SPE 166116

A Dynamic Imaging Particle Analysis System for Real-Time Analysis of

Drilling Muds
Lew Brown, Matthew Duplisea, Steve Bowen, Fluid Imaging Technologies, Inc.

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

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

This paper details a novel new system for real-time analysis of drilling muds. The system uses in-flow digital imaging to
capture images of all particulates in drilling mud. Sophisticated image processing algorithms are used in real time to segment
each particle from the background, and record over 30 size, shape and gray-scale measurements for each particle. Particle
size and shape distributions are produced in real-time, and are used for trend analysis.

This system can be integrated into any part of the drilling flow loop for analysis at any point in the process. Using a unique
auto-dilution system, the concentration is automatically adjusted for optimum presentation of the particulates to the imaging
system. Since every particle image and its measurements are saved by the system, it creates an ironclad audit trail for how
particle size distributions are derived.

While the basic system architecture is very robust and could be used in many different applications, the system presented
here has been fully optimized for the analysis of particulates in drilling mud.

Real-world data collected in the field is shown illustrating typical results from the system. A brief description is provided on
how the system works in real-time, including how the particle images are acquired and measurements made. Finally the
results of the analysis are shown, detailing how the system can be used to monitor particle size and shape distributions from
any part of the flow loop. This resulting analytical data becomes an integral part of the real-time operation of the drilling
platform, ensuring continuous optimization of the drilling mud particulate content. This optimization is critical to the
performance of the drilling mud, for cooling and lubrication of the drill bit, interacting with the surrounding geology and
maintaining proper rheological characteristics.

This system represents a new way of proactively monitoring drilling mud content in real-time, and provides more information
than prior systems because the system can measure particle size as well as shape. Particle shape information can be used by
the system software to automatically classify particulates into different component types.

Drilling Mud Characterization

While drilling mud has been used in oil and gas well operations since the mid-1800’s, the actual quantitative analysis of
drilling mud content is a relatively new endeavor. This is because the technology used for separating drill cuttings from the
drilling fluid has been historically fairly “crude” by today’s standards. Indeed, according to ASME (2005), it was only in
1962 that 4-inch hydrocyclones were introduced which removed particles down to 15 to 30 microns. ASME (2005) also
indicates that it was around this time that researchers began to be concerned with the effects of “ultra-fines” (below 10
microns), primarily because of viscosity issues.

As a result of this history, particle analysis prior to the 1960’s was primarily done using wet sieving for particles >45um
according to ASME (2005). Additionally, ISO 13500, “Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Drilling fluid materials --
Specifications and tests”, describes using a 200 mesh sieve to determine particle content >75um, and using sedimentation for
2 SPE 166116

determining particle content <6um. While helpful, the ISO test only yields two data points, whereas a full particle size
distribution showing the entire distribution of particle size yields much more information about the overall content of the
fluid.

A landmark paper, Mohnet (1985), “Characterization and Control of Fine Particles Involved in Drilling”, contained a first
look at the applicability of various automated particle analysis technologies for drilling mud. By this time, it was clearly
understood that the “undesirable” size fractions of mud were particles <2um and particles >74um, so it was desired to find an
instrument that could cover a range from at least 1um to 100um. The paper evaluated several technologies, three different
laser diffraction instruments, a sedimentation instrument, an electrozone potential instrument (Coulter Counter), a light
obscuration instrument and a scanning electron microscope with image analysis software (used to check the accuracy of the
results). Based on the level of these technologies at the time (actual measurements were performed in 1982), it was concluded
that laser diffraction instruments offered the best overall performance for the application. Even at that, the researchers
concluded that a combination of two different manufacturers’ instruments would have given the best overall range of
sensitivity. As is typical of this type of investigation, each instrument type had strong and weak points when compared.

Imaging Particle Analysis

At the time of the 1985 paper discussed above, imaging particle analysis was not yet a viable technique for analysis of
statistically significant populations of particles; it was both too time consuming, and the computing power necessary was too
expensive and bulky. While microscopy was a long established and extremely popular technique for particle analysis, the
ability to automate microscope measurements remained in the future. The algorithms for making the necessary measurements
from particle images were already well established, but the ability to rapidly acquire and process these images in a cost-
effective and timely fashion would have to wait for hardware advances.

Beginning in the early 2000’s, however, commercial imaging particle analysis systems became available in the market. At
first, these systems used “static” imagery, whereby a camera acquired digital images of particles on a microscope slide. Some
level of automation in these systems could be obtained by coupling the slide to a motorized stage, so that multiple static
images could be obtained in sequence, but this still relegated the system to a laboratory environment where the slide could be
prepared. “Dynamic” imaging systems, which acquired particle images from a moving stream of particles in a flow cell, were
soon developed to overcome these limitations.

