SPE-135587

The Effect of Drillstring Rotation on Equivalent Circulation Density:

Modeling and Analysis of Field Measurements
Ramadan Ahmed, Majed Enfis, Hamza Miftah-El-Kheir, SPE, University of Oklahoma; Morten Laget, SPE, AGR
Petroleum Services; and Arild Saasen, SPE, Det norske oljeselskap ASA and the University of Stavanger
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of 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 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 SPE copyright.


Abstract
A number of field and laboratory studies have been carried out to accurately predict the effect of drillstring rotation on
downhole pressure and equivalent circulating density (ECD). Field studies indicated that drillstring rotation often results in an
increased ECD. This is in contradiction with the results obtained from number of laboratory studies and other field studies.
Consequently, there is no comprehensive model that accounts for the effect drillstring rotation on wellbore hydraulics.
Recently, simple empirical models have been developed based on field measurements alone. Although these models can be
very useful as they are based on field measurements, they have no physical basis and are limited to specific ranges of field
parameters.
This article presents results of field studies and theoretical analysis conducted on the effect of drillstring rotation on
wellbore hydraulics. Field measurements during actual drilling operation were obtained from four different wells. Key drilling
parameters such as flow rate, drillstring rotation speed, rate of penetration, ECD and return density, were recorded as a
function of measured depth.
Selected published field measurements were analyzed systematically using dimensional analysis techniques. After
correlating different dimensionless groups, a new semi-empirical model was developed. The model was rigorously tested for
its accuracy. Model predictions were compared with new field measurements and predictions of an existing model. Model
predictions show good agreement with field measurements. The new model exhibits appreciably better accuracy than the
existing one.
The model developed in this investigation is relevant to manage ECD in slim holes, deepwater wells, and extended-reach
wells where the increased wellbore length results in excessive pressure loss and limits the operating window for bottom hole
pressure. In deepwater applications, ECD management becomes critical due to the narrow operating window between the pore
and fracture pressure gradients.

1. Introduction
Research on ECD management and wellbore hydraulics has received an increased attention in the last few years as new
technologies such as slim-hole and casing drilling have emerged in the industry. Despite their technical and economical
benefits, these technologies have presented several hydraulic challenges as a result of the narrow annular clearance that
substantial increase in pressure loss. Moreover, in recent years, deep-water drilling has been pursed as a mean to satisfy the
increasing oil demand. Deep-water drilling presents several drilling challenges associated with downhole pressure
management because of the narrow margin between pore pressure gradient and fracture gradient. It is very critical to assess the
accuracy of downhole pressure prediction and thoroughly understand the effect of drillstring rotation on BHP and ECD.
Accurate predictions optimize of wellbore hydraulics and avoid excessive annular pressure losses that occur frequently in the
field. Also, accurate prediction is needed for planning of drilling fluid density prior to drill out. Failure to accurately predict
the ECD may in the end result in fracturing of the formation, lost circulation, excessive loss of drilling fluid, loss of well
control and increased drilling cost
The rotation of the drillpipe can substantially increase the annular pressure loss resulting in higher bottom hole pressure
(BHP) and ECD. The relationship between the drillpipe rotation speed and friction pressure loss is complex and often
influenced by fluid properties (rheology and density), flow regime, diameter ratio and eccentricity. For simple annular flows
such as Newtonian laminar flow in concentric annulus, the axial and radial momentum equations are fully decoupled. This
indicates theoretically the disassociation of these two key drilling parameters for Newtonian fluids. However, for laminar flow
2 SPE 135587
of Non-Newtonian fluid in concentric annuli, the equations of motion are fully coupled through the shear rate dependent
apparent viscosity function. Hence, for shear thinning fluids, theoretically the pressure loss is expected to reduce due to the
rotation of the inner pipe. Despite this expectation, both experimental and field studies predominately show an increased
annular pressure loss with drillstring rotation. The increase in the pressure loss is attributed to different flow phenomena
including: i) pipe eccentricity and/or geometric irregularities (pipe wobbling and eccentricity fluctuations) that generate
additional losses; ii) formation of secondary flows like Taylor vortices; and iii) increase in annular cuttings concentration.
In inclined and horizontal wellbores, the drillstring settles on the low side of the wellbore forming eccentric annulus that
changes the flow pattern. Without the drillstring rotation, eccentricity can reduce the annular pressure by as much as 60%
(Haciislamoglu and Langlinais 1990). In addition, as the drillstring rotates, due to its extensive length, it moves from one end
to the other end of the wellbore, producing wobbling motion and eccentricity fluctuations that create very complicated flow
patterns in the annulus. Furthermore, in 1880, Lord Rayleigh discovered that the existence of flow instability in annular flow
with inner string rotation. Secondary flows such as Taylor vortices can be formed in the annulus because of centrifugal and
shear instabilities. A recent numerical study (Jeng and Zhu 2010) shows the formation Taylor vortices in helical flow of
Bingham fluids in concentric annulus. These conditions result in substantial increase in pressure losses. As the flow patterns
become more complex, mathematical modeling becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Experimental approach is more
realistic option to develop predictive models. However, experiments conducted in small-scale laboratory setups may not
represent the conditions in the field. For instance, laboratory tests cover only low Taylor number flows whereas field
measurements indicate high Taylor number flow conditions in the wellbore. Therefore, although they are expensive, field
studies are preferable in this case to provide practical and useful solutions.

2. Literature Review
Numerous laboratory studies (Nouri and Whitelaw 1994; Hansen and Sterri 1995; Hansen et al. 1999; Ahmed and Miska
2008; Yamada 1962; Walker and Al-Rawi 1970; Wei 1997; Woo et al. 2005) were carried out to evaluate the effect of pipe
rotation on annular pressure loss. Most of these studies demonstrate both negative and positive effects of the rotation speed.
An earlier study (Nouri and Whitelaw 1994) conducted in a concentric annulus (0.79 x 1.59) showed an increase in the
friction factor with inner pipe rotation compared to a non-rotating case in laminar flow regime. The experiments were
conducted using Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. Aqueous solution of Glycerol (Newtonian) and 0.2% aqueous solution
of CMC (power-law fluid) were used in the experiments. A year later, another experimental study (Hansen and Sterri 1995)
was undertaken to determine the effect of pipe rotation and pipe eccentricity on pressure losses in narrow annuli. The fluids
used in this experiment were non-Newtonian and best fit the power law model. The results of this experiment have shown
unexpected pressure loss patterns. The study confirmed that pressure loss could eventually increase or decrease as pipe
rotation increases. Similar results were obtained from a more recent study (Hansen et al. 1999) conducted by the same authors.
Analogous to their previous study (Hansen and Sterri 1995), one of the main objectives of this experiment was to examine the
effect of drillpipe rotation and pipe eccentricity on annular pressure loss. A series of tests were conducted using a 13-ft long
narrow annular test section (2 x 1.75). These tests were run using the following three types of fluids: water, three different
solutions of CMC, and two different solutions of Xanthan gum. The CMC solutions best fit the power law model whereas the
Xanthan gum solutions fit the Herschel-Bulkley model. For the CMC solution, a combined circulation and rotation tests were
undertaken in a fully concentric annulus. As the inner pipe was rotated from 0 to 600 RPM at 100 RPM increments the
pressure loss increased almost linearly as the pipe rotation increased for all flow rates. Similar tests conducted using
eccentricity annulus (relative eccentricity of 0.7) showed a small decrease in pressure loss for low flow rates (below 75 l/min)
as pipe rotation increased. However, once the flow rate exceeded this value, there was a relatively higher increase in pressure
losses with increase in pipe rotation speed. For Xanthan gum solutions in a concentric annulus, results are to some extent
similar to the data obtained using the CMC solutions. There was a substantial decrease in the pressure loss as pipe rotation
increased at low flow rates (below 100 l/min). Once the flow rate exceeded this value, there was a slight pressure loss increase.
Another study (Sterri et. al 2000) conducted in partially (50%) eccentric annulus with diameter ratio of 80% showed
consistently increased annular pressure loss with the increase in inner pipe rotation speed. A more recent study (Ahmed and
Miska 2008) corroborated the results obtained from previous laboratory investigations by concluding that indeed annular
pressure loss could increase or decrease with increasing drillpipe rotation speed.
In addition to the laboratory investigations, a number of numerical studies (Wan et al. 2000; Escudier et al. 2002; Fang and
Manglik 2002) were carried out to analyze helical flow of both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids in annuli. Simulation
results for Newtonian fluid in eccentric annuli showed increased pressure gradients as the rotation speed increases. This
phenomenon is attributed to the inertial effect that arises from the coupling of NavierStokes equations as the flow becomes
three-dimensional. For power-law fluid, results indicated the influences of both inertial effect and shear thinning. In a slightly
eccentric annulus, shear thinning dominates, whereas in a highly eccentric annulus, inertial effect becomes predominate. In an
annulus of intermediate eccentricity, shear thinning and inertial effect become comparable and the influence of rotational
speed becomes minimal.
Unlike the results from the majority of the laboratory studies, most of the field measurements (Delwiche et al. 1992; Ward
and Andreassen 1998; Isambourg et al. 1998; Charlez et al. 1998; Green et al. 1999; Hemphill et al. 2007; Hemphill et al.
2008) have shown a significant increase in pressure loss as the pipe rotation increases. The discrepancy between lab
observations and field measurements can be attributed to several factors, such as drillpipe wobbling or instability, the irregular
SPE 135587 3
geometry of the wellbore, tool joint effect, or a combination of these factors. Delwiche et al. (1992) carried out a field study in
several narrow-annuli wells. Different tests were carried by changing the flow rate and pipe rotation speed and recording the
pressure loss. The results (Fig. 1) show considerable increase in pressure loss with the increase in pipe rotation. In fact, in
slim-hole applications it is expected that the drillpipe rotation would produce larger increases in annular pressure drop
compared to conventional drilling because of the small annular clearance. Another field study conducted in North Sea
(Isambourg et al. 1998) reported similar increase in pressure loss as the rotation increases. The measurements were obtained
from an 8.5 well with 5 drillpipe. At low rotational speeds (below 60 RPM) pressure loss slightly increased. Above 60 RPM,
the pressure loss increased linearly with the rotation speed
In general, field measurements show similar response
of annular pressure loss with the change in drillstring
rotation speed. A series of Pressure-while-Drilling (PWD)
measurements (Charlez et al. 1998) obtained from North
Sea wells agree closely with the results of earlier studies
(Delwiche et al. 1992; Isambourg et al. 1998). Another
field study (Green et al. 1999) was conducted in several
wells in the Niakuk field in the North Slope, Alaska. These
tests were run after several problems were encountered
while drilling 8.5 sections of several Extended-Reach-
Drilling (ERD) wells. In order to overcome these
challenges, it was necessary to develop new operational
guidelines to help prevent future drilling problems.
Therefore, a set of different tests was carried to examine
several wellbore hydraulics aspects. One of the tests
conducted involved recording PWD measurements while
varying the drillpipe rotation speed and drilling fluid flow
rate. The tests were carried out in cased (9.625 ID casing)
section of a well inside while rotating a 5.5 drillpipe.
Tests were performed using oil based mud, which fit the
Herschel-Bulkley model very well. The results show the
existence of two regions in the pressure loss curve. The first region (below 50 RPM) where there is slight linear increase in the
pressure loss occurs with increase in the angular speed of the pipe, and a second region (above 50 RPM) where there is a
moderate linear increase in annular pressure loss. The overall trend of these curves shows that annular pressure loss increases
as the drillpipe rotates at higher angular velocities. However, a recent field study (Hemphill et al. 2007) conducted two years
ago in the North Sea reported a sharp increase in annular pressure loss at the lower drillpipe rotation speeds, and a slower
increase at the higher rotation speeds.

