Ministry of Higher Education

& Scientific Research

University of Technology
Oil & Gas Engineering Department

“Developing New Correlation to Calculate The

Viscosity of Water-Based Drilling Fluid”

:By

Mortaza Muhalhal Ehmood, Hasan Sameer Hasan and Mustafa Bashar

Dawood

Supervisor:
Assist. Lech. Ameen Kareem Salih
2023
 Contents
Subject Page No.
Abstract
Introduction
Background & Theory
Literature Review
Methodology
Conclusion
Reference

1|Page
Abstract
Water-based drilling fluids play an essential role in the drilling industry, and
accurately estimating their viscosity is essential for optimizing drilling
operations. One of the primary rheological characteristics of drilling fluid is
viscosity. It is crucial to keep an eye on apparent viscosity when drilling in
order to avoid numerous issues and increase the effectiveness of well cleaning.
The process of creating a new viscosity correlation is difficult and necessitates a
solid grasp of statistical analysis, experimental methods, and fluid mechanics.
Throughout the development process, it is crucial to take into account the
unique needs and constraints of water-based drilling fluids and to confer with
subject matter experts. The goal of this work is to develop a novel correlation
based on important influencing factors that can reliably predict the viscosity of
water-based drilling fluid. ‫شرح ان قياس اللزوجة يتطلب وقت واجهزة لذلك‬
‫اختصارا للوقت والجهد تم عمل موديل او معادلة لغرض التنبأ باللزوجة الحد حقول‬
‫جنوب العراق‬

The findings were conducted in the laboratory showed ……….

2|Page
Chapter one:
Introduction

3|Page
Introduction
1. Drilling fluid:

Drilling mud, or drilling fluid, represents any fluid which used during an
oil well drilling operation. Generally, drilling fluid pumps from the surface
tanks to the well bottom via the drill string and bit and circulates back to the
surface tanks through the annulus (i.e., the annular space between the drill string
and the open hole or casing) [1]. Solids are suspended in water or oleic fluid
using surfactants in drilling mud. The primary purpose of the drilling mud is
pressure management, which is achieved by the particles giving the drilling
fluid weight. Drilling mud also serves a variety of additional purposes,
including as cooling, lubricating the drill string, closing permeable reservoirs,
transferring hydraulic power to the bit, minimizing formation damage, and
eliminating cutting from the well bottom to the surface [2].

The oil and gas sector is actively involved in drilling automation due to the
necessity to increase the caliber, safety, and economy of well building. The
rotating steerable system and automatic controllers to stop torsional drill string
vibrations are two examples of automated drilling equipment [3].

A significant part of any drilling operation, the drilling fluid or mud system
makes up around 10% of the overall well expenditures. While automated
drilling fluid management is still in its infancy when compared to the
automation of drilling mechanics aspects, drilling fluid management is an
essential part of process safety and economical drilling operations. Currently, a
significant portion of drilling fluid management is done manually [4].

Drilling fluid is moved via the drill string, the bit nozzles, and the annulus
to return to the surface during a drilling operation. Drilling fluid enters the mud

4|Page
tank first before returning to the drill string after the drilling fluid and drilled
cuttings are separated at the surface. Drilling fluids not only carry cuttings from
the drill bit to the surface but also produce downhole pressure, as seen
schematically in Figure (1-1). This keeps the well bore stable and stops
formation fluids from pouring into the well bore uncontrollably. Drilling fluids
also lubricate the drill string and bit and give horse power at the bit [5].

Figure (1.1): Main functions of drilling fluids [6].

The most significant characteristics of drilling fluids include density,

rheology, gel strength, oil-water ratio, water-phase salinity, and electrical
stability [5]. The density of a drilling fluid primarily controls the downhole
pressure that maintains borehole stability. While too high of mud weight can
result in tensile failure of the formation and losses, too low of mud weight can
produce compressive shear failure of the borehole and formation fluid ingress.
The effectiveness of cuttings transportation from the drill bit to the surface is
significantly influenced by the rheology. Shear thinning drilling fluids that gel
when no shear is applied are what are desired. Insufficient viscosity during low

5|Page
shear rates might result in barite sag or inadequate carrying capacity during
periods of stagnation. Poor cuttings removal caused by excessive viscosity at
high shear rates may result in excessive downhole pressures [7].

2. Water-based drilling fluids

Water-based drilling fluids are the most often utilised kind. Freshwater or
saltwater can be utilised as the liquid in water-based mud, and both types of
liquid were employed in this study. Water-based muds are the best option since
they can solve the majority of well control issues and are inexpensive and
simple to make. Three categories of water-based mud exist: polymer fluids,
non-inhibitive fluids, and inhibitive fluids. Additionally, drilling mud might be
a nonaqueous or gaseous basis. One of the rheological characteristics of drilling
mud is its viscosity [8]. A measure of matter's resistance to a deforming force is
called viscosity. Drilling mud viscosity must thus be properly monitored and
managed. Generally speaking, the viscosity of the drilling mud needs to be high
enough to suspend the mud particles. Therefore, the viscosity of the drilling
mud determines how long a drilling cutting will stay in the mud [9]. Viscosity is
significantly impacted by the rate of shear. Raising the shear rate in high
viscosity drilling muds enhances the solids' retention on the mud and reduces
the effectiveness of high shear solid removal instruments (such as shale
shakers). However, because viscosity is inversely related to both the efficiency
of separation and the solid settling velocity, reducing the shear rate in high
viscosity drilling muds impairs the performance of low shear solid removal
instruments (such as centrifuges). By using nanomaterials, drilling fluid
viscosity may be changed favourably for downhole circumstances [10], [11].

6|Page
 Figure (1.2): Water-based drilling fluids.

3. Effect of Viscosity on Water-Based Drilling Fluid

Viscosity is a critical property that has several effects on water-based

drilling fluids [12]. Here are some key effects of viscosity in water-based
drilling fluids:

1. Flow Behavior: Viscosity determines the flow behavior of the drilling

fluid. Higher viscosity fluids exhibit more resistance to flow, resulting in
slower fluid movement. In contrast, lower viscosity fluids flow more
easily. Understanding the flow behavior of drilling fluids is crucial for
proper fluid circulation and efficient drilling operations [13].
2. Cuttings Suspension: Viscosity plays a vital role in suspending drilled
cuttings within the fluid. The ability of the drilling fluid to carry and
suspend cuttings is directly influenced by its viscosity. Higher viscosity
fluids provide better suspension, preventing cuttings from settling and

7|Page
 blocking the wellbore. Effective cuttings suspension is crucial for
maintaining drilling progress and preventing operational issues [14].
3. Pressure Control: Viscosity affects the hydraulic pressure exerted by the
drilling fluid in the wellbore. Fluids with higher viscosity levels exert
greater pressure, while lower viscosity fluids generate lower pressures.
Proper viscosity control is essential for maintaining the desired pressure
regime, managing pressure imbalances, and preventing well control
issues or formation damage [15].
4. Hole Cleaning: Viscosity significantly impacts the ability of drilling
fluids to clean the wellbore. Higher viscosity fluids are more efficient at
carrying and removing drilled cuttings from the wellbore, ensuring
effective hole cleaning. Proper hole cleaning is vital for maintaining
wellbore stability, preventing stuck pipe, and minimizing formation
damage [15].
5. Fluid Loss Control: Viscosity influences the fluid loss characteristics of
drilling fluids. Fluids with higher viscosity tend to exhibit lower fluid loss
rates, reducing the risk of fluid invasion into the formation. Controlling
viscosity can help manage fluid loss, maintain wellbore integrity, and
minimize formation damage [16].
6. Pumping Efficiency: Viscosity affects the pumping efficiency of drilling
fluids. Higher viscosity fluids require more pump power to circulate
through the wellbore, increasing energy consumption. Optimizing
viscosity levels can improve pumping efficiency, reducing operational
costs and enhancing overall drilling performance [15].
7. Rheological Behavior: Viscosity is a key parameter that determines the
rheological behavior of drilling fluids. Rheology refers to the study of
flow and deformation characteristics of fluids. By controlling viscosity,
drilling engineers can tailor the rheological properties of the fluid, such as
8|Page
 flow behavior, shear stress, and shear rate relationships. Proper
rheological control ensures wellbore stability, effective fluid circulation,
and optimized drilling performance [17].

4. Aim of the project:

The goal of this work is to develop a new correlation based on important
influencing factors that can reliably predict the viscosity of water-based drilling
fluid in one of Iraqi oilfield.