The architecture of a typical dynamic imaging particle analysis is shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Block Diagram of Imaging Particle Analysis System

SPE 166116 3

Such a system represents a combination of an automated microscope for detailed morphological analysis (size, shape,
etc.) of particles with the high speed acquisition typical of particle counters. The sample is pulled through a rectangular flow
cell by a pump. As the sample passes through the field-of-view (FOV) of the camera, a flash LED behind the flow cell
provides back lighting. The camera is triggered synchronously with the flash, effectively “freezing” the sample for the
camera to acquire the image of the flowing sample.

When each image of the FOV is acquired, the software thresholds each cell from the background, and only stores images
of the cells themselves as individual images within a “collage”. Each image has indexed to it over 30 different measurements
which are made from the particle image as it is acquired. These measurements fall into several categories: “morphological”
measurements such as diameter, length, width, perimeter, circularity, etc., “gray-scale” measurements such as intensity,
transparency, color information, etc., and “spectral” measurements such as peak, area and width measurements from the
signals collected in the two optional channels of fluorescence. The morphological measurements are ones that might be
normally made by using a digital camera on a microscope, with the difference being that the measurements are being made
on a moving stream of particles as opposed to a static microscope slide. This means that the system can acquire and measure
thousands of particles per minute, thereby collecting far more data automatically, yielding higher statistical significance.

Benefits of Imaging over Volumetric Systems

Now that imaging particle analysis systems are more readily available, the technology should be reconsidered for the
analysis of drilling mud particulates. The major difference of imaging-based systems over other automated particle analysis
technologies is that they make “direct” measurements of particle characteristics, and are not limited to a single measurement
of Equivalent Spherical Diameter (ESD). The other, more commonly used particle analysis instruments, such as laser
diffraction systems, make “indirect” measurements and are limited to a single measurement (ESD) only. By indirect
measurement it is meant that the instruments measure something proportional to the particle size. In fact, the measurement is
proportional to the particle volume, not the particle size, which is why these techniques can be loosely grouped as
“volumetric based”. The particle size is derived from the volume measurement by making an assumption that all particles are
spherical in shape, hence the “spherical” in ESD.

In the real world, very few particles are actually spherical in shape, so relying on measurements made with that
assumption may lead to obfuscation of what is really happening with particle size. Needle-shaped particles will behave quite
differently in a borehole than spherical particles will. A simple Google (2013) search on “particle shape and rheology” will
produce volumes of scientific papers discussing how particle shape affects viscosity and rheology of fluids.

The fact that imaging systems can directly measure many different particle shape parameters simultaneously also gives
them the ability to use pattern recognition techniques to actually classify particles into different particle types within a
heterogeneous mixture. In drilling mud, this might yield the ability to actually differentiate different components of the mud
based upon shape of the particles.

As is true of all methods, however, imaging particle analysis does have one significant drawback: the range of particle
sizes that can be accurately characterized. Since imaging systems are based upon optical microscopy, they are subject to
diffraction limits and sampling limits (Nyquist limits), and thus cannot effectively characterize particles below around 2um in
size, according to Brown (2009).

Real-Time Imaging System Architecture

The system architecture shown above in figure one represents a typical, “laboratory-based” implementation of imaging
particle analysis, where a small volume of fluid (which can contain hundreds of thousands of particles) is analyzed from a
discrete sample taken from the process. The system used in this paper represents a natural outgrowth of this technology,
whereby a discrete sampling procedure is replaced by a “flow-through” fluidics system which takes drilling mud directly
from the flow loop for analysis. A block diagram of this system is shown in Figure 2:
4 SPE 166116

Figure 2: Architecture of Real-Time On-Line Imaging System

In an imaging particle analysis system, it is necessary that the particles be physically separated so that the software does
not group multiple particles together as one. For this reason, it is required that the raw drilling mud from the flow loop be
diluted prior to the fluid being presented to the imager in the flow cell. This system takes care of the dilution automatically by
mixing the sample with sufficient diluent using a second pump. The system is entirely self-contained, and can be controlled
remotely via a network connection. The overall result is an on-line dynamic imaging particle analysis system that can
characterize drilling mud particulates in real-time, with the benefit of being able to characterize particle shape as well as
particle size.