3. Field Data Analysis
The aim of the data analysis is to develop a model that can predict pressure loss variations as a function of drillpipe rotation
speed. Published data from a number of field studies (Delwiche et al. 1992; Isambourg et al. 1998; Charlez et al. 1998; Green
et al. 1999; Hemphill et al. 2007; Bode et al. 1991; Marken et al. 1992) were considered in the initial stage of the analysis. All
the data were extracted and converted to dimensionless variables. Some field studies were omitted due to the lack of key test
information required for the analysis. After applying dimensional analysis techniques, we found that some of the field data do
not correlate well. The poor correlation could be due to the discrepancy resulting from measurements inaccuracies since most
of the pressure losses were determined indirectly from bottom hole pressure measurements. In order to improve the quality of
the correlation, some of the field data were removed and the analysis was repeated numbers of times until satisfactory results
were obtained. Finally, data points (Table 1) from three field studies (Delwiche et al. 1992; Isambourg et al. 1998; Charlez et
al. 1998) were correlated well. Except two data points, all the measurements were taken under laminar for conditions. In the
effort to manipulate the field data in a convenient form, a dimensionless parameter (pressure loss ratio) is introduced. The
pressure loss ratio (PLR) is defined as:


0
) / (
) / (
=
=
e
e
dL dP
dL dP
PLR
......... (1)

Using dimensional analysis, the following model has been developed to predict the PLR as:

0.0152 - 0.042 0.0319 0.054 0.158 0.428
2
) 1
1
( Re ) 5 . 3 1 ( 36 . 0 + =
k
k Ta n
U
PLR
eff ave
y
c

t
, ... (2)

Fig. 1 Pressure losses as function of RPM for different flow rates
(Delwiche et al. 1992)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
l
o
s
s
e
s
(
p
s
i
)
RPM
Q= 200 l/min Q= 300 l/min Q= 400 l/min Q= 500 l/min
4 SPE 135587
where is density of the fluid. t
y
and n are the Herschel-Bulkley yield stress and fluid behavior index, respectively. U and k
are mean annular velocity and diameter ratio D
p
/D
h
, respectively. Average dimensionless eccentricity e
ave
of a well is
expressed as:

=

=
n
i
i
p h
i
ave
MD
L
D D
E
e
1
) (
2
, ...... (3)

where L
i
and MD is length of a wellbore section and total measured depth of the well, respectively. E
i
is effective eccentricity
of a wellbore section that represents the offset distance between the centers of the drillpipe and casing/hole. Theoretically, a
vertical section of a well is expected to have zero eccentricity. However, due to slight inclination and other geometric
irregularities, a vertical section may have a certain level of eccentricity. After analyzing number of field data and considering
the observations from previous studies (Wan et al. 2000; Escudier et al. 2002; Fang and Manglik 2002) that for intermediate
eccentricity, rotation effects are minimal, we recommend an effective eccentricity value of 50% for a vertical wellbore (i.e. for
a section with inclination less than 1). In inclined and horizontal sections, the drillpipe lays on the low side of the wellbore.
Hence, the effective eccentricity is estimated as:

p h
TJ h
D D
D D
E

=
, .. (4)

where D
TJ
is the diameter of a tool joint. The Taylor number (Ta) presented in Eq. (1) is expressed as:

2
3
16
) (
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
app
p h p
D D D
Ta

e
, .... (5)

where
app
is the apparent viscosity evaluated at the total shear rate
2 2
z

u
+ =
. The tangential shear rate (
u
) and axial
shear rate (
z
) are estimated using methods presented elsewhere (Ahmed and Miska 2008). The effective Reynolds number is
calculated as (White 2002):

lam w
eff
U
,
2
8
Re
t

=
, .. (6)

where t
w,lam
is the average wall shear stress for a concentric annulus, which is predicted from a laminar flow hydraulic model
such as narrow slot method.

4. Model Validation
Model validation has been carried out in two stages. First,
the predictions of the model have been compared (Fig. 2)
with the published field data from five field studies
(Delwiche et al. 1992; Isambourg et al. 1998; Charlez et al.
1998; Green et al. 1999; Bode et al. 1991; Marken et al.
1992). Even though the data points were obtained under
different drilling conditions (i.e. different drilling
parameters, fluid properties, wellbore configurations and
profiles), most of the predictions are between 12.5% error
bars. Predicted and measured pressure loss ratio values are
between 1.0 and 1.6. Some measurements are out of these
bars. But they are not significantly far from the lines. The
scattering of the data points could be due measurements
error as field experiments are not often carried out under
fully control conditions. Be side this, bottom hole pressure
and ECD measurements could be affected by drilling
parameters (tool joint, wellbore quality, annular cuttings
concentration, rate of penetration and well profile) that are not included in the dimensional analysis. Desipte the minor effects
of the omitted parameters, their contributions could be substantial in some special situations. For example, the pressure loss
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Measured
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Charl ez et al .
Green et al .
Isambourg et al .
Bode et al .
Del wi che et al
Marken et al .
Fig. 2 Predicted vs. measured pressure loss ratio
+12.5%
-12.5%
SPE 135587 5
across a tool joint can be negligible for conventional wells; however, for narrow clearance wellbores, tool joint geometry could
be critical.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
-100 100 300 500 700 900
HD (m)
T
V
D

(
m
)

(a)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
-100 0 100 200 300
HD (m)
T
V
D

(
m
)

(b)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
-100 0 100 200 300
HD (m)
T
V
D

(
m
)
Well C
Well D

(c)

