of bentonite and
densities ranging from 1,050 and 1,080 kg/m3, were tested in the lab with a rotational viscometer (Grace 3500). Using the reported viscometric
data, Casson, Robertson-Stiff (RS) and Herschel-Bulkley (HB) rheological models were applied and the rheological parameters together with
statistical coefficients such as the correlation coefficient (R2), the sum of square errors (SSE), and the root mean square error (RMSE) were
computed. The appropriate rheological model was chosen from the best fit of rheograms to raw experimental data. Differences in the rheological
behavior when using Newtonian and true shear rates in the viscometer gap as well as in the flow parameters for flow in pipes and annuli were
then evaluated.

RESULTS
Pressure Gradient in Annuli (8 ½“–5”)
4,0
ratio of true over Newtonian

Computed rheograms and statistical coefficients 3,5 80

pressure gradient [Pa/m]

3,0
by Casson, RS, and HB models according to the 2,5
70
shear rate

Newtonian shear rate equation are reported and 2,0

60

1,5 50
compared to the experimental one (Fig. 1 and 1,0 40
Table 1). 0,5
30
0,0
30,0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 20
25,0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Shear Stress [Pa]

New tonian shear rate [1/s]

20,0 pump rate [L/min]
Ratio Ne-HB Ratio Ne-Casson Ratio Ne-RS
15,0 HB-Ne shear rate HB-True shear rate

10,0 Figure 3 - Ratio of true over Newtonian shear rate for mud S1 Figure 7 - Pressure drop gradient in laminar flow for HB model,
5,0
derived by Newtonian and true shear rate for mud S10
0,0 Velocity Profile in Annuli (8 ½”–5”)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1,6 1400
pressure gradient [Pa/m]

Shear Rate [1/s] 1,4 1300

1,2
New tonian shear rate Herschel-Bulkley
velocity [m/s]

1200
1,0
Casson Robertson-Stiff
0,8 1100

0,6 1000
Figure 1 - Experimentally derived and computed Newtonian shear 0,4
rate-based rheograms for mud S1 0,2
900

0,0 800
0,06 0,07 0,08 0,09 0,10 0,11 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Rheological model radius [m] pump rate [L/min]
Casson Robertson-Stiff Herschel-Bulkley
τy [Pa] 14,540 - 8,475 750 L/min (HB -Ne shear rate) 1500 L/min (HB -Ne shear rate) HB-Ne shear rate HB-True shear rate
750 L/min (HB -True shear rate) 1500 L/min (HB -True shear rate)
K, µp [Pa?sn] 0,0026 9,209 3,401
γo [1/s] - 6,499 - Figure 8 - Pressure drop gradient in laminar flow for HB model,
Figure 4 - Velocity profile for HB model derived by Newtonian
N - 0,162 0,256 derived by Newtonian and true shear rate for mud S1
R2 0,955 0,986 0,988 and true shear rate for mud S7
SSE [Pa2] 14,090 4,486 3,877
RMSE [Pa] 1,132 0,670 0,623
Pressure Gradient in Pipes (4.27”) Laminar to Transitional Critical Points
Table 1 - Rheological parameters derived by Newtonian shear rate
and statistical correlation coefficients for mud S1 150 1,2
pressure gradient [Pa/m]

140 pipe annulus

130 1,0

Shear stress against shear rate calculated by the 120

110 0,8
true shear rate expression is then compared to 100
90
the experimentally data derived by the 80
0,6

70
Newtonian shear rate (Fig. 2 and Table 2). 60
0,4

Casson and RS true shear rates were computed 50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0,2

by a non-linear regression method1. HB shear pump rate [L/min] 0,0

rate was calculated by using a numerical HB-Ne shear rate HB-True shear rate S10 S23 S7 S1

algorithm adapted in house2 from a hybrid Figure 9 -Ratio of critical flow rates, true to Newtonian shear rates
Figure 5 - Pressure drop gradient in laminar flow for HB model
procedure already proved to be effective in derived by Newtonian and true shear rate for mud S23
other fields of drilling fluids research3.
30,0
REFERENCES
300
pressure gradient [Pa/m]

25,0
250
20,0 1) Kelessidis VC, Maglione R, Modeling Rheological Behavior of Bentonite
Shear Stress [Pa]

200 Suspensions as Casson and Robertson-Stiff Fluids Using Newtonian and True
15,0 Shear Rates in Couette Viscometry, paper submitted to Powder Technology,
2006
10,0 150
2) Kelessidis VC, Maglione R, Shear Rates Corrections for Herschel-Bulkley
5,0 Fluids in Couette geometry and Effects on Frictional Loss Estimation, paper
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 submitted to SPE Journal, 2006
0,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 pump rate [L/min] 3) Maglione R, Robotti G, Romagnoli R, In-Situ Characterization of Drilling
Mud, paper SPE 66285, SPE Journal 5 (4), December 2000
HB-Ne shear rate HB-True shear rate
Shear Rate [1/s]

Herschel-Bulkley shear rate Casson shear rate Figure 6 - Pressure drop gradient in laminar flow for HB model,
Robertson-Stiff shear rate New tonian shear rate derived by Newtonian and true shear rate for mud S7
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 2 - Experimentally derived and computed true shear rate-
based rheograms for mud S1
 Difference between the rheological behavior of a water-bentonite suspension computed either by applying the
Rheological model Newtonian or the true shear rate expressions to Casson, Robertson-Stiff, and Herschel Bulkley models, is observed.
Casson Robertson- Herschel-  The three-constant parameters Herschel–Bulkley rheological model, gives the best fit of the experimentally derived
Stiff Bulkley
τy [Pa] 13,670 - 4,472 data computed either by the Newtonian or the true shear rate for all samples.
K, µp [Pa?sn] 0,0026 8,754 4,825  Robertson-Stiff rheological model gives comparable results to the Herschel-Bulkley model, even though the
γo [1/s] - 6,090 -
n - 0,162 0,24 accuracy in the computation is slightly lower.
R2 0,958 0,986 0,997  Computation with Casson model gives the lowest accuracy in the data fitting.
SSE [Pa2] 13,217 4,489 2,911
RMSE [Pa] 1,096 0,670 0,539 For flow in pipe and annulus, the computed flow parameters, with the Herschel-Bulkley model, using Newtonian
Table 2 - Rheological parameters derived by true shear rate and
and true shear rates show small differences for the velocities profiles but up to 33% differences for the pressure
statistical correlation coefficients for mud S1 gradient.
 Variations in the predictions of the onset of transitional flow, both in pipes and annuli, is also observed when
comparing results derived with Newtonian and true shear rates.