Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás

Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

Rheology of drilling fluids:

comparison between rotational viscometer and
rheometer
Priscilla R. Varges1, Aline Abdu1, Bruno Fonseca1, Sidney Perovano1, Camila Moreira1,
Mônica F. Naccache1, Paulo Roberto de Souza Mendes1, André Leibsohn Martins2, Carlos
Pessanha2
1
Grupo de Reologia, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.
Rua Marquês de São Vicente, 225, Prédio Cardeal Leme, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP 22451-900
e-mail: [email protected]
2
CENPES, PETROBRAS, Cidade, País, CEP, E-mail
R. Horácio Macedo, 950, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP 21941-915
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Drilling fluids assume various functions such as well cleaning, gravel transport, lubrication of drilling column and
others. The efficiency of them depends of some essential characteristics such as being chemical stable, maintain hole
integrity, being pumpable and keeping the solids in suspensions when they are under rest. Thus, complex rheological
properties like a viscoplastic behavior and thixotropy are fundamentals. Inadequate formulation of drilling fluids may
cause many problems such as loss of circulation, a poor well cleaning, pollution of the environment, damage of the
formation and favors the occurrence of fluid influx (kick). Therefore, is fundamental knowing the properties of the
fluids to ensure a successful drilling operation. Specifically, the viscosity is usually determined with a rotational
viscometer Fann 35A. This equipment is widely used in drilling rigs to rheological characterization, recommend by
API 13B-1 e 13D. Its speed of rotation is controlled through a system of engine and gear that provides quick and
simple measurements. On the other hand, rheometer is an equipment with higher precision, with larger range of
applications and provides measurements in a wider range of shear rate. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to
compare the methods of determination of the rheological parameters of drilling fluids, using a rotational viscometer
and a rheometer to make a critical analyze about current API standards. Proposals for improvements will be present
to the viscometer in order to increase the reliability and repeatability of the tests.

1. Introduction material is the presence of yield stress. The material

Drilling fluid is a circulating and complex fluid assumes a solid-like behaviour below the yield stress
used to make a drilling operation practicable [1]. It is and a liquid-like when the critical stress value is
composed of a base fluid (aqueous or organic) and exceeded [3]. Besides, the a material is said to be
additives that control its physical properties such as thixotropic if: (i) the material microstructure does not
viscosity, density and alkalinizes. It is used in a rotary respond instantaneously to a shear stress change; (ii)
drilling process to clean the rock fragments and carry the microstructure changes are reversible; (iii) the
them to the surface, exert sufficiently hydrostatic microstructure tends to be destroyed with increasing
pressure against subsurface formations to prevent stress; (iv) the shear history affects the material
formation fluids, cool and lubricate the rotating drill viscosity [4].
string and bit [2]. American Petroleum Institute (API) acts as a
To ensure the performance of the functions of standards-setting organization and is the global leader
the drilling fluid, some characteristics are essential as in convening subject matter experts across segments to
to be chemically stable, to present low toxicity, be establish, maintain, and distribute consensus standards
pumpable and to maintain the solids in suspensions for the oil and gas industry. API recommended practice
when they are in rest. The two last features are directly 13B-2 specifies how to determine the yield stress,
related to the rheology of drilling fluids. The most plastic viscosity and apparent viscosity through the
important rheological properties are viscoplastic Bingham rheological model. In addition, API proposes
behaviour and thixotropy effects. the calculation of a parameter called Gel Strength,
The prime characteristic of a viscoplastic which is actually a stress value [5]. This stress indicates
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