Fig. 3 Wellbore profiles of test wells: a) Well A; b) Well B; and c) Well C & D

To further validate the developed model, model predictions were compared with recent field measurements that are
obtained from four North Sea wells (Well A, Well B, Well C and Well D) drilled by Det norske oljeselskap ASA. The wells
have the same wellbore geometry (8.5 5). Rheological properties of drilling fluids used during the field test are presented
in Table 2. Wellbore profiles of the wells are shown in Fig. 3. All tests were conducted by measuring bottom hole pressure
(BHP) while varying the pipe rotation speed.
Due to operational difficulties, tests performed in
directional wells (Well A and Well B) were not conducted
at zero rotation speed. As a result, it was not possible to
determine the PLR. The comparisons between
measurements and predictions have been made using
pressure loss instead of PLR. During the field test, the
rotational speed was varied from 80 rpm to 140 rpm. The
measured BHP data is used to determine the pressure loss.
Measured and predicted pressure losses are presented in
Fig. 4. The data points exhibit a higher degree of scattering
than the pressure loss ratio (Fig. 2). The source of the
scattering shown in Fig. 4 could be attributed to the
additional error resulting from the prediction of annular
pressure loss in addition to the pressure loss ratio. This is
exacerbated due to the fact that the well profiles include
inclined sections that can form cuttings beds, which
partially block the annulus and reduce the accuracy of
hydraulic calculations. Moreover, measurements were taken in actual drilling conditions, in which other drilling parameters
such as annular cuttings concentration (annular cuttings load) could have substantial effect on the bottom hole pressure. Hence,
the conversion of the bottom hole pressure measurements to friction pressure loss could introduce additional error. As a result,
discrepancies become relatively high for these data points. However, most of the measurements are within 25% error bars;
and they are scattered on both sides of the perfect-fit line (i.e. zero error line). For Well A, the predictions are higher than
measured values for the sidetrack section while the pressure loss is under-predicted for the mainbore.
Flow in vertical wellbores is less complicated than in deviated wells. Field tests were carried out in two vertical wells
(Well C and Well D) to validate the model. Flow rates and pipe rotation speeds were varied from 1700 l/min to 2200 l/min and
0 rpm to 150 rpm, respectively. Predictions of the new model (Fig. 5) are in good agreement with the field measurements. The
Fig. 4 Predicted vs. measured pressure loss for Well A and Well B
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Measured (kPa/m)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(
k
P
a
/
m
)
Well A Sidetrack
Well A Mainbore
Well B
Perfect-fit Line
+25%
-25%
Mainbore
Sidetrack
6 SPE 135587
maximum error is approximately 10%. The measured and predicted pressure loss ratios vary from 1.05 to 1.23 indicating
significant increase in annular pressure loss with the increases in the rotation speed. Furthermore, the accuracy of the new
model is compared with the existing model developed by Hemphill et al. (2008). When tested with the data from Well C, the
new model shows better accuracy than the existing one (Fig. 5a). The predictions of the two models are very similar in
predicting the data from Well D (Fig. 5b).

1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Measured
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Hemphi l l et al . 2008
Present Study
Perfect-fi t Li ne


(a)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Measured
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
Perfect-fi t Li ne
Hemphi l l et al . 2008
Present Study


(b)

Fig. 5 Predicted vs. measured pressure loss ratio: a) Well C; and b) Well D

5. Results and Discussion
The relationship between annular pressure loss and drillstring rotation speed depends on number drilling parameters such as
wellbore geometry (diameter ratio and eccentricity), flow regime, and fluid properties. After validating the model, sensitive
analysis was carried out to study the influence of these parameters on the pressure loss under laminar flow conditions. Two
base cases (Table 3) with different borehole geometries are considered for the analysis. Figure 6 presents predictions of the
model showing the effect of yield stress on the PLR. As anticipated, with an increase in the yield stress the PLR decreases
indicating the shear thinning effect. At high yield stress (YS) values, the PLR becomes insensitive to YS. Although the
annular velocities are approximately the same for both cases, the slim hole (Base Case 2) has relatively higher PLR agreeing
with previous field measurements (Bode et al. 1991).
The annular velocity is expected to have strong influence on the PLR. Predictions (Fig. 7) indicate that the increase in
velocity raises PLR as the velocity tends to amplify the inertial effects. At low velocities, the PLR appeared to very sensitive to
the change in velocity. Moreover, the relationship between the velocity and PLR depends on drilling parameters such as the
diameter ratio and drillpipe rotation speed. The increase in these two parameters raises the PLR.

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Stress (Pa)
P
L
R
RPM = 100
RPM = 200
RPM = 300


(a)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Yield Stress (Pa)
P
L
R
RPM = 100
RPM = 200
RPM = 300


(b)

Fig. 6 Predicted pressure loss ratio versus yield stress: a) Base Case 1; and b) Base Case 2

SPE 135587 7
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Annular Velocity (m/s)
P
L
R

RPM = 100
RPM = 200
RPM = 300


(a)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Annular Velocity (m/s)
P
L
R

100 RPM
200 RPM
300 RPM


(b)

Fig. 7 Predicted pressure loss ratio versus annular velocity: a) Base Case 1; and b) Base Case 2

The above simulation results (Fig. 7) are obtained considering practical flow rate ranges used in the field that produce
predominately laminar flow conditions in the annulus (i.e. Low Reynolds number). As the drillpipe rotates the flow becomes
complex. It produces an oscillatory flow pattern which requires additional dimensionless parameter (i.e. Strouhal number) to
properly describe the flow regime. The Strouhal number can be expressed for annular flow as:

U
) (
p h
D D
St

=
e


The Strouhal number compares the tangential velocity to the linear velocity. In other word, it weighs the tangential shear force
against axial shear force. Figure 8 presents PLR predictions as a function of the Strouhal number for different rotation speeds.
The data is generated by vary the flow rate at a constant rotation speed. The Strouhal number tends to strongly affect the PLR.
At low Strouhal number, as the flow rate increases at a constant rotational speed, there is a sharp increase in the PLR
indicating weakening of the shear thinning relative to other phenomena that intensify viscous losses.
Streamlines in concentric annular flow form perfectly helical pattern. This means that the magnitude of axial fluid velocity
is only a function of radial distance from the center. However, a rotating eccentric pipe generates very complicated flow
pattern, resulting in substantial variation of fluid velocity along the streamline. This creates additional mechanisms for viscous
losses that are counteracted by the effect of shear thinning. Both field and laboratory studies indicate a modest increase in PLR
with the increase in eccentricity. This can be perceived from the high-power exponent (0.158) of effective eccentricity in the
model (Eq. (2)), which confirms the experimental observations. Even though it has moderate influence on the PLR,
eccentricity has limited range. In this study, the range of effective eccentricity is considered to be between 0.5 and 1.0. Hence,
the increase in the effective eccentricity from 0.5 to 1.0 could raise the PLR at most by about 12%. It is important to note that
higher PLR doesnt translate to a higher annular pressure loss
( )
e
dL dp
because the increased eccentricity also reduces the
pressure loss of an annulus with non-rotating drillpipe
( )
0 = e
dL dp
and according to Eq. (1):
( ) ( ) PLR dL dp dL dp =
=0 e e
.

1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0 5 10 15 20
Strouhal number
P
L
R

RPM = 100
RPM = 200
RPM = 300


(a)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Strouhal number
P
L
R

RPM = 100
RPM = 200
RPM = 300


(b)

Fig. 8 Predicted pressure loss ratio versus Strouhal number: a) Base Case 1; and b) Base Case 2
8 SPE 135587
Helical flows between rotating cylinders may form translating or propagating spiral vortices (Taylor vortices). The vortices
could be complete or only partial. Two mechanisms are believed to be responsible for destabilizing a helical flow: i)
centrifugal instability resulting from the curved streamlines; and ii) shear instability due the axial flow. The formation of
Taylor vortices increases viscous dissipation and the PLR. Using perturbation method, Chandrasekhar (1981) showed that the
stability characteristic of helical flow of Newtonian fluid is determined using two dimensionless groups (Taylor number and
Reynolds number). High Reynolds number tends to improve the stability of the flow. Nonetheless, the improvement is often
small. The model developed in this study is strictly applicable to the ranges of Taylor and Reynolds numbers that are covered
in the original field data (Table 2). When the model is used out of these ranges (721 R
eff
2397 and 479 Ta
0.5
1602), care
must be taken to avoid any excessive extrapolation that may produce unexpected results.

6. Conclusions
After studying the field measurements in conjunction with the semi-empirical model, the following conclusions are drawn:
- pressure loss ratio is affected by different drilling parameters including drillpipe rotation speed, fluid properties, pipe
eccentricity, diameter ratio and flow regime;
- the increase in pipe rotation speed raises the PLR and bottomhole pressure;
- Higher annular velocity tends to increase the PLR and amplifies the effect of pipe rotation on the bottom hole
pressure;
- PLR predictions are in good agreement with field measurements and remarkably close to the data obtained from
vertical wells;
- discrepancies between field measurements and predictions are observed from some of the directional wells; possible
explanations for the discrepancies could be increased annular cuttings concentration and cuttings bed buildup that are
not accounted in the determination of pressure loss from bottomhole pressure measurements; and
- PLR prediction trends are in agreement with previous field and laboratory results and theoretical analysis.

Acknowledgements
We wish to express our appreciation to the University of Oklahoma, Det norske oljeselskap ASA and AGR Petroleum
Services for their support.

