Why Plastic Viscosity = 600rpm – 300rpm reading

If you’ve ever worked with drilling fluids, you’ve probably heard — or even used — the shortcut:

Plastic Viscosity ( PV ) = θ 600 θ 300

But have you ever asked: why? Where does this come from? Is it just a field trick, or is there solid fluid mechanics behind it.

In this post, we’ll start from the basics of fluid behavior, explore how the viscometer works, and derive the equation step-by-step until we land at that simple but powerful rule: PV = 600 – 300

This formula seems empirical at first glance, but it’s actually rooted in fluid mechanics and rheology, particularly from the Bingham Plastic Model.

Rheology is the study of how fluids flow and deform under force. For drilling fluids, it describes how the mud behaves when pumped through the wellbore.

Plastic Viscosity (PV) is a key rheological property that represents the mud’s internal friction during flow. It tells us how “thick” the mud behaves while circulating.

How We Measure Rheology:

We use a rotational viscometer (like the Fann VG Meter), which spins a sleeve in the mud and measures the torque needed to maintain rotation at specific speeds (RPMs). The torque is converted to dial readings, which reflect the shear stress applied at different shear rates.

How the Bingham Plastic Model Helps:

Drilling fluids don’t behave like water — their flow is more complex. The Bingham Plastic Model , illustrated in the figure, simplifies this behavior using a linear equation:

τ = τ y + μ p × γ
where:
τ = Shear stress
τy = Yield stress
μp = Plastic viscosity

Deriving PV from the Bingham Model:

The plastic viscosity is the slope of the Bingham line:

μ p = τ 600 τ 300 γ 600 γ 300
Using θ₆₀₀ and θ₃₀₀:
At 600 rpm (γ~1022 s-1) and At 300 rpm (γ~511 s-1):
μ p = τ 600 τ 300 1022 511
But since τ=1.067xθ, substitute:
μ p = 1.067 × θ 600 1.067 × θ 300 1022 511

μ p = 1.067 ( θ 600 θ 300 ) 511

But PV is reported in centipoise (cP), and due to the unit conversions (lb/100 ft2), the factor simplifies to:
Since 1 lb/100 ft2= 478.8 cp. S-1, we adjust the units:
μ p ( cP ) = 1.067 × 478.8 511 ( θ 600 θ 300 )

μ p ( cP ) = 0.998 ( θ 600 θ 300 )

Thus, the field approximation :
P V = θ 600 θ 300 ( c P )

If this helped you, consider donating $1 via E-transfer to syeds@hotmail.com with security code 129. Thank you! 🙏

Similar Posts

  • Emulsifiers

    Emulsifiers in Oil-Based Mud: A Comprehensive Explanation: Emulsifiers are surfactants (surface-active agents) composed of molecules with a hydrophilic (water-attracting) head and a hydrophobic (oil-attracting) tail. They stabilize mixtures of immiscible liquids, such as oil and water, by reducing interfacial tension and preventing separation. Emulsion is a major part in an oil-based drilling fluid. An emulsion…

  • Rheology

    Rheology is the study of the flow and deformation of matter, particularly fluids. In the context of drilling fluids (commonly referred to as “mud”), rheology is crucial because it influences the efficiency and safety of drilling operations. Drilling fluids are complex mixtures that can include water, oil, clay, polymers, and various additives. Their rheological properties…

  • Solid Analysis in Drilling Fluids

    Understanding Solid Analysis in Unweighted Drilling Fluids Unweighted drilling fluids, such as heavy brine or water, are commonly used in drilling operations. As the fluid circulates through the wellbore, it picks up drilling cuttings, which are referred to as solids. These solids are typically removed by equipment like shale shakers. However, smaller particles may not…

6 Comments

  1. what you failed to explain is that the rotor bob dimensions ratio (1.0678) and spring constant for the Fann type direct indicating rotational viscometer gives the 1 dial degree of shear stress equals 1.067 lbf/100 ft2 and that is what make the simple calculations work PV = 600-300 and YP = PV-300

    see example in https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F2308.04975&usg=AOvVaw3QRlYpAmkSXM6o0GvQxujH&opi=89978449

    1. Paul Scott,
      Thank you for your feedback—you are absolutely correct. To clarify, I accounted for that factor in the relevant equations by multiplying 1.067 by both 600 RPM and 300 RPM.
      Additionally, I would be delighted to collaborate further. If you have suggestions for revisions to the existing blog or ideas for a new article you’d like to publish, please feel free to share them. I would be happy to publish your work on my website with full attribution to you as the author.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *