Abstract
Stepwise derivation of flow equations of the Herschel–Bulkley (HB) model is not available in the literature. These equations are crucial for mechanical, chemical and petroleum engineering academia and industries where fundamental works on non-Newtonian fluids may be done to reach future models and estimation methods. Therefore, this work focuses on derivation of laminar flow equations and estimation methods of HB fluids through pipes. In this work, first, stepwise derivation of the HB fluid flow parameters consisting of fluid velocity, flow rate, average velocity and relative velocity equations is presented, followed by a straightforward mathematical model for use in numerical solution. Next, stepwise mathematical derivation of the laminar pressure drop equations by Merlo et al. (An innovative model for drilling fluid hydraulics. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1995) and Gjerstad and Time (SPE J 20:1–18, 2014) is presented, and finally practical and user-friendly calculation procedures for different estimation methods are presented. The step-by-step derivation procedures presented in this work contribute to effective learning for engineering students and practitioners in addition to providing a clear example derivation guideline for future researchers to reach other more accurate non-Newtonian hydraulics models and estimation methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
There are several non-Newtonian rheological models available in the literature. The most well-known ones are the Bingham plastic (BP) model; power-law (PL) model; Herschel–Bulkley (HB) model, also called the modified or yield power-law model; the Robertson-Stiff (RS) model; and the Sisko model. The BP model and the PL model are two-parameter rheological models and are still commonly used in mechanical, chemical and petroleum industries. However, some fluids especially drilling fluids, slurries or suspensions are not well approximated by these two models. Some modifications to these models may be applied to increase their prediction accuracy, and an example is a work done by Ashena et al. (2021) by applying a correction coefficient; in another example, roles of different affecting parameters on accuracy were quantified (Ashena et al. 2022). Alternatively, non-Newtonian fluids can be better represented by the HB model (Hanks 1979) and the RS model (Robertson and Stiff 1976). Both HB and RS models are 3-parameter rheological models which are both viscoplastic (with a yield stress before flow can be initiated) and shear thinning, i.e., their apparent viscosity reduces with increasing shear rate (Gjerstad et al. 2012). The RS model can be applied to describe behavior of cement slurries and drilling fluids, but it is slightly less accurate than the HB model (Mitchell and Miska 2011). The Sisko model was mentioned in a study by Weir and Bailey as a recommended model for drilling fluids (Sisko 1958, cited by Weir and Bailey 1996).
Although the HB model was introduced long time ago in 1926 (Herschel and Bulkley 1926), it yields mathematical expressions which are not readily solvable. Therefore, several works such as Chin (2012) focused on numerical estimations. Besides, its semi-analytical pressure drop equations were not found for long time. Instead, numerical methods were used to iteratively calculate pressure drops; Chilton and Stainsby (1998) presented a simpler integration version of that first presented by Govier and Aziz (1972). In addition, there was not a consensus on greater accuracy of HB advantage over the other models. Being considered a complex model, its use was not widespread particularly in the drilling industry. A turning point for the HB model was year 2006 when the American Petroleum Institute (API) recognized and announced the HB model as the most accurate rheological model and recommended its usage for the petroleum industry. This trend change by API is recognizable by comparing API (2003) with API (2009). Since then, applications of the HB model increased significantly in drilling hydraulics.
Some serious works have been done on the HB model during decades. Metzner and Reed (1955) and Metzner (1957) carried out some pioneering works in 1950s on non-Newtonian fluid flow through pipes. They developed a method called generalized shear rate which provided a way to generalize their results of PL fluids to all time-independent non-Newtonian fluids including HB model (cited by Whittaker and Staff 1985; Reed and Pilehvari 1993). Govier and Aziz (1972, 2008) and Cheng (1975) presented an implicit equation for the HB fluid flow in pipes. Mitchell and Miska (2011) and Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) provided the velocity profile of HB model fluids in laminar flow, but clear stepwise proofs were not provided. Indeed, explicit pressure drop equations have not been found in their works yet. Instead, just estimations of the pressure drop in the laminar flow regime were found. Merlo et al. (1995) presented an approximation equation of the HB model’s pressure drop equation, but without providing any proof. In their paper, they presented the calculation methodology in a practical example. Their work was later cited by Guo and Liu (2011). However, again no derivation of their equations was given to prove where they come from. In 2014, using two limiting cases and an analogy between the HB and PL models, Gjerstad et al. (2014) presented another approximation equation for the HB’s fluid pressure drop equation in the laminar flow regime. Their methodology is based on taking limitations from special cases without providing proofs to the limits taken. In addition, their methodology is complex and user-unfriendly to apply in a real example.