References
Ahmed, R. and Miska, S. 2008. Experimental Study and Modeling of Yield Power-Law Fluid Flow in Annuli with Drillpipe
Rotation, SPE paper 112604 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 4-6 March, , Orlando, Florida.
Bode, D.J., Noffke, R.B., Nickens, H.V. 1991. Well-Control Methods and Practices in Small-Diameter Wellbores, paper SPE
19526, JPT, Nov, 1380-1386.
Chandrasekhar, S. 1981. Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, pp 358-379.
Charlez, P., Easton, M., and Morrice, G. 1998. Validation of Advanced Hydraulic Modeling Using PWD Data, paper OTC
8804 presented at the 1998 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston (4-7May).
Delwiche, R.A., Lejeune, M., Mawet, P., and Vighetto, R. 1992. Slimhole Drilling Hydraulics, paper SPE 24596 presented at
the 1992 Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition in Washington, D.C. (4-7 October).
Escudier, M.P., Oliveira, P.J., Pinho, F.T. 2002. Fully developed laminar flow of purely viscous non-Newtonian liquids
through annuli, including the effects of eccentricity and inner-cylinder rotation, International Journal of Heat and Fluid
Flow, vol. 23, 5273.
Fang, P. and Manglik, R. M. 2002. The Influence of Inner Cylinder Rotation on Laminar Axial Flows in Eccentric Annuli of
Drilling Bore Wells, Int. J. of Tran. Phenomena, vol. 4, No. 4, 257-274.
Green, M.D., Thomesen, C.R., Baroid, Wolfson, L., and Bern,P.A. 1999. An Integrated Solution of Extended Drilling
Problems in the Niakuk Field, Alaska: Part II- Hydraulics, Cuttings Transport and PWD, paper SPE 56564 presented at
the Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition in Houston, Texas (3-6 October).
Hansen, S. A., Sterri, N. 1995. Drill Pipe Rotation Effects on Frictional Pressure Losses in Slim Annuli, SPE paper 30488,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22-25 October, Dallas Texas.
Hansen, S. A., Rommetveit, R., Sterri, N., Aas, B. and Merlo, A. 1999. A New Hydraulic Model for Slim Hole Drilling
Applications, paper SPE 57579 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, 8-10
November, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Haciislamoglu, M. and Langlinais, J. 1990. Non-Newtonian flow in eccentric annuli, Journal of Energy Resources, pp
163,169.
Hemphill, T., Bern, P., Rojas, J.C., and Ravi, K. 2007. Field Validation of Drillpipe Rotation Effects on Equivalent Circulating
Density, paper SPE 11070 presented at the SPE Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition in Anaheim, California (11-
14 November).
Hemphill, T., Ravi, K., Bern, P. and Rojas, J.C. 2008. A Simplified Method for Prediction of ECD Increase with Drillpipe
Rotation, paper SPE 115378, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September, Denver, Colorado,
USA.
Isambourg, P., Bertin, D., and Branghetto, M. 1998. Field Hydraulic Tests Improve HPHT Drilling Safety and Performance,
SPE 135587 9
SPE 49115 presented at the Annual Conference and Technical Exhibition in New Orleans (27-30 September).
Jeng, J. and Zhu, K.Q. 2010. Numerical Simulation of Taylor Couette Flow of Bingham Fluids, Journal of Non-Newtonian
Fluid Mechanics, i:10.1016/j.jnnfm.2010.05.013.
Marken, C.D., He, X., Saasen, A. 1992. The Influence of Drilling Conditions on Annular Pressure Losses, SPE paper 24598,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, Washington, D.C. 1992.
Nouri, J. M., and Whitelaw, J. H. 1994. Flow of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids in a Concentric Annulus with Rotation
of the Inner Cylinder, ASME J. Fluids Eng., pp. 821-827.
Rayleigh, L. 1880. On the Stability, or Instability, of Certain Fluid Motions, Proc. Royal Soc., vol. 11, pp. 57-70.
Sterri, N., Saasen, A., Aas, B. and Hansen, S.A. 2000. Frictional Pressure Losses During Drilling: Drill String Rotation Effects
on Axial Flow of Shear Thinning Fluids in an Eccentric Annulus, Oil Gas European Magazine, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 30-33.
Walker, R.E. and Al-Rawi, R. 1970. Helical Flow of Bentonite Slurries, SPE 3108 presented at the 45th Annual Fall Meeting
of the SPE of AIME in Houston, October 4-7.
Ward, C. and Andreassen, E 1998. Pressure-While-Drilling Data Improve Reservoir Drilling Performance, SPE Drilling &
Completion, vol. 13, pp. 19-24.
Wan, S., Morrison, D. and Bryden, I.G. 2000. The Flow of Newtonian and Inelastic Non-Newtonian Fluids in Eccentric
Annuli with Inner-Cylinder Rotation, Theoret. Comput. Fluid Dynamics, 13: 349359.
Wei, X. 1997. Effects of Drillpipe Rotation on Annular Frictional Pressure loss in Laminar, Helical Flow of Power-Law Fluids
in Concentric and Eccentric Annuli, MSc. Thesis, the University of Tulsa.
White, F. M. 2002. Fluid Mechanics, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pp 360-368.
Woo, N. Seo, B. and Hwang,Y., Flow of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluids in Annuli with Rotating Inner Cylinder, 6th
World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and Thermodynamics, April 17-21, 2005,
Matsushima, Miyagi, Japan.
Yamada, Y. Resistance of a flow through an annulus with an inner rotating cylinder, Bull. JSME, 5, No. 18, 1962, pp. 302-
310.

