Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Rheological analysis of drilling uid using Marsh Funnel

Chandan Guria n, Rajesh Kumar, Prakash Mishra
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826004, India

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 6 October 2012
Accepted 20 March 2013
Available online 4 April 2013

In this study, Marsh Funnel is used to determine the rheological properties, namely, yield point, apparent
viscosity and plastic viscosity of drilling uid. Funnel drainage volume and corresponding drainage time
are two measured variables for this analysis. Drainage volume is used to predict funnel wall shear stress
whereas drainage rate is used to estimate funnel wall shear rate. The predicted shear rate is independent of
rheological models. Yield point is calculated from remaining volume of uid in the funnel at the end of the
experiment under no ow condition whereas apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity are determined from
the funnel consistency plot. Synthetic crude oil and the suspension of several drilling uid additives
(e.g., bentonite, polyethylene glycolsodium chloride and polyethylene glycolsodium chloridebentonite)
with practical importance have also been used to determine yield point, apparent viscosity and plastic
viscosity using the Marsh Funnel readings. Finally, the Marsh Funnel rheological results are also compared
with the Fann 35 viscometer results.
& 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Marsh Funnel
shear stress
shear rate
yield point
apparent viscosity
plastic viscosity
drilling uid

1. Introduction
Rheological behavior of drilling uids is very complex. Yield
point, apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity are the common
rheological properties of drilling uid. For efcient drilling operations, above properties are continuously determined and monitored in the oil eld using Fann viscometer (Darley and Gray, 1986;
Bourgoyne et al., 1991). Yield point is a measure of electrochemical or attractive forces in the drilling mud which depends
on (i) surface properties of mud solids, (ii) percent solid loading,
and (iii) electrical environment around solids. Yield point of the
mud reects the ability to carry drilled cuttings out of the hole.
An exact value of true yield point under no ow condition is very
difcult to obtain from Fann viscometer and it is determined
indirectly (Gatlin, 1960; Darley and Gray, 1986; Bourgoyne et al.,
1991). In fact, rheometers of any kind fail to measure true yield
point of drilling uid (Nguyen and Boger, 1983, 1992; Carreau
et al., 1997; Zhu et al., 2001; Peder et al., 2006; Balhoff et al., 2011).
Moreover, estimation of true yield point from the ow curve (i.e.,
shear stress vs. shear rate) gives erroneous result for several
reasons (Balhoff et al., 2011).
Marsh Funnel viscosity (reported in seconds) is frequently used
for monitoring the relative change in the consistency (i.e., relative
viscosity) of the drilling uids (Marsh, 1931). This test is quick,
simple and requires very little equipment. Using power law

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 326 2235411; fax: +91 326 2296632.
E-mail addresses: cguria.che@gmail.com,
guria.c.pe@ismdhanbad.ac.in (C. Guria).
0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.03.027

rheological model, Pitt (2000) estimated the effective viscosity of

drilling uids from Marsh Funnel readings. Roussel and Roy (2005)
have studied the rheology of cement slurry using Marsh Funnel
readings. They have calculated yield point and plastic viscosity
from cement slurry ow time assuming Bingham plastic behavior
of the slurry. They also studied the ow time behavior of cement
slurry for different geometries of Marsh Funnel cone. Recently,
Balhoff et al. (2011) demonstrated the measurement of rheological
properties particularly yield point for several Newtonian and nonNewtonian uids using Marsh funnel and compared the funnel
results with Fann viscometers. They have calculated wall shear
rate using non-linear viscosity relation and the predicted shear
rate deviates largely at the low shear stress when uid level in
Marsh Funnel is sufciently low. Funnel drainage volume and
corresponding drainage time are the measured variables which are
directly related to wall shear rate and wall shear stress of Marsh
Funnel. Though the liquid height in the funnel is converted into
shear stress quite easily however major difculty arises in determining the wall shear rate accurately (Pitt, 2000; Roussel and Roy,
2005; Balhoff et al., 2011). Moreover, Balhoff et al. (2011) studies
fail to convert Fann viscometer data into Marsh Funnel readings
for sufciently high loading of bentonite suspension (e.g., 8.6% wt/
wt). In this case, Fann prediction offers complete drainage of
bentonite suspension whereas Marsh Funnel experiments result
only
60.0% drainage (Balhoff et al., 2011).
Gas hydrate formation under deep sea bed condition is common and creates operational problems during deep water offshore
drilling. Plugging the blow out preventer stack, and choke and kill
lines with gas hydrates may cause serious well control problem
while drilling. In this respect, water based polyethylene glycol

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

List of symbols
g
n
Pcone
Pcy
R0
RL
Rw(Z)
Q(t)
vz
V(t)
V0
Z

acceleration due to gravity, m/s2

ow behavior index
pressure in the cylindrical section of the funnel, Pa
pressure in the conical section of the funnel, Pa
radius of the funnel at 20 mesh screen, cm
radius of the cylindrical section, cm
radius of the funnel at any height, Z, cm
discharge rate through the Marsh Funnel outlet tube,
cm3/s
velocity through the outlet of the funnel, cm/s
drainage volume of uid after time, t, cm3
initial volume of uid taken in the funnel, cm3
liquid height above the capillary section of the
funnel, cm

(PEG) mud is frequently used to suppress gas hydrate formation

and decomposition (Ebeltoft et al., 1997; Jiang et al., 2011). In
presence of sodium chloride (NaCl), PEG based mud has an ability
to maintain bottom hole stability, lubricity, desired ltration loss
while drilling at low temperature (Ebeltoft et al., 1997). Thixotropic
behavior and stable rheological properties of drilling uid usually
improve the performance of drilling uid (Darley and Gray, 1986).
In this regard, there is limited information available in the literature
for PEGNaCl based mud.
In the present study, generalized expressions for Marsh Funnel
wall shear stress and wall shear rate are presented for several nonNewtonian uids. For this, synthetic crude oil, bentonite suspension and PEGNaCl based synthetic mud were used for rheological
analysis. Rheological model independent consistency plots have
also been generated using Marsh Funnel readings (i.e., funnel
drainage volume and corresponding drainage time of owing
uid). Yield point is obtained from no ow condition of the
suspensions at the end of the Marsh Funnel experiments whereas
apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity are obtained from the
consistency plot. Finally, Marsh Funnel rheological results are
compared with the rheological properties that have been obtained
from Fann 35 viscometer.

Z1
Z2

length of conical section of the funnel, cm

length of the capillary section of the funnel, cm

Greek letters

_ w
a
p

w
0

Marsh Funnel angle (Fig. 1)

difference
wall shear rate, s1
apparent viscosity, cP
plastic viscosity, cP
uid density, kg/m3
wall shear stress, Pa
yield point, Pa

found to be 0.855 g/cm3. Above oils were purchased from Thermo

Fisher Scientic India (Pvt.) Ltd., Mumbai, India. Bentonite powder
(SD Fine-Chem Ltd., Mumbai, India) with given specications
[i.e., loss on drying3.0% and pH10.0 (4.0 g in 200 ml water)]
was used directly for rheological analysis. In this study, Bentonite
loading was varied from 5.0% to 8.0% (wt/wt). PEG (an inhibitor for
gas hydrate formation and decomposition) with weight average
molecular weight 6000 g/mol (SRL Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India) was
used for this study. PEG loading was varied from 10.0% to 15.0%
(wt/wt) in presence of xed amount of NaCl (20.0% wt/wt in this
study) with purity more than 99.9% wt/wt (SRL Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai,
India). Rheological analysis using Marsh Funnel and Fann 35
viscometer were also carried out using PEGNaCl mixture in
presence of different bentonite loadings. De-mineralized water
was used to prepare aqueous suspensions. To prepare water
soluble NaClPEG solution, mixture was kept for 1 h and pH of

2. Experimental
For rheological analysis, Marsh Funnel and Fann 35 viscometer
were used to determine rheological properties of synthetic crude
oil and the suspensions of several drilling uid additives separately at room temperature (i.e., 305 K). To use Marsh Funnel for
rheological analysis, the drainage volume was measured with the
varying drainage time. Suspension volume of 1500 cm3 was used
for the funnel experiments. Details of Marsh Funnel with dimensions are shown in Fig. 1. To obtain the consistent Marsh Funnel
readings, experiments were repeated for several times with fresh
suspensions. Fann 35 viscometer is a rotational coaxial-cylindrical
type viscometer. The rotor of this rheometer is driven by an
electric motor with six standard rotational speeds (i.e., 600, 300,
200, 100, 6 and 3 rpm). Corresponding to these rotational speeds,
dial readings of Fann viscometer were measured in degrees. For
consistent Fann 35 viscometer readings, experiments were also
repeated for several times with fresh suspensions. Density of
slurry was measured using mud balance apparatus.
Mineral oil, heavy oil and light oil were used to prepare
synthetic crude oil. Typical composition of mineral oil, heavy oil
and light oil is 1.0:3.2:0.6 by volume and mixture density was

63

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of standard Marsh Funnel with dimensions.