In summary, previous researchers working on laminar equations of HB fluids have not provided stepwise derivation of pipe flow equations and user-friendly estimation methods for pressure drop calculations. These matters are indicative of the gaps in the literature filling which is not only important to improve effective learning for engineering students and practitioners, but also to provide a clear example procedure guideline useful for future researchers to reach other more accurate non-Newtonian hydraulics models and estimation methods. Therefore, in this work, the laminar pipe flow equations of the HB model are derived. The equations consist of fluid flow velocity, flow rate, relative velocity and pressure drop equations. The simplest mathematical model for use in numerical solution is provided. Derivation of equations for estimated pressure drops by Merlo et al. (1995) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) is provided in a user-friendly manner for practical field or academia’s applications. Finally, using an example, results of pressure drop estimations by the different approximation methods are compared with the numerical solution and the best matching one is identified. It is noted that the forms of equations presented in this work are in SI units.
Fluid velocity
First, a relation between shear stress and pressure drop is given for fluid flow through pipes. Mitchell and Miska (2011) have presented a derivation of the equation without showing all steps of the derivation. Here, we present the derivation in a more stepwise and simple manner. Assuming a force balance for steady flow (i.e., no acceleration), the following balance relation holds between the shear force stress (due to shear stress \(\tau\)) and the normal force (due to pressure drop \(dP\)):
Therefore:
Applying Eq. (2) to the radius at which there is an unsheared portion of the fluid (rp) and also to the radius at the wall (R):
The equation of shear stress versus shear rate for the HB model is:
Combining Eqs. (1) and (4), we have:
Rearrangement and using a dummy variable “m” instead of “1/N”:
Integrating from both sides:
Thus:
Using the boundary condition of \(V=0\) at \(r=R\):
Thus:
Combining Eqs. (9) and (10), the annular velocity is:
It is noted that Eq. (11) holds for \(({r}_{p}\le r\le R)\); however, there is a constant velocity plug flow or \({V}_{p}\) in the central part of the pipe \((0\le r\le {r}_{p})\) as shown in Fig. 1. It is noted that there is a plug zone in HB fluids as is the case with any non-Newtonian fluids with yield stress. In this zone, the fluid moves as solid bodies within sheared flows (Chin 2012). The radius of this zone is:
Replacing “\(r\)” in Eq. (11) with “\({r}_{p}\)” from Eq. (12) gives:
Comparing Eqs. (10) and (13), it is inferred that \({V}_{p}={V}_{0}\).
Combining Eqs. (11) and (13), the pipe flow velocity can be generally expressed as follows:
The above equations have been presented by Mitchell and Miska (2011) with a typo.
Replacing “\(m\)” with its equivalent “\(1/N\)” in Eqs. (11) and (13) gives:
Flow rate and average velocity
In this section, we find the flow rate of flow in pipes. We know the following relation holds between incremental flow rate \(dq\) and velocity \(V\)::
To find the flow rate, we need to integrate the velocity with respect to the flow area as follows:
As the velocity in the plug region (\({V}_{1}\)) is constant in the plug flow region, \({q}_{1}\) is:
Replacing \({r}_{p}\) from Eqs. (12), (13) becomes:
Next, it is essential to evaluate the second component of the flow rate, \({q}_{2}\):
Taking the constant coefficients out:
There are two integrals within \({q}_{2}\) to solve as follows:
The solution of \({q}_{2-1}\) is simply:
Replacing the original term of \(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{(dP/dL)/2}\) for \({r}_{p}\) gives:
To solve \({q}_{2-2}\), a minor rearrangement leads to:
Solving \({q}_{2-2}\) is not straightforward and requires using change of variables as follows:
The term \(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{(dP/dL)/2}\) is the same as the constant \({r}_{p}\). We temporarily set it so in the integral to simplify the form of the integration. Thus:
Therefore, Eq. (20) is transformed to:
Performing the polynomial integration while using the equivalent integral limits from \(r={r}_{p}\) to \(U=0\), and \(r=R\) to \(U=R-{r}_{p}\), we have:
Reverting U parameter and constant \({r}_{p}\), respectively, back to their originals \((r-\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{(dP/dL)/2})\) and \(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{(dP/dL)/2}\):
Using Eqs. (19) and (22), \(q\) is found:
Rearrangements give:
Multiplying \({(dP/dL/2)}^{3}\) by the numerator and denominator gives:
Combining \({(dP/dL/2)}^{1+m}\) into \({\left(R-\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{(dP/dL)/2}\right)}^{1+m}\) gives:
Inserting \((\frac{1}{1+m})\) into the bracket and multiplying by the right-hand side terms yields:
Adding and subtracting some terms to the right-hand side:
Factoring “\({([dP/dL] R/2)}^{2}-2[dP/dL] R/2\times {\tau }_{y}+{{\tau }_{y}}^{2}\)” into \({([dP/dL] R/2-{\tau }_{y})}^{2}\) gives:
Factoring the coefficients of \({[dP/dL] R/2-{\tau }_{y})}^{2}\) gives:
with “\(\left(\frac{1 }{1+m}-\frac{2}{\left(1+m\right)\left(3+m\right)}\right)=\frac{\left(3+m\right)-2}{\left(1+m\right)\left(3+m\right)}=\frac{\left(1+m\right)}{\left(1+m\right)\left(3+m\right)}=\frac{1}{\left(3+m\right)}\)” and some rearrangement:
Rearrangement of the coefficient for \(2{\tau }_{y}([dP/dL] R/2-{\tau }_{y})\) gives:
Knowing “ \(\left(\frac{1 }{1+m}-\frac{1}{\left(1+m\right)\left(2+m\right)}\right)=\frac{\left(2+m\right)-1}{\left(1+m\right)\left(2+m\right)}=\frac{1+m}{\left(1+m\right)\left(2+m\right)}=\frac{1}{\left(2+m\right)}\)”:
Replacing “m” with its equivalent “1/N” gives:
Equation (23) is the same equation presented by Mitchell and Miska (2011). Therefore, this work presented the methodology of reaching this equation in a stepwise manner.