Area of study ‫حقل الرميلة النفطي‬

‫إضافة شرح عن الحقل وصورة‬

9|Page
 Chapter two:
Background & Theory

10 | P a g e
‫ينقل هذا الفصل الى بعد اللترجر‬
‫ويكتب كل شيء يخص اللزوجة وفوائدها وطرق قياسها‬

Background & Theory

The viscosity of water-based drilling fluids can be calculated using various
methods and models. Some approaches were described as below:
1. Marsh Funnel Viscometer: The Marsh funnel viscometer is a simple and
widely used method for determining the viscosity of drilling fluids. It
measures the time it takes for a known volume of fluid to flow through a
standard orifice. However, it's important to note that the Marsh funnel
viscometer provides only an approximation of the true viscosity and is
not suitable for highly viscous fluids [18].
2. Rheometer: A rheometer is a more advanced instrument used to measure
the flow behavior and rheological properties of fluids. It can provide
more accurate viscosity measurements for drilling fluids. Different
rheological models, such as the Bingham plastic model or the Power Law
model, can be used to fit the rheological data and calculate the viscosity
[19], [20].
3. API RP 13B-1: The American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended
Practice 13B-1 provides standardized procedures for testing drilling
fluids. It includes a method for determining the apparent viscosity of
drilling fluids using a rotational viscometer. The procedure involves

11 | P a g e
 measuring the torque required to rotate a spindle in the fluid and then
calculating the viscosity based on the instrument calibration [21].
4. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): CFD simulations can be used to
model the flow behavior of drilling fluids and calculate the viscosity. This
method requires advanced software and expertise in fluid dynamics. It
can provide detailed information on the fluid's behavior under various
conditions but may be more complex and time-consuming [22].

Chapter three:
Literature Review
12 | P a g e
 Literature Review
In 2017, a study was conducted using the frequent measurements of mud
density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and solid percent to predict the rheological
properties (plastic viscosity, apparent viscosity, yield point, flow behavior
index, and consistency index of the drilling fluid) by developing empirical
correlations based on 3000 field data measurements of KCl–polymer mud using
artificial neural network. In this paper and for the first time, the solid percent
will be included in the prediction of the drilling fluid rheological parameters.
Measurements of mud density, Marsh funnel viscosity, and solid percent are
made often every 15-20 minutes at the well site, along with a rheological test
twice a day. In order to derive the mathematical model that can forecast the
rheological parameters, the artificial neural network (ANN) black box was
transformed into a white box. Every correlation had a correlation coefficient
more than 90% and an average absolute error of less than 6%. Real-time

13 | P a g e
characteristics may be acquired without the requirement for laborious laboratory
experiments by using the derived correlations to anticipate drilling fluid
parameters with high accuracy. By eliminating frequent concerns like pipe
sticking, loss of circulation, and hole cleaning problems, this approach will
assist the drilling engineers in better monitoring the characteristics of the
drilling fluid and controlling the drilling operations [23].

In 2018, a study was reported that artificial Neural Network (ANN) was able to
predict the rheological properties on a real time with a high accuracy. Four new
empirical correlations were developed to predict PV, AV, YP, and n. With a
correlation coefficient (CC) of more than 90% and an average absolute
percentage error (AAPE) of less than 6%, these correlations have extremely
high accuracy. This technique's originality is its real-time prediction of
rheological characteristics based on calliper factors, which will assist drilling
engineers in carrying out safe drilling operations and removing typical drilling
issues [24].

In 2020, a study was developed new sets of correlations using artificial neural
network (ANN) to predict the rheological parameters of HBM while drilling
using the frequent measurements, every 15 to 20 min, of mud density (MD) and
Marsh funnel viscosity (FV). Two hundred field data points were used to create
the ANN models. For the purposes of training and testing the ANN models, the
dataset was split into 70:30 ratios. With a maximum average absolute
percentage error (AAPE) of 6% and a high correlation coefficient (R) greater
than 0.90, the optimised ANN models demonstrated a strong agreement
between the observed and projected rheological parameters. For a more
straightforward and useful application, new empirical correlations were taken
from the ANN models to predict plastic viscosity (PV), yield point (YP), and
apparent viscosity (AV) directly without running the models. In terms of R and
14 | P a g e
AAP, the outcomes of the AV empirical correlation fared better than those of
the previously published correlations [25].

In 2021, a study was investigated that a new statistical-based empirical

correlations for the prediction of apparent and plastic viscosities. The developed
correlations relate the apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity to some variables,
viz. bentonite, nanoclay concentration, nanosilica concentration, and
temperature. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was employed to derive
the mathematical relationship between the variables and responses and to
characterise the interactions between the variables. Published data were used in
this analysis. The correlations, fit statistics, F-statistics test, and Pareto chart
standardised effects were then confirmed by an ANOVA. The validation
demonstrated the higher accuracy and greater robustness of the RSM models.
Response surface plots (3D) were utilised to determine the impact of the
independent factors on the apparent and plastic viscosities of the drilling fluids.
The results indicated that there was statistical significance in the interaction
between the variables in the system. The outcomes demonstrate the accuracy
and dependability of the RSM model's performance, making it suitable for exact
apparent and plastic viscosity prediction [26].

In 2022, several methods including generalized reduced gradient (GRG)

method and SC techniques such as multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basis
function (RBF) are employed to model apparent viscosity (AV), plastic
viscosity (PV) and yield point (YP) values of water-based drilling fluids
(WBDFs). The performance of various MLP learning algorithms, including
Levenberg-Marquardt (LM), Bayesian regularisation (BR), scaled conjugate
gradient (SCG), and resilient backpropagation (RB), was also examined in order
to improve the estimation capability of the SC models. Ultimately, the four best
models were combined into a paradigm using a committee machine intelligent
15 | P a g e
system (CMIS). Additionally, the GRG approach was used to make the on-site
estimate of AV, PV, and YP parameters easier, and three new correlations were
suggested. Upon completion of the performance study of all the constructed
models, the CMIS technique is determined to be the most effective approach for
the tested dataset based on the findings obtained. The model's average absolute
percent relative errors (AAPRE) for AV, PV, and YP were determined to be
6.51%, 8.01%, and 11.72%, respectively. These results demonstrate the model's
superior performance compared to nearly all other predictive models that have
been developed to date. The dataset employed in this work is more intricate and
broad-based, despite the fact that other models in the literature generated
superior accuracy. Furthermore, the correlations created in this study produced
more accurate findings for the examined dataset when compared to the current
correlations [27].

‫الطريقة االفضل لكتابة اللترجر هي‬

‫ ماذا فعل هذا الباحث واي االدوات استخدم هل عمل معادلة‬. ‫اسم الباحث والسنة‬
‫ مالذي توصل‬. ‫او موديل او ذكاء اصطناعي وعلى أي المدخالت والعوامل اعتمد‬
‫ وهل هذه النتائج مقنعة بالنسبة‬.‫ وماهي دقة هذه النتائج‬. ‫اليه الناتج النهائي للبحث‬
. ‫لنا‬

‫ اسطر‬5 ‫ او‬4 ‫كل هذا اليتجاوز‬

‫ بحث‬20‫ زيادة عددد الباحثين ليتخطى ال‬+

16 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
 Chapter four:
Methodology

Methodology
‫يناقش يوم االحد‬
1. Water-Based Drilling Fluid Preparation
In order to prepare the required experimental data to develop the new
correlation for predicting viscosity, 142 laboratory and field experiments were
performed on two different types of drilling mud: Ferro Chrome Lignosulfonate
(FCL) mud, and Salt Saturated mud (SSM), which is a water-based mud
containing high concentrations of sodium chloride (NaCl) [28]. Initially, the pH
of the water was adjusted to around 9 for both varieties of water-based drilling
mud by adding sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The Water March is the second.
Bentonite for FCL muds and hydrated Bentonite or Attapulgite for SSM muds
resulted in an increase in funnel viscosity. For the FCL and SSM muds,
carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and starch were utilised to regulate fluid loss
and filtration, respectively. Lastly, barite was added to the mixture to raise the
18 | P a g e
density and achieve the necessary drilling mud weight for both FCL and SSM
muds [29].

2. Apparent Viscosity Measurement

Newtonian fluids and non-Newtonian fluids are the two basic categories of
drilling fluids [30]. In non-Newtonian fluids, viscosity is a function of shear
rate; in Newtonian fluids, it is independent of shear rate. The Bingham Plastic
mathematical rheological model is used in the oil industry to quantify apparent
viscosity as well as other rheological parameters of non-Newtonian drilling
fluids, such as plastic viscosity, yield point, and gel strengths [31]. The VG
metre values (i.e., R300 and R600) are used to compute all of the rheological
characteristics listed above. The shear stress vs. shear rate curve in the Bingham
Plastic model is supposed to be a straight line that does not cross the origin; that
is, the yield point, or curve intercept point with the shear stress, should be
greater than zero (Figure 1) [32]. The Bingham Plastic model uses the following
equations:
τ = PV(γ/300 ) + YP ………………………………. (1)
PV = R600 − R300 ……………………………………(2)
YP = R300 − PV …………………………………….(3)
µa = R600/2 …………………………………………(4)
where τ = shear stress (lb/100 ft2), γ = shear rate (sec−1), PV = plastic viscosity
(cP), YP = yield point (lb/100 ft2), and µa = apparent viscosity (cP).

Figure (2.1): Bingham plastic model fluid behavior

3. Marsh Funnel Viscosity Measurement

19 | P a g e
The marsh Funnel viscosity represents the time in seconds that it takes a quart
of fluid (1500 mL) to flow out of a cone via a short cylinder into a graduated
cup (Figure 2) [33]. The viscosity of the marsh funnel provides a clear indicator
of the drilling mud's total viscosity. Water has a normal Marsh funnel viscosity
of around 26 s.

Figure (2.2): March funnel.

Conclusions
According to the findings of this study, it can conclude that …………………

20 | P a g e
 References
[1] V. Dokhani, Y. Ma, Z. Li, T. Geng, and M. Yu, “Effects of drill string eccentricity on frictional pressure
losses in annuli,” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 187, p. 106853, 2020.
[2] B. K. Paswan and V. Mahto, “Development of environment-friendly oil-in-
water emulsion based drilling fluid for shale gas formation using sunflower oil,”
J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 191, p. 107129, 2020.
[3] B. W. Atchison, “Automated well control: From automated detection to
automated shut-in,” in SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference
and Exhibition, SPE, 2021, p. D031S016R002.
[4] J. Njuguna et al., “The fate of waste drilling fluids from oil & gas industry
activities in the exploration and production operations,” Waste Management,
vol. 139, pp. 362–380, 2022.
[5] Z. Guan, T. Chen, H. Liao, Z. Guan, T. Chen, and H. Liao, “Drilling Fluids,”
Theory and Technology of Drilling Engineering, pp. 173–204, 2021.
21 | P a g e
[6] J. P. Deville, “Drilling fluids,” in Fluid Chemistry, Drilling and Completion,
Elsevier, 2022, pp. 115–185.
[7] R. F. H. Roijmans, “Model-based optimization of drilling fluid density and
viscosity,” 2016.
[8] I. Ali, M. Ahmad, and T. Ganat, “Biopolymeric formulations for filtrate control
applications in water-based drilling muds: A review,” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 210, p.
110021, 2022.
[9] A. Saasen and J. D. Ytrehus, “Viscosity models for drilling fluids—Herschel-
bulkley parameters and their use,” Energies (Basel), vol. 13, no. 20, p. 5271,
2020.
[10] S. Bridges and L. Robinson, A practical handbook for drilling fluids processing.
gulf professional publishing, 2020.
[11] M. Al-Shargabi, S. Davoodi, D. A. Wood, A. Al-Musai, V. S. Rukavishnikov,
and K. M. Minaev, “Nanoparticle applications as beneficial oil and gas drilling
fluid additives: A review,” J Mol Liq, vol. 352, p. 118725, 2022.
[12] H. Mao, Y. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Zhang, and Y. Huang, “A critical review of the
possible effects of physical and chemical properties of subcritical water on the
performance of water-based drilling fluids designed for ultra-high temperature
and ultra-high pressure drilling applications,” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 187, p.
106795, 2020.
[13] A. V Minakov, M. I. Pryazhnikov, E. I. Mikhienkova, and Y. O. Voronenkova,
“Systematic experimental study of the temperature dependence of viscosity and
rheological behavior of water-based drilling fluids with nano-additives,”
Petroleum, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 534–544, 2023.
[14] C. Pedrosa, A. Saasen, and J. D. Ytrehus, “Fundamentals and physical
principles for drilled cuttings transport—Cuttings bed sedimentation and
erosion,” Energies (Basel), vol. 14, no. 3, p. 545, 2021.
[15] A. Mohamed, S. Salehi, and R. Ahmed, “Significance and complications of
drilling fluid rheology in geothermal drilling: A review,” Geothermics, vol. 93,
p. 102066, 2021.
[16] M. U. Ajieh, N. A. Amenaghawon, K. Owebor, O. H. Orugba, and E. B.
Bassey, “Effect of excess viscosifier and fluid loss control additive on the
rheological characteristics of water-based drilling fluid,” Pet Sci Technol, vol.
41, no. 14, pp. 1434–1455, 2023.
[17] N. Liu, D. Zhang, H. Gao, Y. Hu, and L. Duan, “Real-time measurement of
drilling fluid rheological properties: A review,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 11, p.
3592, 2021.

22 | P a g e
[18] M. J. Pitt, “The Marsh funnel and drilling fluid viscosity: a new equation for
field use,” SPE Drilling & Completion, vol. 15, no. 01, pp. 3–6, 2000.
[19] B. Werner, V. Myrseth, and A. Saasen, “Viscoelastic properties of drilling
fluids and their influence on cuttings transport,” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 156, pp.
845–851, 2017.
[20] S. C. Joshi, Y. C. Lam, F. Y. C. Boey, and A. I. Y. Tok, “Power law fluids and
Bingham plastics flow models for ceramic tape casting,” J Mater Process
Technol, vol. 120, no. 1–3, pp. 215–225, 2002.
[21] D. A. Den Hamer, G. Di Emidio, A. Bezuijen, and D. Verástegui Flores,
“Preliminary test on modified clays for seawater resistant drilling fluids,” 2015.
[22] O. Alade, M. Mahmoud, and A. Al-Nakhli, “Rheological studies and numerical
investigation of barite sag potential of drilling fluids with thermochemical fluid
additive using computational fluid dynamics (CFD),” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 220, p.
111179, 2023.
[23] S. Elkatatny, “Real-time prediction of rheological parameters of KCL water-
based drilling fluid using artificial neural networks,” Arab J Sci Eng, vol. 42,
pp. 1655–1665, 2017.
[24] E. Avcı, “An artificial neural network approach for the prediction of water-
based drilling fluid rheological behaviour,” International Advanced Researches
and Engineering Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 124–131, 2018.
[25] A. Gowida, S. Elkatatny, K. Abdelgawad, and R. Gajbhiye, “Newly developed
correlations to predict the rheological parameters of high-bentonite drilling fluid
using neural networks,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 10, p. 2787, 2020.
[26] F. S. Alakbari, M. E. Mohyaldinn, M. A. Ayoub, A. S. Muhsan, and A. Hassan,
“Apparent and plastic viscosities prediction of water-based drilling fluid using
response surface methodology,” Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp, vol.
616, p. 126278, 2021.
[27] I. Jafarifar and M. Najjarpour, “Modeling apparent viscosity, plastic viscosity
and yield point in water-based drilling fluids: comparison of various soft
computing approaches, developed correlations and a committee machine
intelligent system,” Arab J Sci Eng, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 11553–11577, 2022.
[28] A. S. S. A. S. S. Committee, Drilling fluids processing handbook. Elsevier,
2011.
[29] American Petroleum Institute, “Recommended Practice for Field Testing
Water-based Drilling Fluids; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC,
USA.,” 2017.

23 | P a g e
[30] M. T. Balhoff, L. W. Lake, P. M. Bommer, R. E. Lewis, M. J. Weber, and J. M.
Calderin, “Rheological and yield stress measurements of non-Newtonian fluids
using a Marsh Funnel,” J Pet Sci Eng, vol. 77, no. 3–4, pp. 393–402, 2011.
[31] E. C. Bingham, “Fluidity and Plasticity; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA,”
vol. 2, 1922.
[32] J. J. Azar and G. R. Samuel, “Drilling Engineering; PennWell books: Tulsa,
OK, USA,” 2007.
[33] H. N. Marsh, “Properties and treatment of rotary mud,” Transactions of the
AIME, vol. 92, no. 01, pp. 234–251, 1931.

24 | P a g e