64

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

all PEG based muds was also adjusted to 9.0 using sodium
hydroxide [Thermo Fisher Scientic India (Pvt.) Ltd., Mumbai,
India].

Therefore, total pressure drop across the funnel is written in

the following form i.e.,

3. Model development

Substituting, P in terms of liquid level in the Marsh Funnel,

one may obtain the wall shear rate by the following equation:

Fluid level in the Marsh Funnel is a measure of wall shear stress

and higher liquid level results higher funnel wall shear stress
which is observed at the initial drainage period. Similarly, Marsh
Funnel volumetric ow rate (i.e., funnel drainage volume to
drainage time) through the outlet of the funnel is a measure of
wall shear rate. Wall shear rate is also higher at the initial drainage
period. In this study, comprehensive expressions for Marsh Funnel
wall shear stress and wall shear rate have been proposed to
develop funnel consistency plots.
3.1. Model assumptions
Following assumptions are made to develop Marsh Funnel
consistency plot:
i. Flow through Marsh Funnel cross section is quasi-stationary,
since the volume of viscous liquid in the funnel changes
slowly with time particularly at the end of experiment
(Balhoff et al., 2011).
ii. Though the downward velocity through the funnel depends
on radius and vertical height, it is assumed that the ow
through the funnel is fully developed without exit effect at
the outlet tube i.e., velocity distribution is unaffected by the
change in length and diameter of funnel. This assumption is
almost true where the change in funnel diameter with height
is very less.
iii. Marsh Funnel wall shear rate is the measure of speed of the
sample uid as it passes through the funnel outlet tube.
iv. The uid is time-independent, i.e. : f only.
v. Flow through the funnel is laminar and isothermal.
vi. Density of owing uid is constant, i.e., ow is incompressible.
vii. There is no slip at the wall and uid behaves as a continuum
since the funnel diameter is comparatively larger than the
molecular mean free path of the uid.
viii. There is no existence of elongation ow since drilling uids
are purely viscous.

P P cone P cy

w Z
2w Z 2

cos fRL R0 RL Z=Z 1 g

RL

gZ Z 2
Z=cos fRL R0 RL Z=Z 1 g 2Z 2 =RL

where is the density of the suspension and g is the acceleration

due to gravity.
Eq. (5) is the desired equation for the estimation of Marsh
Funnel wall shear stress. Therefore, wall shear stress depends on
the remaining liquid height in the funnel, suspension density and
funnel geometry. At the throat of the conical section (i.e., Z 0,
R0 RL and cos 1.0: Fig. 1), Eq. (5) reduces to the following wall
shear stress equation for cylindrical section which depends on the
radius of the outlet funnel tube and on suspension density i.e.,
w

1
gRL
2

In Eq. (5), remaining liquid height in conical section of the

funnel (i.e., Z) is calculated from discharge volume (V) and funnel
geometry which is given by
s
2
3 V 0 VRL Z 2
Z
7
=3R0 =Z 1 2
where V0 1500 cm3 (i.e., liquid level just touches 20 mesh screen
of Marsh Funnel).
Yield point (0) is obtained from the funnel reading at the end
of experiment under no ow condition. Yield point is zero for
complete drainage of the suspension whereas nite values of yield
point are obtained from funnel readings under no ow condition
from Eqs. (5) and (6) for incomplete drainage.
3.3. Wall shear rate _ w
Marsh Funnel wall shear rate is a measure of speed at which
sample uid passes through the funnel outlet. Therefore, wall
shear rate is written in the following form based on funnel outlet
sectional area:
_ w

3n 1 4Q
4n R3L

where Q is the volumetric ow rate through Marsh Funnel outlet,

and n is the ow behavior index which is related by the following
equation:

3.2. Wall shear stress (w)

Marsh Funnel wall shear stress is obtained by balancing the
forces in conical and cylindrical section of the funnel separately.
Balancing the net hydrostatic downward force and upward wall
shear force across the conical section of the funnel (Fig. 1), one can
write the following equation:

Details of the funnel wall shear rate equation (i.e., Eq. (8)) are
given in Appendix A.