the gelling fracture of the drilling fluid after a pressure of the experimental were maintained constant
circulation is interrupted. It is associated with the and 4 different fluids were analyzed. The Newtonian
thixotropic effects of the fluid [6]. fluids were chosen based on the viscosity, in order to
Furthermore, API recommends the use of a explore a larger range. The tested fluids are indicated
concentric-cylinder viscometer to determine the below in decreasing order of viscosity.
rheological properties of drilling fluids [5]. A rotational
viscometer (Fig. 1) measure the torque required to Ƞglicerina >Ƞmorlina150 > Ƞmorlina10> Ƞóleo de soja
rotate a spindle at constant speed while immersed in
fluid. Stress is determined through the torque generated Reference viscosities were determined in a
on the inner cylinder, which is transmitted through a viscometer Ubbelohde considering the same
torsion spring [5, 10]. The deflection is measured on the conditions. Then, the values obtained were compared
equipment dial and the rheological parameter to check the accuracy of the equipment’s.
calculations are made with the equipment constants,
following the API standards. [10]. 2.2. Non-Newtonian fluids
On the other hand, Academia usually uses Several non-Newtonian fluids were used to
rheometer (Fig. 2) to determine fluids rheological evaluate the differences and nuances of the viscometer
properties. It is a high-precision instrument that can and rheometer. They are described above.
impose wider ranges of shear stress or shear rate on a
given material. Besides concentric-cylinder, several 2.2.1. Carbopol
geometries can be employed according to the properties The Carbopol® Ultrez 10 (Lubrizol) is a white
of the fluid of interest [11]. powder, crosslinked polyacrylic acid. It is a water-
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to soluble polymer widely used in the formulations of
compare the methods of determination of the many products in different industrial sectors. It is
rheological parameters of drilling fluids, using a employed to stabilize emulsions, form gels and give
rotational viscometer and a rheometer to make a critical viscosity in solutions. Furthermore, the Carbopol is a
analyze about current API standards. Proposals for viscoplastic material, such as drilling fluids. In this
improvements will be preset to the viscometer in order sense, 0,09% Carbopol aqueous dispersion and 0,125%
to increase the reliability and repeatability of the tests. Carbopol dispersion in water/glycerol were employed.

2.2.2. Polyacrylamide
Polyacrylamide is a water-soluble polymer that
exhibits elastic behavior. The polyacrylamide used was
the partially hydrolyzed synthetic polymer Flodril
PAM 1040 by SNF Floerger, which presents a high
molecular weight and linear chain. The concentration
investigated was 0,86 % of polymer in water.

Figure 1: Viscometer Fann 35A. 2.2.3. Drilling fluids

Drilling fluids are a complex mixture of solids,
liquids, and, in some cases, gases. They are a
suspension, colloidal dispersion or an emulsion,
depending on the physical state of the components that
make up.
The drilling fluids used in this research was
provides by Petrobras and they are identify according
to their specific masses. It was used olefinic drilling
fluids with de 9.8, 11 e 12 ppg.

2.3. Rheological measurements

For rheological tests with drilling fluids, before
Figure 2: Rheometer AR-G2. placing the sample in the cup, is necessary to submit the
fluid in a Turrax mixer during 10 minutes in a velocity
of rotation of 10.000 rpm. This ensures that the fluid is
2. Experimental protocol homogenous.
2.1. Newtonian fluids
Initially, Newtonian fluids were used to verify
the calibration of the equipment’s. The temperature and
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

2.3.1. Viscometer 2.3.2. Rheometer

All tests were performed with the viscometer The rheological properties were measured using
Fann 35A at 25ºC and with the combination of rotor a stress-controlled rheometer, namely the AR-G2 by
and bob namely R1B1. In order to minimize fluid TA Instruments at 25ºC.
evaporation, mainly for aqueous solutions, it was used The tests were performed with concentric
a homemade solvent trap, as seeing in Fig. 3. cylinder geometry to provide a direct comparison with
viscometer, thus considering both with the same type of
geometry. The difference between then are related to
the wall surface. For the rheometer, it was considered a
roughened surface to avoid wall slip effect in low shear
rate range, while the viscometer geometry presents
smooth surface.
Flow curve tests were performed always
beginning from the higher shear rate to minimize
testing time. Moreover, presents a large enough time to
reach the steady state, but not long enough to present
sedimentation issues.