First On-Site Results with Real-Time Imaging System

After several months of lab-based simulations runs conducted using a testing flow loop, on May 4, 2013, this system was
first used in live trials in an on-line environment. The system was first installed in a trailer containing several other
instruments which would also be measuring other flow loop parameters, and contained the necessary plumbing to hook the
instrument directly into the flow loop at a live drilling site.
SPE 166116 5

D [4,3] (ESD)  D [4,3] (ESD)  D [4,3] (ESD)  D [4,3] (ESD)  D [4,3] (ESD)  D [4,3] (ESD) 

File Name  Date / Time  Mean  Min  Max  D10  D50  D90 
04052013‐66822 2013‐05‐04  19:33:45 40.92 2.03 123.54 16.31 36.94 72.31
04052013‐67492 2013‐05‐04  19:44:54 43.57 2.03 119.40 17.16 39.93 74.26
04052013‐68157 2013‐05‐04  19:56:00 43.16 2.03 113.03 16.90 39.39 74.43
04052013‐68821 2013‐05‐04  20:07:04 47.23 2.03 111.17 16.48 44.21 88.97
04052013‐69455 2013‐05‐04  20:17:38 41.62 2.03 113.93 16.39 37.84 71.66
04052013‐70055 2013‐05‐04  20:27:37 59.44 2.03 123.89 22.40 55.35 106.02
04052013‐70716 2013‐05‐04  20:38:38 50.81 2.03 115.21 20.41 47.44 86.23
04052013‐71380 2013‐05‐04  20:49:42 50.83 2.03 86.81 15.69 60.36 69.99
04052013‐72013 2013‐05‐04  21:00:15 28.80 2.03 81.15 9.21 25.18 51.11
04052013‐72639 2013‐05‐04  21:10:41 38.16 2.03 102.59 14.99 34.99 68.21
04052013‐73312 2013‐05‐04  21:21:54 36.77 2.03 99.66 13.51 33.34 65.48
04052013‐73977 2013‐05‐04  21:33:00 38.86 2.03 85.47 15.42 35.56 68.45

Table 1: Summary Results for On-Site Particle Analysis of Drilling Mud

The system performed as designed, yielding significantly more data than previously could be collected using volumetric-
based particle analysis systems. Table 1 shows the summary results in tabular format, and Figure 3 shows mean particle size
diameter (D[4,3] (ESD)) for each time slice, for D10, D50 and D90. Note the significant change seen at time t=60 minutes,
particularly with D90. An equipment adjustment was performed at this time, causing a brief spike in the particle size
distribution, which re-stabilized shortly afterward.

Figure 3: Graphs Showing D10, D50 and D90 Particle Size Over Time

Figures 4,5 and 6 show the summary statistics and graphs generated by the software for time t=20 minutes, t=60 minutes
and t=120 minutes. Both the statistics and graphs for time t=60 minutes reflect the anomaly seen when the equipment
adjustment was made. Clearly the system was able to capture the change in particle size distribution caused at that time, with
the results being available in real-time. Figure 7 shows a typical screen capture of the image window provided for viewing
the particle images in real-time, or at a later time when post-processing.
6 SPE 166116

Figures 4, 5, 6 (left to right): Summary Statistics and Graphs Generated for Individual Runs at t=20 minutes, t=60 minutes and
t=120 minutes (left to right)

Figure 7: Screen capture of typical particle images from drilling mud acquired by the system. Window on right displays captured
particle properties for particle number 8755 in the screen capture.

So far, we have only looked at the classic size distributions as one would with any particle size instrument. However, it is
important to remember that over 30 measurements per particle were captured at the same time. You can see from the
summary statistics that the aspect ratio data also varied significantly at the time of the anomaly. With all of these other
SPE 166116 7

measurements now available, the opportunities for “drilling down” into the data to find out more about the mud’s
composition, and therefore more about the dynamics in the borehole, become much greater. This is an area worthy of much
more research as the system becomes more widely used.

Conclusion

While the use of drilling mud has a long history, automated characterization of particle size distributions for the mud is a
relatively new phenomenon. Until recently, particle size instruments have had to be based on volumetric, indirect
measurement techniques, which have to assume that all particles are spherical in shape, and therefore can only report a single
measurement, Equivalent Spherical Diameter (ESD). However, advances in computer hardware have made digital imaging
approaches to particle sizing feasible. Imaging techniques have the benefit of making direct measurements from the particles,
and can collect many different measurements from each particle which describe its shape.

The instrument introduced in this paper brings real-time imaging particle analysis capabilities directly to the drill site. The
first on-site tests have shown that it can monitor particle size distribution in real-time just as prior volumetric-based systems
have been able to in the past. With future work, the potential exists to go beyond particle size to more closely monitor drilling
mud behavior because of the imaging system’s capability of quantifying particle shape parameters. Because particle shape is
so closely linked to viscosity and rheological characteristics of fluids, the ability to quantify particle shape holds great
promise for future advancements in monitoring and proactive real-time management of drilling muds.

References

ASME Shale Shaker Committee. 2005. Drilling Fluids Processing Handbook, 1st Edition. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf Professional
Publishing/Elsevier

Brown, L., 2009. Imaging Particle Analysis: Resolution and Sampling Considerations, http://www.fluidimaging.com/resource-center-
whitepapers.htm

Google.2013. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=particle+shape+and+rheology

Mohnot, S.M. 1985. Characterization and Control of Fine Particles Involved in Drilling. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37,
Number 9, 1622-1632. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.