R2w P cone Rw Lw

3.4. Apparent viscosity (a) and plastic viscosity (p)

Substituting, L Z=cos and Rw Z RL R0 RL Z=Z 1 in the

above equation, the following relation for pressure drop is
obtained for conical section of the funnel i.e.,
P cone

w Z
cos fRL R0 RL Z=Z 1 g

Similarly, pressure drop across the cylindrical section of the

funnel (Fig. 1) can be written by the following equation i.e.,
P cy

2w Z 2
RL

1
dlog4Q =R3L

n
dlogw

Marsh Funnel consistency plot (i.e., wall shear stress vs. wall
shear rate) is generated using Eqs. (5) and (8) from Marsh Funnel
readings for a given suspension. Then the consistency plot is used
to calculate apparent viscosity (a) and plastic viscosity (p)
considering shear stresses at 1050 s1 and 510 s1 shear rates
which are equivalent to rotor rotation of 600 rpm and 300 rpm in
Fann 35 viscometer respectively. Therefore, apparent and plastic
viscosities are calculated by the following expressions:
1020
a cP
 10001020
10a
1020

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

65

Table 1
Details of rheological results using Marsh Funnel and Fann VG meter.
Fluid

Density
(kg/m3)

Drainage

Marsh Funnel

Fann 35 viscometer

0
(Pa)

a
(cP)

p
(cP)

0 3=4a p
(Pa)

a 600 =2
(cP)

p 600300
(cP)

Synthetic Crude oil

855.0

Complete

60.08

46.48

3.0

60.0

56.0

Bentonite
5% (wt/wt)
6% (wt/wt)
8% (wt/wt)

1020.0
1030.0
1050.0

Complete
Incomplete
Incomplete

0
12.0
46.9

34.81
42.59
68.42

29.94
27.96
4.10

3.75
15.75
47.25

12
28.0
67.0

7.5
7.0
5.0

PEG+NaCl
10%+20% (wt/wt)
15%+20% (wt/wt)

1037.0
1167.0

Complete
Complete

0
0

22.13
24.16

26.64
29.34

1.125
0.375

5.0
11.5

6.5
12.0

PEG+NaCl+Bentonite
10%+20%+3% (wt/wt)
10%+20%+5% (wt/wt)

1067.0
1087.0

Complete
Complete

0
0

22.51
14.66

29.56
24.15

0.75
1.125

6.0
6.0

7.0
7.5

and
1020 510
 100021020 510
p cP
1020510

10b

where 1050 and 510 are the shear stresses (in Pa) at shear rates
1050 s1 and 510 s1 respectively.

4. Results and discussion

Rheology experiments for synthetic crude oil, bentonite, PEG
NaCl and PEGNaClbentonite suspensions with varying bentonite
and PEG loading were carried out using Marsh Funnel and Fann 35
viscometer. Details of the rheological experiments and corresponding sample densities are reported in Columns 1 and 2 of Table 1
respectively. Marsh Funnel readings (i.e., funnel drainage volume
and corresponding drainage time) for several suspensions were
noted and the details of funnel readings are shown in Figs. 26a
for all the suspensions. For known suspension densities, funnel wall
shear stresses are calculated using Eqs. (5) and (6) with varying
drainage volumes. As Marsh Funnel geometry is xed, maximum
and minimum shear stresses depend only on the suspension density.
It is also noted that complete drainage is observed for all the
suspensions except bentonite suspensions with 6.0% and 8.0%
(wt/wt) loading (Table 1). Yield points for 6.0% and 8.0% (wt/wt)
bentonite suspensions are calculated from Eqs. (6) and (5) respectively based on the remaining volume of liquid present at the end of
experiment. Yield point is zero for complete drainage of the
suspension. Details of yield point obtained from Marsh Funnel
experiments are reported in Column 4 of Table 1. Wall shear stress
is also calculated according to Balhoff et al. (2011) and compared
with the shear stress obtained from Eq. (5). Comparisons of wall
shear stresses are shown in Figs. 2c and 4c for synthetic crude oil
and 8.0% wt/wt bentonite suspension respectively. It is observed that
the predicted wall shear stresses in the present study are always
higher than Balhoff et al.'s results for any values of wall shear rate. A
higher yield point is also obtained for 8.0% wt/wt bentonite loading
(i.e., 46.9 Pa: Table 1) which corresponds to 280 cm3 remaining
volume of bentonite in the funnel. In the case of 6.0% (wt/wt)
bentonite loading, suspension remains in the cylindrical section of
the funnel at the end of experiment with yield point 12.0 Pa.
Funnel wall shear rate is estimated from Eq. (8) for known
volumetric ow rates of the discharge uid [i.e., Q(t)(dV/dt)] which
is determined accurately from the funnel drainage volume (V)
vs. drainage time (t) plot. Best t equations for Q(t) are shown in
Figs. 26a for all the experiments with correlation coefcients. Now,
ow behavior index (n) values are calculated from Eq. (9) and are