2.4. Rheological parameters

Figure 3 – Solvent trap 2.4.1. Flow curve
To determine the rheological parameters, some
The velocity of rotation is chosen and the of oil industry procedures could be improved. In this
viscometer is turned on. Initially, measurements are research, the procedures recommend by API standards
made in decreasing order of speed and then in with viscometer are considered. Moreover, the
ascending order. The average between then is the traditional curve fitting method is evaluated with
desired result. different rheological models for the results obtained
Two different measurement times were from rheometer and viscometer. The sequence to
evaluated. In the first, for each speed of rotation a determine these parameters will be described below:
waiting time of 1 minute was considered. In the second,
the steady state correspondent time was attained. a) API recommended practice 13B-2
Viscometer Fann 35A is able to measure 12 It is the method to obtain the rheological
speeds of rotation modifying the gear. Although, only parameters widely employed in the oil industry. The
6 velocities are indicate by API protocol. Hence the procedure is described in detail in Practice for field
number of measured points will be analysed. Figure 4 testing oil-based drilling fluids. [12]
shows these velocities of rotation and the
correspondent shear rates for R1B1 combination. b) Curve-fit with Hershel Bulkley model
Table 1 presents the speeds for R1B1, being the
values in bold the ones indicated by the API standards. (1)

RPM Shear rate [1/s]

600 1021
300 511
200 340
180 306
100 170
90 153 c) Curve-fit with Bingham model
60 102
30 51,1 (2)
6 10,2
3 5,1
1,8 3,1
0,9 1,5
d) Curve-fit with Power Law model
Table 1 – Speeds for R1B1 combination.
(3)
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

2.4.2. Gel strength

The procedure to calculate the gel strength can
be found in Recommended Practice for Field
Testing Oil-based Drilling Fluids [12]. An additional
test considering 30 minutes of rest is investigated in this
present work.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Newtonian fluids
The results of viscosity obtained from
viscometer Fann for Newtonian fluids are presented in
Figure 4. The shear rate range evaluated for each fluid
is different due to the torque limitation of the Figure 5 – Polyacrylamide in viscometer Fann 35 A and
equipment. In this Figure, it is possible to verify that rheometer AR-G2
the viscosity values are in accordance with the
reference (determined by the Ubbelohde viscometer).
A small difference begins to be observed at the lower 3.2.2. Carbopol aqueous dispersions
shear rates. This may indicate a possible drop in the Figure 6 shows that for a Carbopol aqueous
accuracy of the equipment with decreasing shear rate. dispersion the curves are extremely mismatched. It may
be happening due a difficult of the equipment to
determine the results for fluids with such a low
viscosity. Changing the geometries combinations
employed in Fann could solve this divergence.
Furthermore, the difference between average and
steady state results are significant at low shear rates.

Figure 4 – Newtonian fluids in viscometer Fann 35 A

3.2. Non Newtonian fluids

3.2.1. Polyacrylamide
Figure 5 illustrates polyacrylamide flow curve
tests obtained with viscometer and rheometer. The
average and steady state times are very coincident with
exception of the point of lowest shear rate, probably
due to the accuracy of the equipment. Figure 6 – 0,09 wt% Carbopol aqueous dispersions in
The curves behaviors are similar especially at viscometer Fann 35 A and rheometer AR-G2
higher shear rates. However a divergence is observed
on the 4 points of lower shear rate.
3.2.3. Carbopol in water/glycerol dispersions
Figure 7 presents 0,125 wt% Carbopol in
water/glycerol dispersions results from viscometer
Fann 35 A and rheometer AR-G2.
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

investigate a wider range of drilling fluids with

different viscosities. It’s not appreciable the divergence
between average and steady state results.
For the oleofinic drilling fluid 12 ppg, Figure 9
presents a result most coincident in compare with the
drilling fluid of lower specific mass. In like manner, the
values of viscosities increase for fluid 12 ppg. In this
case, different from the 9.8 ppg fluid, the wall slip
phenomenon can be discarded, since the viscometer
curve shows higher stress than the rheometer, at the
lowest shear rates. This disagreement is a serious
problem because it directly affects the determination of
the rheological parameters of the fluid.

