Surge-and-Swab Pressure Predictions for
Yield-Power-Law Drilling Fluids
Freddy Crespo, Ramadan Ahmed, Majed Enfis, SPE, University of Oklahoma; Arild Saasen, SPE, Det norske
oljeselskap and University of Stavanger; and Mahmood Amani, SPE, Texas A&M University at Qatar
Summary
Surge and swab pressures have been known to cause formation
fracture, lost circulation, and well-control problems. Accurate
prediction of these pressures is crucially important in estimating
the maximum tripping speeds to keep the wellbore pressure within
specified limits of the pore and fracture pressures. It also plays a
major role in running casings, particularly with narrow annular
clearances. Existing surge/swab models are based on Bingham
plastic (BP) and power-law (PL) fluid rheology models. However,
in most cases, these models cannot adequately describe the flow
behavior of drilling fluids.
This paper presents a new steady-state model that can account
for fluid and formation compressibility and pipe elasticity. For the
closed-ended pipe, the model is cast into a simplified model to
predict pressure surge in a more convenient way. The steady-state
laminar-flow equation is solved for narrow slot geometry to ap-
proximate the flow in a concentric annulus with inner-pipe axial
movement considering yield-PL (YPL) fluid. The YPL rheology
model is usually preferred because it provides a better description
of the flow behavior of most drilling fluids. The analytical solu-
tion yields accurate predictions, though not in convenient forms.
Thus, a numerical scheme has been developed to obtain the solu-
tions. After conducting an extensive parametric study, regression
techniques were applied primarily to develop a simplified model
(i.e., dimensionless correlation).
The performance of the correlation has been tested by use of
field and laboratory measurements. Comparisons of the model
predictions with the measurements showed a satisfactory agree-
ment. In most cases, the model makes better predictions in terms
of closeness to the measurements because of the application of a
more realistic rheology model. The correlation and model are
useful for slimhole, deepwater, and extended-reach drilling
applications.
Introduction
Wellbore hydraulics has received increased attention in the past
few years as new technologies such as slimhole- and casing-dril-
ling techniques have emerged in the industry. Moreover, deep-
water drilling presents several drilling challenges associated with
downhole-pressure management caused by the narrow margin
between pore and fracture pressures. Quantitative characterization
of the wellbore pressures within the narrow limits is critically im-
portant in many phases of well construction such as tripping, run-
ning casing, and cementing operations. Operating outside this
safe-pressure window for even a short duration has historically
led to costly well problems. Therefore, significant efforts have
been directed toward accurately predicting the pressure losses
during drilling operations. Hydraulic models to predict pressure
losses while drilling and circulating drilling fluid have been well
documented (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2010). However, models used to
predict downhole surge/swab pressure during tripping in or trip-
ping out of the well have been limited to PL and BP fluids. The
YPL (Herschel-Bulkley) rheology model describes flow behavior
Copyright V
C 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 138938) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, Peru, 1–3 December 2010, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 19 February 2011. Revised
manuscript received for review 20 January 2012. Paper peer approved 6 August 2012.
574
of drilling fluids well over a wide range of shear rates. As a result,
the YPL model is often preferable when accurate hydraulic pre-
dictions are required. Failure to accurately predict surge and swab
pressures may result in fracturing the formation, lost circulation,
excessive loss of drilling fluid, well-control problems, and in-
creased drilling cost.
Pressure variations in the wellbore are caused by tripping in or
tripping out drillstring, or reciprocation of casing in the borehole.
The pressure change can increase (surge) or decrease (swab) the
bottomhole pressure. High surge pressure can lead to lost circula-
tion, either by sudden fracturing of the formation or by continuous
fluid loss into the permeable formation. The drilling fluid that has
entered into the fractured formation produces a drop in the fluid
level, causing a reduction in the wellbore hydrostatic pressure.
This reduction in mud hydrostatic pressure allows formation flu-
ids to enter the wellbore which may lead to a kick and eventually
a blowout. Pressure reduction resulting from swabbing can lead to
the flow of formation fluid into the wellbore, and generate a kick.
Excessive swab pressures are a major source of blowouts. Also,
pressure changes caused by alternating between surge and swab
pressures resulting from reciprocation, such as those made on
connections, may cause hole sloughing or other unstable hole con-
ditions, including solids fill on bottom. Therefore, prediction of
accurate surge and swab pressure is a prerequisite for efficient
drilling operations (Moore 1974).
Generally, pressure surge strongly depends on drillpipe trip-
ping speed, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology,
and whether the pipe is open or closed. Numerous studies (Clark
1956; Moore 1965; Clark and Fontenot 1974; Lal 1983) were
undertaken to investigate the effects of fluid properties and dril-
ling parameters. The increase in surge or swab pressure is also
attributed to different flow phenomena including pipe eccentric-
ity, geometric irregularities, acceleration, and dynamic effects.
The present study analyzes the bottomhole pressure variation
resulting from the reciprocation of the drillstring with the narrow-
slot model. YPL fluid is considered to flow in the slot, which is
formed by a stationary wall and moving plate. By use of the con-
servation equations and the application of the flow boundary
conditions, an analytical solution that constitutes a system of non-
linear equations (Appendix A) was obtained.
Literature Review
In the past, numerous studies (Cannon 1934, Horn 1950, Goins
et al. 1951) were carried out to investigate drilling problems asso-
ciated with surge and swab pressures. All of these studies demon-
strate that wellbore problems (e.g., lost circulation, formation
fracture, fluid influx, kicks, and blowouts) are connected to exces-
sive pressure variations in the wellbore because of high tripping
speeds. Early studies (Cardwell 1953, Ormsby 1954) attempted to
explain the physical causes, nature, and magnitude of surge and
swab pressures. Both of these studies presented quantitative pre-
diction techniques to determine these pressures for Newtonian flu-
ids in laminar- and turbulent-flow regimes. Only the pressure
losses arising from the viscous drag of the moving fluid with sta-
tionary pipe wall were considered. Another study (Clark 1955)
introduced the case of a moving inner pipe through a concentric
annulus with BP fluid. Pressure variations caused by inertial
effects, in addition to those arising from viscous drag, were
included in the analysis. Idealized graphs and equations for
December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
predicting surge and swab pressures in laminar- and turbulent-
flow regimes were presented.
Burkhardt (1961) presented a semiempirical method describ-
ing quantitatively and theoretically pressure surges for a BP fluid.
Results showed that pressure surges are usually high when run-
ning closed-end casing or drillpipe in the hole. Predictions agreed
with actual field measurements. Later, an approximate numerical
model (Schuh 1964) for a PL fluid was developed. Both
approaches (Burkhardt 1961, Schuh 1964) considered steady-state
flow condition in concentric annular geometry. Another study
(Fontenot and Clark 1974) presented a comprehensive technique
for determining surge/swab pressure for both BP and PL fluids.
Models presented in previous studies (Melrose et al. 1958; Dodge
and Metzner 1959; Burkhardt 1961; Schuh 1964) were imple-
mented in a computer program to investigate the effects of differ-
ent parameters including mud properties, closed and open-ended
pipe, well geometries, tool joints, drillpipe rubbers, and bit noz-
zles. As reported by Clark and Fontenot (1974), results agreed
with field measurements.
During the last couple of decades, unsteady-state (transient)
models have been developed (Lal 1983; Bing et al. 1995; Yuan and
Chukwu 1996) to determine bottomhole pressure fluctuations
while tripping. These models account for pipe acceleration, which
is a real-life situation in drilling operations. In addition to the tran-
sient flow behavior, a number of studies (Lubinski et al. 1977; Lal
1983; Mitchell 1988) included previously neglected dynamic
effects such as fluid inertia, fluid and wellbore compressibility, and
axial elasticity of moving pipe. The model developed by Mitchell
(1988) has been enhanced to include the effects of temperature-
dependent fluid rheology for water- and oil-based muds with and
without fluid circulation, well deviation, and eccentricity (Samuel
et al. 2003). The model has been extensively validated against field
data (Wagner et al. 1993; Samuel et al. 2003; Rommetveit et al.
2005). A recent numerical study (Hussain and Sharif 1997) indi-
cated the reduction of surge pressure with the increase in eccentric-
ity. For a partially blocked eccentric annulus with cuttings bed, the
surge pressure decreases with the increase in the bed thickness.
Furthermore, borehole pressure-surge studies are often classi-
fied into two categories: approximate and exact methods. Exact
hydraulic analysis of annular flow with axial motion of the inner
pipe has been carried out (Lin and Hsu 1980; Malik and Shenoy
1991; Chukwu and Blick 1989; Haige and Xisheng 1996; Filip
and David 2003) for different pipe/borehole configurations and
fluid rheology models. Lin and Hsu (1980) presented a numerical
procedure for the case of PL fluid in concentric annulus. However,
the procedure is too complex for ready use in drilling applications.
Some minor shortcomings to this approach were indentified (Mac-
sporran 1982) and subsequently corrected (Lin and Hsu 1982).
Another study (Malik and Shenoy 1991) presented an analytical
solution of the steady-state laminar flow of PL fluid in annulus
resulting from the fluid displacement and axial motion of the inner
pipe. The solution was limited to the calculation of the volumetric
flow rate, and no discussion was presented on its application to
obtain surge or swab pressures. Another study (Chukwu and Blick
1989) applied the Couette flow with pressure gradient to establish
a relationship between inner-pipe speed and pressure variation in
the wellbore resulting from the pipe movement. The solution was
presented as a family of curves. Later, Haige and Xisheng (1996)
presented a model that predicts pressure surge in directional wells.
The model considered the axial flow of Robertson-Stiff fluid in
concentric annuli. The equations were solved numerically, and
solutions were presented as a family of curves. More recently, this
approach has been adopted (Filip and David 2003) to include the
effect of the inner cylinder movement on the pressure gradient.
The predictions of the model have shown a satisfactory agreement
with field data (Malik and Shenoy 1991) for PL fluids.