obtained from log(4Q/RL3) vs. log w plots (Figs. 26b). It is observed

that the slopes of log(4Q/RL3) vs. log ware not constant for all of the
suspensions. Details of the best t equations for nding the values of
n and corresponding correlation coefcients are given in Figs. 26b.
It is observed that the values of n take a minimum value at the
beginning and take maximum value at the end of experiment. The
values of n for synthetic crude varies from 0.73 to 1.19 (Fig. 2b), and
suggests the non-Newtonian behavior of synthetic crude oil. In fact,
non-Newtonian behavior of synthetic crude oil is mainly due to the
presence of excess heavy oil content in the crude. The average values
of n for 5.0%, 6.0% and 8.0% (wt/wt) bentonite loading are calculated
and found to be 0.636, 0.574 and 0.07 respectively (Figs. 3b and 4b).
The values of n for bentonite suspensions suggest that the ow
behavior is pseudoplastic and dominates for 8.0% (wt/wt) bentonite
suspension. PEGNaCl and PEGNaClbentonite suspensions behave
differently as compared to synthetic crude and pure bentonite
suspensions. The values of n for PEG based suspensions are also
calculated and found to be more than 1.0 (Figs. 5b and 6b) and
suggest the dilatants behavior of PEG based mud. The average values
of n for (10.0% PEG+20.0% NaCl) and (15.0% PEG+20.0% NaCl)
suspensions are found to be 1.54 and 1.67 respectively (Fig. 5b).
Identical behavior is also observed for (10.0% PEG+20.0% NaCl+3.0%
bentonite) and (10.0% PEG+20.0% NaCl+5.0% bentonite), and the
average values of nfor these suspensions are found to be 1.67 and
1.81. It is noted that the addition of bentonite in PEGNaCl based
mud does not improve the rheological behavior of the suspensions
(Figs. 5c and 6c). In fact, for a highly concentrated solution of NaCl
(e.g., 20% wt/wt), bentonite is completely occulated in the suspension and thereby addition of bentonite powder offers negligible
change in Funnel readings (Figs. 5a and 6a). Now using the nonlinear values of n (Eq. (8): Figs. 26b), funnel wall shear rates are
calculated for all the suspensions.
Marsh Funnel consistency plots (i.e., wall shear stress vs. wall
shear rate) are now generated for all the suspensions using funnel
readings. Details of the consistency plots for all suspensions are
shown in Figs. 26c. From these consistency plots, apparent
viscosity (a) and plastic viscosity (p) are calculated using
Eqs. (10a) and (10b) respectively. Using Marsh Funnel readings,
details of a and p for all the suspensions are reported in columns
5 and 6 of Table 1 respectively. True yield point, a and p are also
calculated for all the suspensions from Fann 35 viscometer reading
and results are reported in columns 79 of Table 1 respectively.
Rheological results obtained from Marsh Funnel readings are
compared with Vann 35 viscometer readings. It is observed that
Marsh Funnel and Fann 35 viscometer result almost identical yield
points for 6.0% and 8.0% (wt/wt) bentonite suspensions as compared to the other suspensions (i.e., synthetic crude, 5.0% bentonite

66

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

Fig. 2. Rheology of synthetic crude oil: (a) variation of drainage volume with time,
(b) ow behavior index, and (c) consistency plot.

Fig. 3. Rheology of 5.0% and 6.0% (wt/wt) aqueous bentonite suspensions: (a) variation
of drainage volume with time, (b) ow behavior index, and (c) consistency plot.

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

Fig.
4. Rheology
of
8.0%
(wt/wt)
aqueous
bentonite
suspension:
(a) variation of drainage volume with time, (b) ow behavior index, and
(c) consistency plot.

67

Fig. 5. Rheology of PEGNaCl suspensions [(i) PEG 10%+NaCl 20% (wt/wt); (ii) PEG
15%+NaCl 20% (wt/wt)]: (a) variation of drainage volume with time, (b) ow
behavior index, and (c) consistency plot.

68

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

and PEG based mud). As the radius of Marsh Funnel outlet tube is
xed, the minimum yield point for a given suspension (i.e., for
known density) is also xed and the suspensions with negligible
yield point (i.e., below the minimum value of the funnel yield point)
will not stay in the funnel (i.e., complete drainage). Therefore,
Marsh Funnel is very much effective for sufciently high yield point
of the suspensions (as in the case of 6.0% and 8.0% wt/wt bentonite
suspension). Yield points obtained from Fann viscometer for all PEG
based mud (Table 1) are negative and conrm the dilatants
behavior of PEG based mud. It is also observed that almost identical
values of a and p are obtained for 8.0% (wt/wt) bentonite
suspension from both the rheometers whereas relatively higher
values of a and p are obtained from funnel prediction for all other
suspensions except synthetic crude. An identical apparent viscosity
is obtained for synthetic crude oil from both the rheometers
whereas lower plastic viscosity is obtained for this crude oil from
funnel readings as compared to Fann 35 viscometers readings.
A similar rheological patterns (i.e., dilatants behavior: a op) are
obtained from funnel and Fann readings for all PEG based mud (i.e.,
PEGNaCl and PEGNaClBentonite). Though, the rheological
results obtained from Marsh Funnel readings differ from Fann 35
viscometer readings (8.0% wt/wt aqueous bentonite suspensions),
but there is possibility to improve the prediction of Marsh Funnel
wall shear rates which can be achieved by reducing outlet tube
diameter of the funnel and online monitoring and recording of the
Marsh Funnel measured variables (i.e., drainage volume and corresponding drainage time).

5. Conclusion
We present a methodology to construct the consistency plot
from Marsh Funnel readings for several non-Newtonian uids.
Marsh Funnel wall shear stress is obtained from drainage volume
of the suspension. A rheological model independent shear rate
equation is presented and is obtained from volumetric ow rate of
the discharged suspension and wall shear stress. True yield point is
calculated from Marsh Funnel reading under no ow condition at
the end of the experiment whereas apparent viscosity and plastic
viscosity are obtained from consistency plot knowing wall shear
stresses at 510 s1 and 1020 s1 shear rates. Synthetic crude oil and
several drilling uid additives (e.g., bentonite, PEGNaCl and
PEGNaClbentonite) with practical interest have been considered
for rheological analysis. True yield point, apparent viscosity and
plastic viscosity for all these suspensions have been measured from
the Marsh Funnel readings. These results are also compared with
the rheological properties obtained from Fann 35 viscometer.
Comparable rheological results are obtained for synthetic crude
oil and relatively high bentonite loading suspensions [i.e., 6.0% and
8.0% (wt/wt)] from both rheometers whereas relatively higher
apparent and plastic viscosities are obtained for other suspensions.

Acknowledgments

Fig. 6. Rheology of PEGNaClBentonite mixtures [(i) PEG 10%+NaCl 20%+Bentonite

3.0% (wt/wt); (ii) PEG 10%+NaCl 20%+Bentonite 5.0% (wt/wt)]: (a) variation of drainage
volume with time, (b) ow behavior index, and (c) consistency plot.

Partial nancial support from the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad [through research project Grant FRS(28)2010-11/PE] is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors also thank B.B. Sahay (Senior Technical
Assistant, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, India) for helpful discussions.