Figure 7 – 0,125 wt% Carbopol in water/glycerol

dispersions in viscometer Fann 35 A and rheometer AR-G2

Carbopol in water/glycerol dispersion present

an increase in the viscosity, even with the same
concentration, when compared to its aqueous solution
[13]. This may explain why the curves of Carbopol
water/glycerol dispersion in Figure 7 are more
coincident in comparison with the aqueous dispersion.
Nevertheless, the curve obtained from viscometer is
above the rheometer curve indicating that the result
isn’t reliable. It’s not appreciable the divergence
between average and steady state results.

Figure 9 – Drilling fluid of 12 ppg

3.2.4. Olefinic drilling fluids
Figure 8 shows a better result for olefinic fluid
It was verified, for different fluids, that the
in comparison with aqueous polymeric dispersions.
results of the viscometer are nonconformity with the
The curves are extremely coincident for the higher
curves of the rheometer. It is necessary include results
shear rate, although the same thing does not happen at
using of different geometries and fluids to elucidate the
the lowest rates. This could be explained with a wall-
causes and possible limitations of the viscometer.
slip phenomenon, which may mask the true result of the
rheological parameters.
3.2.4.1. Detailed analysis of olefinic drilling
fluid 9,8 ppg
3.2.4.1.1. Flow curve
An olefinic drilling fluid of 9.8 ppg was chosen
to perform a detailed analysis of rheological parameters
with different methods, such as curve fitting and API
protocol, for results from the rheometer and
viscometer.
Figure 10 shows the results of curve fitting for
different viscosity models and API protocol with the
API recommended Fann points. It is possible to verify
that the Herschel-Bulkley model present the best fit for
these points and is notorious the divergence with the
rheological parameters of others models. The most
notable difference occurs in the yield stress value for
Figure 8 – Drilling fluid with 9,8 ppg the API protocol, which are 7 times higher compared to
the best curve fit.
The lower viscosity of the fluid could also
explain the divergence between the rheometer and
viscometer curves. To verify this possibilities, it could
be employed a roughened geometry to viscometer and
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

Figure 10– Curve fit for different models (viscometer results

– 6 points)
Figure 12 – Rheometer versus viscometer (rheological
Using all points that viscometer can measure, it parameters)
is observed in Figure 11 that the Bingham curve fit
presents a significant difference when comparing with 3.2.4.1.2. Gel strength
Fig. 10. These values are more similar to Herschel-
Bulkley parameters. In this case, for this fluid, it is
observed that the increase of the number of points Gel Fann Gel AR-G2 Error (%)
improves Bingham fit. Any difference was observed by G0 [Pa] 3,066 2,0038 53,00928
API protocol because the added points do not modify
the calculation of the parameters. Smaller difference G10 [Pa] 17,374 12 44,78333
was observed with Power Law and Herschel-Bulkley G30 [Pa] 25,55 18,199 40,39233
models.
Table 2 – Gel strength calculated in viscometer and
rheometer.

Table 2 shows the gel strength values calculated

on the viscometer and rheometer with the same
methodology as indicated by the API standards. For this
fluid, the results indicate a time-dependent stress. Even
after the fluid remained at rest for 10 minutes, the
structuring was not stopped, confirmed by the 30
minutes gel. In other words, more time would be
required for the complete structuring of the fluid.
All gels calculated by the rheometer had values
above those from the Fann. This may be related to the
imprecision of the equipment in the control of the shear
rate. The presence of end effects in the viscometer may
also explain the results.
Figure 11 – Curve fit for different models (viscometer
results – 12 points)
4. Final remarks
The rheological parameters of oleofinic drilling
Figure 12 compares the best result for
fluid 9,8 ppg, with different methods, were investigated
rheological parameters, obtained from rotational
with results obtained from viscometer Fann 35A and
rheometer, with Herschel-Bulkley curve fit and the
rheometer ARG2. For this specific fluid, there was no
others two obtained from Bingham models. Power Law
difference in the results with 6 points and 12 points,
was discarded for having no correspondence with the
except for curve fit with the Bingham model, which
results. The most notable difference occurs in the yield
difference generated an error of 24.5%. The HB model
stress value for the API protocol, which are 14 times
proved to be the most adequate to adjust the Fann result
higher compared to the curve fit by rheometer. This
since the yield stress value was close to the obtained
result indicates that the accuracy of the viscometer to
through the rheometer.
determine the yield stress parameter is significantly
The methodology recommended by the API
compromised.
proved to be quite ineffective, since its yield stress
Enahpe 2019 - 157 ENAHPE 2019 – Encontro Nacional de Construção de Poços de Petróleo e Gás
Serra Negra – SP, 19 a 22 de Agosto de 2019

value was approximately 14 times bigger than the [12] API 13B-2, Recommended Practice for Field
obtained through the rheometer. Testing Oil-based Drilling Fluids.
A comparison with non-Newtonian fluids was [13] R. Varges, Priscilla ; M. Costa, Camila ; S.
performed with the results of the rheometer and Fonseca, Bruno ; F. Naccache, Mônica ; De Souza
viscometer with two different methods: average and Mendes, Paulo. Rheological Characterization of
steady-state. No significant difference was noted Carbopol® Dispersions in Water and in
between the both. Water/Glycerol Solutions. Fluids, v. 4, p. 3, 2019.
The gel strength was calculated in both
equipment’s and the error was proximate 45% in
average.
The geometry of viscometer may have
contributed to the occurrence of wall slip and end
effects. Furthermore, the R1B1 geometry may not be
suitable for measuring rheological parameters of poorly
viscous fluids.
Preliminary tests were performed in this work.
The next steps will be to perform tests with aqueous
drilling fluids and to do the same study with other
combinations of geometries. Also, use geometries that
minimize the end effect and the wall slip.

5. Referências
[1] API, American Petroleum Institute,1991
[2] Bourgoyne A.T., Millhelm, K.K., Chenevert,
M.E., Young, F.S., Bourgoyne Jr., A. T., Millheim,
K.K. Chenevert, M.E., Young Jr, F.., 1991. Applied
Drilling Engineering, nd ed, SPE TEXTBOOK
SERIES. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson.
[3] Balmforth, N.J., Frigaard, I.A., Ovarlez, G., 2014.
Yielding to Stress: Recent Developments
in Viscoplastic Fluid Mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid
Mech.46,121–146.
[4] Barnes, H.A. (2000) A Handbook of Elementary
Rheology. Institute of Non-Newtonian Fluid
Mechanics, University of Wales, Ab-erystwyth.
[5] API 13D, Rheology and hydraulics of oil-well
drilling fluid.
[6] William C. Lyons, Gary J. Plisga and Michael D.
Lorenz, 3rd Edition, 2016. Standard Handbook of
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering.
[7] Darley, H.C.H., and Gray, G.R., 1988, Composition
and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids,
Gulf Publishing Company.
[8] William Alexander, Naperville, Ill., 1987.
Composition and method of controlling lost
circulation from wellbores, American Colloid
Company, Arlington Heights, Ill.
[9] F. F. Oliveira1, C. H. Sodré, J. L. G. Marinho,
2016. Numeral investigation of non-newtonian
drilling fluids during the occurrence of a gas kick in
a petroleum reservoir, Brazilian Journal of
Chemical Engineering.
[10] Fann Instrument Company, 2016. Model 35
Viscometer Instruction Manual.
[11]TAinstruments.Rheometers.https://www.tainstrum
ents.com/products/rheology/, TA instruments.