For ease of notation, we prefer to have a positive sign for q in the equations and thus we assumed that \({\tau }_{y}\) and “\(dP/dL\)” are all positive. However, to prevent any chance of confusion, we prefer to replace “\(dP/dL\)” notation with “\(\Delta P/\Delta L\)”:
As Eq. (24) shows, the flow rate \(q=f(\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta L}, R, {\tau }_{y}, N)\) depends on the following four parameters: pipe radius (R), flow behavior index (n) which is found using laboratory measurements, yield stress (\({\tau }_{y}\)) which is measured at the laboratory, and pressure drop per length (\(\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta L}\)). Normally, the flow rate will be available together with the geometry characteristic (radius) and fluid properties (\({\tau }_{y}\) and N), with pressure drop being the output interesting for engineering applications. This is possible either numerically or by approximation methods.
The average velocity is found by dividing \(q\) by the cross-sectional area of the pipe (\({R}^{2}\pi\)):
Flow rate and average velocity expressed in terms of shear stress
Knowing “\([\Delta P/\Delta L] R/2\)” is equal to the shear stress at the wall \({\tau }_{w}\), we can write Eq. (24) as follows:
Next, we convert “\({(dP/dL/2)}^{3}\)” to \({\tau }_{w}\) by multiplying the numerator and the denominator by “\({R}^{3}\)”:
Therefore, the average velocity \(\overline{V }\) is:
Note: For purpose of solving the HB’s model numerically, it is beneficial to assume \(\frac{{\tau }_{w}}{{\tau }_{y}}=X\) where \(X\) is considered as the unknown parameter to be found numerically by a computer. Therefore, we have:
Mitchell and Miska (2011) made further modifications in order to write the average velocity in terms of the Bingham number “\(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{{\tau }_{w}}\).” We also use their term in a more stepwise manner. To do that, we first factor out a coefficient of \({{\tau }_{w}}^{1+1/n}\). Next, multiplying by the cross-sectional area, the flow rate \(q\) is found as:
Allowing application of \({{\tau }_{w}}^{2}\) to the parentheses gives:
Next, we make a simplification of the form of Eq. (29) by using a dummy variable called generalized Bingham number \(\phi\) (Peixinho et al. 2005). Knowing \(\phi =\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{{\tau }_{w}}\), we have:
Using the equivalent of ““\([\Delta P/\Delta L] R/2\)” for \({\tau }_{w}\) gives:
Factoring “\((N+1\)) (\(2N+1\)) (\(3N+1\))” gives:
Combining the polynomial terms in the bracket {} gives:
To find the relative velocity profile, first the average velocity of the fluid in the pipe is found by dividing q in Eq. (31) by the cross-sectional area of the pipe “\({R}^{2}\pi\)”:
Relative velocity profile
First, the velocity equations are essentially expressed in terms of shear stress. As the first step, we multiply and divide Eq. (13) by \({R}^{1+m}\):
Knowing \({\tau }_{y}=(dP/dL)R/2\) and replacing \("m"\) by its equivalent “\(1/N\)”:
Again, using the dummy variable \(\phi\) for \(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{{\tau }_{w}}\) (i.e., Bingham number):
Next, the same process above is repeated for \({V}_{2}\). Thus, we first multiply and divide Eq. (11) by \({R}^{1+m}\):
Replacing \("dP/dL R/2"\) with \("{\tau }_{w}"\) and \("m"\) with \("1/N"\) and \(\frac{{\tau }_{y}}{{\tau }_{w}}\) with \(\phi\):
Having simplified and found \({V}_{1}\) and \({V}_{2}(r)\) in terms of \(\phi\), we can summarize the relative velocities as follows:
Replacing \(dP/dL \frac{R}{2}\) with \({\tau }_{w}\):
The relative \(\frac{{V}_{2}}{\overline{V} }\) is found by:
Summarizing Eqs. (37) and (38) for relative velocities gives:
The above equations are presented by Mitchell and Miska’s equation 5.123-a and b (2011) with a typo.
Pressure drop equations
There are four important approximation/estimation methods in the literature for HB fluids’ pressure drops which are discussed as follows (with stepwise derivation of the first two ones):
Merlo et al. (1995)
Merlo et al. (1995) and Guo and Liu (2011) presented laminar pressure drop equation of HB fluids for flow in the pipe, but they did not present any derivation. This task is handled in this work:
Replacing \({\tau }_{w}\) with \({\tau }_{HB}\) and K with \({K}_{HB}\) Eq. (27) for the average velocity in the HB model:
Using some rearrangements, \({(\frac{{\tau }_{HB}-{\tau }_{y}}{{K}_{HB}})}^{1/N}\) is:
Dividing the numerator and the denominator by \({{\tau }_{HB}}^{2}\) gives:
The pressure drop equation of a PL fluid \(\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta L}\) for pipe flow is:
The shear stress of the PL fluid \({\tau }_{PL}\) is:
Therefore, \(\frac{{(\frac{{\tau }_{HB}-{\tau }_{y}}{{K}_{HB}})}^{1/N}}{({\frac{{\tau }_{PL}}{{K}_{PL}})}^{1/n}}\) is:
Case (a) \({{\varvec{\tau}}}_{{\varvec{H}}{\varvec{B}}}\to \boldsymbol{\infty }\) (infinite shear stress and shear rate)
Therefore, when \({\tau }_{HB}\to \infty\), the limit is:
Knowing \(\underset{{\tau }_{HB}\to \infty }{\mathrm{lim}}\frac{{\tau }_{HB}}{({\tau }_{HB}-{\tau }_{y})}=1\), we have:
Case (b) \({{\varvec{\tau}}}_{{\varvec{y}}}\to 0\) (zero yield stress)
When \({\tau }_{HB}\to \infty\), the limit is:
Case (c) \({\varvec{N}}\to 0\) (fluid is like solid)
In this imaginary case, N tends to zero. In this case, the fluid behaves like a solid with constant shear stress. In this case, the limit is:
With \(N=0\), we have: \({\tau }_{HB}={\tau }_{y}+K\) and \(K={\tau }_{PL}\). In other words: \({\tau }_{HB}={\tau }_{y}+{\tau }_{PL}\). Next, Merlo et al. (1995) have apparently assumed that as the HB’s flow behavior index tends to zero (\(N\to 0\)), the PL model’s flow behavior index would also tend to zero (\(n\to 0\)). This assumption may cause some error in low shear rates, but that has been ignored. Therefore, we have:
Cancelling out “\((\frac{1}{N})"\) by “n” and replacement of n and N equal to zero:
Considering the above limits for the investigated cases (a, b and c), an equation structure can be made for \(\frac{{\left(\frac{{\tau }_{HB}-{\tau }_{y}}{{K}_{HB}}\right)}^{1/N}}{{\left(\frac{{\tau }_{PL}}{{K}_{PL}}\right)}^{1/n}}\) as follows:
where \(a=b=c=N+1\), and \(d=N\). Or:
We already showed in Eq. (41) that for flow through pipes, \({\left(\frac{{\tau }_{PL}}{{K}_{PL}}\right)}^{1/n}\) is:
Therefore:
Cancelling out terms:
Taking both sides to the power of N:
Therefore, \({\tau }_{HB}\) is:
Applying “\({\tau }_{HB}={\tau }_{w}=\left(\Delta P/\Delta L\right)R/2\),” we can find \({(\Delta P/\Delta L)}_{HB}\) as follows:
Some further rearrangements give:
Merlo et al. (1995) and Guo and Liu (2011) use the term “\({C}_{c}=\frac{\left(N+1\right){\tau }_{PL}+N{\tau }_{y}}{\left(N+1\right)({\tau }_{PL}+{\tau }_{y})}\).” \({C}_{c}\) is the circular or pipe correction coefficient. Reed and Pilehvari (1993) called a similar term “\(2\frac{\left(N+1\right){\tau }_{PL}+N{\tau }_{y}}{\left(N+1\right)({\tau }_{PL}+{\tau }_{y})}R\)” as the effective diameter.
This is the same equation given by Merlo et al. (1995) and Guo and Liu (2011), except that they replaced average velocity “\(\overline{V }\)” with its equivalent “\(\frac{q}{\pi {R}^{2}}\)” and “\(R\)” with “\(D/2\).”
The correction coefficient \({C}_{c}\) is simplified as follows:
Replacing the equivalent of \({\tau }_{PL}\) using Eq. (41) gives the same equation as in Merlo et al. (1995) or Guo and Liu (2011):
It is noted that the above equations are in SI units.