C. Guria et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 105 (2013) 6269

Appendix A. Estimation of Marsh Funnel wall shear rate

(Brydson, 1981)
Let the linear velocity of owing uid at the funnel outlet at a
distance R from the center by vz and volumetric ow rate through
uid thickness dR is given by the following equation i.e.,
Z RL
Rvz dR
A:1
Q 2
0

Though vz is a function of R and Z, it is assumed that for a given

circular cross section of the funnel, vz depends only on R. Applying
no slip condition at the wall (i.e., vz 0 at RRL) and integrate
Eq. (A.1) by parts, following equation results, i.e.,
Z RL
R2 dvz
A:2
Q

69

Above equation is written in the following convenient form:

!
3 4Q
1 4Q dlog4Q =R3L
_ w
A:9

4 R3L
4 R3L
dlogw
Now substituting dlog4Q =R3L =dlogw 1=n in Eq. (A.9), one
may obtain the following equation in the convenient form:
_ w

3n 1 4Q
4n R3L

Eq. (7) is the desired expression for the estimation of wall shear
rate through Marsh Funnel for known volumetric ow rate
through nozzle.

Above equation may be written in terms of velocity gradient i.e.,

Z rw
dvz
dR
A:3
R2
Q
dR
0
Using Eq. (1), the radial shear stress variation in the cylindrical
section of funnel is written as
w
dR
A:4
d
RL
Now, substituting Eq. (A.4) into Eq. (A.3), following equation is
written for Q, i.e.
Z w
RL
R2 _
d
A:5
Q
w
0
where shear rate _

dvz
dR

Substituting w =RL Rinto Eq. (A.5) and rearranging, following equation is obtained:
Z w
Q 3w

_ 2 d
A:6
R3L
0
Now, differentiating both sides with respect to w using the
Liebnitz rule for differentiation of a denite integral, one may
obtain


1
dQ
_ w 2w
3w
32w Q
A:7
3
dw
RL
Rearranging Eq. (A.7), one may obtain the following equation:
!
3
4Q
w d4Q =R3L
_ w
A:8

3
4
dw
4
RL

References
Balhoff, M.T., Lake, L.W., Bommer, P.M., Lewis, R.E., Weber, M.J., Calderin, J.M., 2011.
Rheological and yield stress measurements of non-Newtonian uids using a
Marsh Funnel. J. Pet. Sci. Eng 77, 393402.
Bourgoyne Jr., A.T., Chenevert, M.E., Millheim, K.K., Young Jr., F.S., 1991. Applied
Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, vol. 2. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX.
Brydson, J.A., 1981. Flow Properties of Polymer Melts, second ed. George Godwin
Limited, London.
Carreau, P.J., De Kee, D.C.R., Chhabra, R.P., 1997. Rheology of Polymeric Systems.
Hanser/Gardner Publications, Cincinatti, OH.
Darley, H.C.H., Gray, G.R., 1986. Composition and Properties of Oil Well Drilling
Fluids, fth ed. Gulf Pub. Co., Houston.
Ebeltoft, H., Yousif, M.,Soergaard, E., 1997, Hydrate control during deep water
drilling: overview and new drilling uids formulations. In: Proceedings of the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 58 October 1997. San
Antonio, Texas.
Gatlin, C., 1960. Petroleum Engineering: Drilling and Well Completions. Prentice
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Jiang, G., Liu, T., Ning, F., Tu, Y., Zhang, L., Yu, Y., Kuang, L., 2011. Polyethylene glycol
drilling uid for drilling in marine gas hydrates-bearing sediments: an experimental study. Energies 4, 140150.
Marsh, H., 1931. Properties and treatment of rotary mud. Pet. Dev. Technol., Trans.
AIME, 234251.
Nguyen, Q.D., Boger, D.V., 1983. Direct yield stress measurement with the vane
method. J. Rheol. 29, 335347.
Nguyen, Q., Boger, D., 1992. Measuring the ow properties of yield stress uids.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24, 4788.
Peder, C., Moller, P., Mewis, J., Bonn, D., 2006. Yield stress and thixotropy: on the
difculty of measuring yield stresses in practice. Soft Matter 2, 274283.
Pitt, M.J., 2000. The Marsh Funnel and drilling uid viscosity: a new equation for
eld use. Soc. of Pet. Eng., Drill. Complet. 15, 36.
Roussel, N., Roy, B.L., 2005. The Marsh cone: a test or a rheological apparatus? Cem.
Concr. Res. 35, 823830.
Zhu, L., Sun, N., Papadopoulos, K., De Kee, D., 2001. A slotted plate device for
measuring yield stress. J. Rheol. 45, 11051122.