Pressure Losses of Non-Newtonian Fluids in Drilling Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Precise estimation of annular pressure losses is essential in drilling and well completion operations to control formation pressures and optimize drilling and completion fluids' hydraulic programs. Without accurate estimation of annular pressure losses it is possible to face serious problems that would yield interruption in drilling operation and sometimes lead to abandonment of the well. While annular pressure loss estimations are critical, determination of pressure losses associated with flow of Non-Newtonian fluids is challenging. Many investigators proposed different equivalent diameter concepts to provide a similarity between pipe and annular flow. In this study we have investigated the coupling effects of rheological model and equivalent diameter definition on pressure losses using three rheological models (Bingham Plastic, Power Law and Yield Power Law) together with four different equivalent diameter definitions. Effects of inner/outer radius ratios and flow rate on pressure losses determined using different rheological model and equivalent diameter pairs are analyzed using an onshore well and an offshore well. The differences in pressure losses using different pairs for the cases of onshore and offshore wells are shown. The study provides detailed analysis on how severely the annular pressure losses varies once rheological model and equivalent diameter definitions are changed for different operating conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".