Nomenclature
BHP = bottom hole pressure, Pa
ECD = Equivalent circulation density
D = diameter, m
e = relative eccentricity
E = absolution eccentricity, m
L = length, m
MD = measured depth, m
p = pressure, Pa
PLR = pressure loss ratio
Re = Reynolds number
St = Strouhal number
Ta = Taylor number
U = mean fluid velocity, m/s
YS = Yield stress

Greek Letters
= shear rate
= viscosity
k = diameter ratio
= fluid density
t = stress
e = angular speed

Subscripts
app = apparent
ave = average
eff = effective
h = hole
p = pipe
TJ = toll joint
y = yield
w = wall
lam = under laminar flow condition
u = tangential
z = axial




Tables

Table 1 Summary of field data used to develop the model for pressure loss ratio
Reference

Geometry

Q e P/L Reeff (Ta)
0.5
ty n K e
gpm
(l/sec)
RPM Psi/ft (Pa/m) - - lbf/100.ft
2
(Pa) -
lbf.S
n
/ft
2
(Pa.S
n
)
-

Charlez et
al. 1998






5" X 8.5"






317 (20) 150 0.0028 (63) 721 819 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
317 (20) 200 0.0031 (70) 721 1095 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
370 (23) 100 0.0030 (67) 922 585 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
370 (23) 150 0.0033 (74) 922 879 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
370 (23) 200 0.0035 (80) 922 1174 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
10 SPE 135587
Reference

Geometry

Q e P/L Reeff (Ta)
0.5
ty n K e
gpm
(l/sec)
RPM Psi/ft (Pa/m) - - lbf/100.ft
2
(Pa) -
lbf.S
n
/ft
2
(Pa.S
n
)
-








423 (27) 100 0.0034 (77) 1141 622 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
423 (27) 150 0.0037 (84) 1141 934 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
423 (27) 200 0.0040 (91) 1141 1248 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
476 (30) 100 0.0038 (87) 1371 656 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
476 (30) 150 0.0042 (94) 1371 985 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570
476 (30) 200 0.0046 (104) 1371 1315 8.053 (3.86) 0.662 0.00603 (0.29) 0.570

Delwiche et
al. 1992







5.5" X 9.6"







400 (25) 50 0.0244 (552) 1437 479 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
400 (25) 100 0.0270 (611) 1437 960 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
400 (25) 150 0.0292 (661) 1437 1445 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
500 (32) 50 0.0311 (704) 1904 508 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
500 (32) 100 0.0336 (760) 1904 1017 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
500 (32) 150 0.0362 (820) 1904 1529 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
600 (38) 100 0.0405 (916) 2397 1066 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700
600 (38) 150 0.0438 (988) 2397 1602 0.0 (0.0) 0.738 0.00309 (0.15) 0.700

Isambourg
et al. 1998

5" X 8.5"



423 (27) 120 0.0369 (835) 1379 831 9.272 (4.44) 0.921 0.00180 (0.09) 0.550
423 (27) 180 0.0416 (941) 1379 1250 9.272 (4.44) 0.921 0.00180 (0.09) 0.550
375 (24) 120 0.0329 (744) 1157 802 9.272 (4.44) 0.921 0.00180 (0.09) 0.550
375 (24) 180 0.0370 (838) 1157 1207 9.272 (4.44) 0.921 0.00180 (0.09) 0.550

Table 2 Rheological properties of drilling fluids used in the field test
Parameter Unit Well A Main Well A Side Well B Well C Well D
n - 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.76 0.76
k
Pa.s
n
0.32 0.32 0.90 0.14 0.14
lbf s
n
/100 ft
2
0.66 0.66 1.89 0.29 0.29
t
y

Pa 4.82 4.82 2.75 3.5 3.5
lbf/100 ft
2
10.09 10.09 5.76 7.3 7.3

Table 3 Base case inputs for sensitivity analysis
Inputs Base Case1 Base Case 2 Unit
Annular Geometry 8.5" X 5" 5" X 3.7" -
Flow Rate
272.6 63.8 gal/min
1.06 0.25 m
3
/min
Density
8.5 8.5 ppg
1020 1020 kg/m
3

Consistency Index
0.145 0.145 lbfs
n
/100 ft
2

0.069 0.069 Pa.s
n

Yield Stress
0 0 lbf/100 ft
2

0 0 Pa
Fluid Behavior Index 0.75 0.75 -