Gjerstad et al. (2014)
Similar to Merlo et al. (1995), Gjerstad et al. (2014) used comparison of HB model prediction with that of the PL model. However, they first proceeded to non-dimensionalizing the velocity and shear stress parameters in the HB model. Next, they related the HB model parameters to the PL one. Next, having found some limiting cases, a general structure was reached as the pressure drop equation of the HB model. The provided equations are not step-by-step and straightforward. Therefore, in this section, a stepwise derivation is provided:
First, the dimensionless forms of two important parameters of the pressure gradient (\(\Delta P/\Delta L\)) and average velocity (\(\overline{V }\)) are defined as follows:
According to Eq. (27), the average velocity of a HB fluid in terms of shear stress is rewritten as:
Taking \(\overline{V }\) to the power of N:
Dividing both sides by \(\frac{{R}^{N}}{K}\):
Dividing both sides by \({\tau }_{y}\) and defining it as \({U}_{HB}\):
Dividing the numerator and denominator of the right-hand side by \({{\tau }_{y}}^{3N+1}\):
Simplifying gives:
Multiplying the numerator and the denominator by \(\frac{{\tau }_{w}}{{\tau }_{y}}\):
Inserting the coefficient “\({N}^{N}\frac{({\frac{{\tau }_{w}}{{\tau }_{y}}-1)}^{N+1}}{({\frac{{\tau }_{w}}{{\tau }_{y}})}^{3N+1}}\)” into the parenthesis and replacing “1/N” by “m”:
Gjerstad et al. (2014) used dimensionless forms of HB model parameters of \({P}_{HB}\) and \({U}_{HB}\):
Therefore:
Next, for the PL model, the following relationship holds for the pressure gradient in laminar flow:
Therefore, the shear stress in the PL model \({\tau }_{w,PL}\) is:
Dividing both sides by \({\tau }_{y}\):
Configuring the dimensionless “\({P}_{PL}=\frac{{\tau }_{w,pl}}{{\tau }_{y}}\),” we have:
Or:
Knowing the dimensionless \({U}_{PL}\):
Using equations Eqs. (54) and (55):
Or, \({U}_{PL}\) is:
Gjerstad et al. (2014) made an assumption here (without mentioning) that \({K}_{HB}={K}_{PL}\) and \(N=n\), and therefore \({U}_{HB}={U}_{PL}\):
Thus:
Cancelling out \({\left[\frac{N}{3N+1}\right]}^{N}\) on both sides:
Knowing \(m=1/N\), and taking \(\frac{({{P}_{HB}-1)}^{1+m}}{{{P}_{HB}}^{3+m}}\) to the power of \(N\):
Therefore, keeping the part “\(\frac{({{P}_{HB}-1)}^{N}}{{{P}_{HB}}^{3N}}\)”in the parenthesis, while extracting “\(\frac{({P}_{HB}-1)}{{P}_{HB}}\)” as a coefficient outside:
Multiplications and simplifications:
Therefore, we can write:
where
They defined \({\Delta P}_{H-P}\) as the difference between \({P}_{HB}\) and \({P}_{PL}\) as follows:
Combining Eq. (58) and Eq. (60):
Gjerstad et al. (2014) took limitations from Eq. (61) for the following cases:
Case (a) Flow Initiation (\({{{\varvec{\tau}}}_{{\varvec{w}}}\to {{\varvec{\tau}}}_{{\varvec{y}}}\boldsymbol{ }{\varvec{o}}{\varvec{r}}\boldsymbol{ }{\varvec{P}}}_{{\varvec{H}}{\varvec{B}}}\to 1\))
First, we know that the limit of \(\varepsilon\) is:
Therefore:
In short:
Case (b) Very High Flow Rates (\({{{\varvec{\tau}}}_{{\varvec{w}}}\to \boldsymbol{\infty }\boldsymbol{ }{\varvec{o}}{\varvec{r}}\boldsymbol{ }{\varvec{P}}}_{{\varvec{H}}{\varvec{B}}}\to \boldsymbol{\infty }\))
First, we know that the limit of \(\varepsilon\) is:
Therefore:
The first part of the above limitation has the indeterminate form. First, we convert the indeterminate form from “\(\infty \times 0\)” to “\(\frac{0}{0}\)” so that we can later use the L’Hopital’s rule of limitation (Thomas and Weir 2004):
Now, the L’Hopital’s rule of limitation is applied by taking derivation from both the numerator and the denominator:
The derivative \(\frac{d\left(1-{\varepsilon }^{N}\right)}{d{P}_{HB}}\) is:
The derivative \(\frac{d\varepsilon }{d{P}_{HB}}\) is found as:
Therefore, using the above derivative, the limit is found as:
Cancelling out \({{P}_{HB}}^{2}\), knowing already that\(\underset{{P}_{HB}\to \infty }{\mathrm{lim}}\varepsilon =1\), and expanding the terms in the parentheses:
Some simplifications:
\(\begin{aligned} &= \mathop {{\text{lim}}}\limits_{{P_{HB} \to \infty }} \left\{ { N \times \left[ {\frac{{3\left( {P_{HB}^{4} - 2P_{HB}^{3} + P_{HB}^{2} } \right)}}{{P_{HB}^{4} }} + \frac{{2\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {2N + 1} \right)}} \times \frac{{ 2P_{HB}^{4} - 2P_{HB}^{3} - 3P_{HB}^{4} + 6P_{HB}^{3} - 3P_{HB}^{2} }}{{P_{HB}^{4} }} + \frac{{\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {N + 1} \right)}} \times \frac{{P_{HB}^{3} - 3P_{HB}^{3} + 3P_{HB}^{2} }}{{P_{HB}^{4} }}} \right]} \right\} \hfill \\ &= \mathop {{\text{lim}}}\limits_{{P_{HB} \to \infty }} \left\{ { N \times \left[ {\frac{{3P_{HB}^{4} }}{{P_{HB}^{4} }} + \frac{{2\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {2N + 1} \right)}} \times \frac{{ - 1P_{HB}^{4} }}{{P_{HB}^{4} }} + \frac{{\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {N + 1} \right)}} \times \frac{{P_{HB}^{3} }}{{P_{HB}^{4} }}} \right]} \right\} \hfill \\ &= \mathop {{\text{lim}}}\limits_{{P_{HB} \to \infty }} \left\{ { N \times \left[ {3 - \frac{{2\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {2N + 1} \right)}} + \frac{{\left( {3N + 1} \right) }}{{\left( {N + 1} \right)}} \times \frac{1}{\infty }} \right]} \right\} = - N\left[ {\frac{{3\left( {2N + 1} \right) - 6N - 2}}{{\left( {2N + 1} \right)}}} \right] = \frac{N}{2N + 1} \hfill \\ \end{aligned}\) Therefore, \(\underset{{P}_{\mathit{HB}}\to \infty }{\mathrm{lim}}{\Delta P}_{H-P}\) is:
In brief:
Finally, using the limits of \({\Delta P}_{HB}\) found in cases (a) and (b), Gjerstad et al. (2014) found an approximation equation structure which meets the limits. The equation structure had some constants (\(\xi\), \(\sigma\) and \(\psi\)). Next, they performed tuning and found the constants of the equation. A summary of their equations is presented in a stepwise manner as follows:
-
Step-1: Calculate the dimensionless pressure in PL model, \({P}_{PL}\) (using the average velocity \(\overline{V }\)):
$${P}_{PL}=\frac{K{\overline{V} }^{n}}{{\tau }_{y}{R}^{n}} {\left(\frac{3n+1}{n}\right)}^{n}$$(64) -
Step-2: Calculate the transition parameter \({P}_{T}\), and \({f}_{0}\):
$${P}_{T}=[1+45{(N+1)}^{-5.4}]\times {10}^{-4}$$(65)$${f}_{0}=\frac{{\left(\frac{{P}_{PL}}{{P}_{T}}\right)}^{1/N}}{1+{\left(\frac{{P}_{PL}}{{P}_{T}}\right)}^{1/N}}$$(66) -
Step-3: Calculate \({f}_{YP}\):
$${f}_{YP}=1+\frac{N}{2N+1}\left[1-\xi {\left(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +{P}_{pL}}\right)}^{\psi }\right]\approx {\Delta P}_{H-P}$$(67)where
$$\begin{aligned} &\xi = 0.97 - 0.1N - 0.11N^{2} \hfill \\ &\sigma = 0.2 + 0.45\left( {N - 0.5} \right)^{2} \hfill \\ &\psi = 0.82 + 0.8N^{3} \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$(68) -
Step-4: Calculate \({P}_{HB}\):
$$P_{HB} = \left( {P_{PL} + f_{YP} } \right)f_{0}$$(69) -
Step-5: Calculate \(\frac{\Delta P }{\Delta L}\):
$$\frac{\Delta P }{\Delta L}=\frac{2{\tau }_{y}}{R}{P}_{HB}$$(70)
Generalized shear rate method
Metzner and Reed (1955) and Metzner (1957) introduced the “Generalized Shear Rate” method based on the effective diameter concept in order to expand PL models to non-Newtonian models. The mathematical background behind this model is trivial, and it is simply using analogy to the PL model. The effective diameter for non-Newtonian pipe flow is the diameter of a circular pipe that would have the identical pressure drop for flow of a Newtonian fluid with viscosity equal to the apparent viscosity and the same average velocity as the non-Newtonian flow (Reed and Pilehvari 1993).
The procedure of this method is as follows:
-
Step-1: Calculate constant G:
$$G=\frac{3N+1}{4N}$$(71) -
Step-2: Calculate the effective diameter \({D}_{eff}\):
$${D}_{eff}=\frac{D}{G}$$(72) -
Step-3: Calculate the wall shear rate \(\gamma\):
$${\gamma }_{w}=\frac{8\overline{V}}{{D }_{eff}}$$(73) -
Step 4: Calculate the pressure gradient \(\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta L}\):
$$\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta L}=\frac{4}{{D}_{eff}}\left[{\tau }_{y}+K{({\gamma }_{w})}^{N}\right]$$(74)where N is the HB model’s flow behavior index.
Results and discussion
Table 1 shows the summary of HB’s model equations for pipe and annular flow, as derived in this work.
Conclusions and future work
Stepwise derivation of laminar flow equations and estimation methods of Herschel–Bulkley (HB) fluids through pipes are not available in the literature. Therefore, this work was focused on finding and presenting step-by-step derivation procedures in order to contribute to effective learning for engineering students and practitioners in addition to providing a clear example derivation guideline for future researchers to reach other more accurate non-Newtonian hydraulics models and estimation methods.
The following conclusions were taken:
-
1.
Stepwise and detailed mathematical derivation of the HB fluid flow velocity, average velocity, relative velocity and flow rate was presented.
-
2.
Different approximation methods of HB laminar flow pressure drop were presented in forms of user-friendly procedures applicable to field and academic use.
-
3.
In a future work, these estimation methods will be compared in some case studies to find the most accurate one.
Abbreviations
- \(A\) :
-
Area of fluid flow [m2]
- \(C_{c}\) :
-
Circular or pipe correction coefficient, defined by Guo and Liu (2011)
- D :
-
Inner diameter of the drill pipe/string [m]
- \(D_{eff}\) :
-
Effective diameter defined by Reed and Pilehvari (1993) for non-Newtonian flow, i.e., the diameter of a circular pipe that would have the identical pressure drop for flow of a Newtonian fluid with viscosity equal to the apparent viscosity and the same average velocity as the non-Newtonian flow [m]
- \(D_{hyd}\) :
-
Hydraulic diameter used for transformation of pipe flow to annular flow equations [m]
- \(f_{YP}\) :
-
A parameter defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) almost equal to \(\Delta P_{H - P}\)
- G :
-
Coefficient first used by Reed and Pilehvari (1993) used to transform hydraulic diameter to effective diameter
- HB :
-
Herschel–Bulkley rheological model
- K :
-
Consistency Index [cp]
- \(K_{HB}\) :
-
Consistency Index in Herschel–Bulkley model fluids [cp]
- \({\text{K}}_{{{\text{PL}}}}\) :
-
Consistency Index in power-law model fluids [cp]
- L :
-
Length [m]
- m :
-
Dummy variable equal to reciprocal of \(N\) (dimensionless)
- n :
-
Flow behavior index in power-law model fluids (dimensionless)
- N :
-
Flow behavior index in Herschel–Bulkley model fluids (dimensionless)
- P :
-
Pressure [Pa]
- \(P_{HB}\) :
-
Dimensionless pressure for the HB model, defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) \(P_{HB} = \frac{{\tau_{w,HB} }}{{\tau_{y} }}\)
- \(P_{PL}\) :
-
Dimensionless pressure for the HB model, defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) \(P_{PL} = \frac{{\tau_{w,PL} }}{{\tau_{y} }}\)
- PL :
-
Power-law rheological model
- q :
-
Mud flow rate or circulation rate [m3/s]
- r :
-
Radius [m]
- \(r_{p}\) :
-
Radius of plug flow [m]
- R :
-
Inner radius of the pipe [m]
- U :
-
Dummy variable used for “change of variables” technique of integration
- U :
-
Dimensionless velocity defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
- \(U_{HB}\) :
-
Dimensionless velocity of the HB model fluid defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
- \(U_{PL}\) :
-
Dimensionless velocity of the PL model fluid defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
- V :
-
Fluid velocity [m/s]
- \(\overline{V}\) :
-
Average velocity [m/s]
- \(V_{p}\) :
-
Fluid velocity at the plug region [m/s]
- \(V_{w}\) :
-
Velocity of moving drill pipe/string [m/s]
- \(\Delta P_{H - P}\) :
-
The difference between the wall shear stress ratios in the HB and PL models (\(P_{HB}\) and \(P_{PL}\), respectively) as defined by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014)
- \(dP/dL\) :
-
Pressure gradient (positive) [pa/m]
- \(\Delta P/\Delta L\) :
-
Pressure gradient, as another notation for \(dP/dL\) to better indicate its positive sign [pa/m]
- \(\left( {\frac{\Delta P}{{\Delta L}}} \right)_{HB}\) :
-
Pressure gradient in HB model [pa/m]
- \(\left( {\frac{\Delta P}{{\Delta L}}} \right)_{PL}\) :
-
Pressure gradient in PL model [pa/m]
- \(\phi\) :
-
“Bingham number,” the yield stress divided by the wall shear stress
- \(\sigma\) :
-
A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of pressure drop in the HB fluid
- \({\upxi }\) :
-
A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of pressure drop in the HB fluid
- \(\psi\) :
-
A constant used by Gjerstad et al. (2014) and Gjerstad and Time (2014) for estimation of pressure drop in the HB fluid (for pipe flow only)
- \(\gamma\) :
-
Shear rate [1/s]
- \(\gamma_{w}\) :
-
Shear rate at the pipe wall [1/s]
- \(\tau\) :
-
Shear stress [Pa]
- \(\tau_{HB}\) :
-
Shear stress for the HB model [Pa]
- \(\tau_{PL}\) :
-
Shear stress for the PL model [Pa]
- \(\tau_{w}\) :
-
Shear stress at the wall of the pipe [Pa]
- \(\tau_{y}\) :
-
Yield stress/point [Pa]
References
API RP 13D (2003) Recommended practice on the rheology and hydraulics of oil-well drilling fluids, 3rd edn. American Petroleum Institute
API RP 13D (2009) Recommended practice on the rheology and hydraulics of oil-well drilling fluids, 4th edn. American Petroleum Institute
Ashena R, Hekmatinia A, Ghalambor A, Aadnoy B, Enget C, Rasouli V (2021) Improving drilling hydraulics estimations—a case study. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-021-01203-4
Ashena R, Bahreini H, Ghalambor A, Sahraei E, Ahmad Loi Darab M (2022) Investigation of parameters controlling equivalent circulating density ECD in managed pressure drilling MPD. Paper presented at the SPE international conference and exhibition on formation damage control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/208869-MS
Bourgoyne AT, Millheim Jr, KK, Chenevert ME, Young Jr FS (1991) Applied drilling engineering, SPE textbook series, vol 2. ISBN: 978-1-55563-001-0
Cheng DCH (1975) The Chem Eng (Lond) 301, 525, 302, 587
Chilton RA, Stainsby R (1998) Pressure loss equations for laminar and turbulent non-Newtonian pipe flow. J Hydraul Eng 124(5):522–529
Chin WC (2012) Chapter 5—more steady flow applications, managed pressure drilling. Gulf Professional Publishing, pp 183–266. ISBN 9780123851246. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385124-6.00005-8
Crespo F, Ahmed R, Enfis M, Saasen A, Amani M (2012) Surge-and-swab pressure predictions for yield-power-law drilling fluids. SPE Drill Compl 27(2012):574–585. https://doi.org/10.2118/138938-PA
Gjerstad K, Time RW, Bjorkevoll KS (2012) Simplified explicit flow equations for Bingham plastics in Couette-Poiseuille flow—for dynamic surge and swab modeling. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 175–176:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2012.03.002 (ISSN 0377-0257)
Gjerstad K, Ydstie BE, Time RW, Bjorkevoll KS (2014) An explicit and continuously differentiable flow equation for non-newtonian fluids in pipes. SPE J 19(1):78–87
Gjerstad K, Time RW (2014) Simplified explicit flow equations for Herschel-Bulkley fluids in Couette-poiseuille flow-for real-time surge and swab modeling in drilling. SPE J 20:1–18
Govier GW, Aziz K (1972) The flow of complex mixtures in pipes. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York
Govier G, Aziz K (2008) The flow of complex mixtures in pipes. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson. ISBN: 978-1-55563-139-0. https://store.spe.org/The-Flow-of-Complex-Mixtures-in-Pipes-Second-Edition-P24.aspx
Guo B, Liu G (2011) Applied drilling circulation systems. Gulf Professional Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-12-381957-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-30657-1
Haciislamoglu M, Langlinais J (1990) Non-Newtonian flow in eccentric annuli. ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 112(3):163–169. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2905753
Hanks RW (1979) The axial laminar flow of yield-pseudoplastic fluids in a concentric annulus. Ind Eng Chem Proc Des Dev 18(3):488–493. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260071a024
Herschel WH, Bulkley R (1926) Measurement of consistence as applied to Rubber-Benzine solutions. In: Proceedings of the 2th annual meeting of the American society of testing materials. American Society of Testing Materials, Atlantic, pp 621–633
Merlo A, Maglione R, Cesare P (1995) An innovative model for drilling fluid hydraulics. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific oil and gas conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.2118/29259-MS
Metzner AB, Reed JC (1955) Flow of non-Newtonian fluids-correlation of the laminar, transition and turbulent flow regions. AICHE J 1(4):434–440
Metzner AB (1957) Non-Newtonian fluid flow. Ind Eng Chem 49(9):1429–1432
Mitchell RF, Miska SZ (2011) Fundamentals of drilling engineering. SPE textbook series no. 12. ISBN: 978-1-55563-207-6
Peixinho J, Nouar C, Desaubry C et al (2005) Laminar transitional and turbulent flow of yield stress fluid in a pipe. J Non-Newton Fluid 128(2–3):172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2005.03.008
Rabia H (1985) Oilwell drilling engineering, principles and practices. Published by Graham and Trotman, University of California. ISBN: 9780860106616
Reed TD, Pilehvari AA (1993) A new model for laminar, transitional, and turbulent flow of drilling muds. Paper presented at the SPE production operations symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. https://doi.org/10.2118/25456-MS
Robertson RE, Stiff HA Jr (1976) An improved mathematical model for relating shear stress to shear rate in drilling fluids and cement slurries. SPE J 16(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.2118/5333PA (SPE-5333-PA)
Sisko AW (1958) The flow of lubricating greases. Ind Eng Chem 50(12):1789–1792
Thomas GB, Weir MD (2004) Thomas’ calculus. Published by Addison Wesley Longman, 11th edn., 1380pp. ISBN: 978-0321185587
Weir IS, Bailey WJ (1996) A statistical study of rheological models for drilling fluids. SPE J 1:473–486. https://doi.org/10.2118/36359-PA
Whittaker A, Staff E (1985) Theory and application of drilling fluid hydraulics. International Human Resources Development Corp, Boston (ISBN 10: 0887460453)
Funding
This research work had no fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ashena, R., Badrouchi, F., Elmgerbi, A. et al. Stepwise mathematical derivation of the Herschel–Bulkley laminar fluid flow equations—in pipes. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol 13, 625–643 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01566-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01566-2