Representation of the annulus as a slot is commonly used to
simplify the mathematical analysis of the annular flow. The slot
model (i.e., approximate model) is valid for diameter ratios
greater than 0.3 (Guillot and Dennis 1988; Chukwu and Blick
1989; Guillot 1990; Bourgoyne et al. 1986; Kelessidis et al.
December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
2007). Newtonian slot flow between two parallel plates, one mov-
ing at a constant velocity while the other is fixed, was carried out
by Schlichting (1955). A complete solution for the case of Ellis
fluid flow was presented by Wadhwa (1966). Another study (Flu-
merfelt et al. 1969) presented both tabular and graphical solutions
for the steady-state laminar flow of PL fluid and developed
dimensionless correlations for general use. After obtaining an an-
alytical solution for PL fluid, Chukwu and Blick (1989) presented
a family of curves to calculate pressure variations in the wellbore.
The YPL model, which is a nonlinear three-parameters consti-
tutive equation, best fits the rheological properties of most of the
drilling fluids and aqueous clay slurries (Fordham et al. 1991;
Hemphill et al. 1993; Merlo et al. 1995; Maglione and Ferrario
1996; Kelessidis et al. 2005; Kelessidis et al. 2007). A semiempir-
ical surge pressure model for a specific YPL fluid in concentric
annulus was presented by Osorio and Steffe (1991). However, to
the best of our knowledge, no general analytical solution has been
reported for YPL fluids.
Theoretical Formulation
The theoretical formulation is aimed to develop a surge/swab pres-
sure model that makes prediction under different flow conditions
in the wellbore including both open and closed pipe cases and lam-
inar and turbulent flow regimes. To simplify the mathematical
modeling and numerical computation, a two-step calculation pro-
cedure is established. In the first step, the procedure neglects pipe
elasticity and fluid compressibility in the surgepressure calcula-
tion. However, the effects of pipe elasticity and fluid compressibil-
ity are included the second step. For the case with open pipe, an
additional iterative numerical scheme is required to determine the
flow rate in the pipe qp from the net displacement flow rate. The
net displacement flow rate qnet is equal to the rate at which the fluid
is being displaced by running the drillpipe into the wellbore minus
the equivalent flow rates resulting from pipe elasticity, and fluid
and formation compressibility. Hence, the net flow is expressed as:
2 2
qnet ¼ ðp=4Þðdpo  dpi ÞVp  qe  qw ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1aÞ
where qe is equivalent flow rates resulting from pipe elasticity and
qw is equivalent flow rate due to wellbore expansion and fluid
compressibility. Then, the flow in the pipe is expressed in terms
of displacement rate:
qp ¼ qnet  qa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1bÞ
The flow rate in the annulus qa is obtained from the hydraulic
model presented in Appendix A. Positive flow-rate values in pipe
and annulus indicate fluid velocity that has the same direction as
the tripping velocity. Combining these equations can relate the
flow rate in the pipe to the flow in the annulus:
2 2
qp ¼ ðp=4Þðdpo  dpi ÞVp  qe  qw  qa : . . . . . . . . . . ð1cÞ
Analysis of Annular Flow
To simplify the mathematical model, the concentric annulus is
represented by an equivalent narrow slot (Fig. 1). The top plate is
moving with an average velocity Vp, and the lower plate is sta-
tionary. The flow is induced by the axial motion of the drillpipe as
it displaces the fluid trapped in the wellbore and deforms it simul-
taneously. The flow is assumed to be purely axial and under
steady-state conditions.
As shown in Fig. 1, the velocity profile in the slot, for YPL
fluid, is expected to have three distinct regions (two sheared
regions and a plug zone). When the pipe moves upward, the fluid
in the plug zone (Region II) and outer sheared regions (Region I
and Region III) flows downward. Some part of the fluid in the
inner sheared region (i.e., Region III, which is close to the moving
wall or the pipe) moves upward with the pipe. The velocity profile
of each region is obtained from the equation of motion. Then, the
flow rate is determined by integrating the velocity profile.
575

Fig. 1—Slot-model representation of a concentric annulus.
Detailed mathematical derivations of the slot model are presented
in Appendix A.
Pipe-Flow Analysis
For an open-ended pipe case, surge-induced flow will be in the
pipe. Even though the pressure gradients in the pipe and annulus
are identical, the flow rate can be significantly different. The
fluid-velocity profile inside the drillpipe caused by axial move-
ment of the drillstring is similar to the velocity profile caused by
pumping fluid down the inner pipe at the same flow rate (Bour-
goyne et al. 1986). However, because of the pipe movement, the
flow boundary conditions are different. Hence, the hydraulic anal-
ysis will be slightly different from that presented in Appendix A.
The pipe-flow calculation provides the wall shear stress needed to
estimate the elasticity effects on the surge pressure.
Numerical Procedure
To develop a surge/swab pressure model that accounts for fluid
and wellbore compressibility and pipe elasticity, the governing
flow equations (pipe- and annular-flow model equations) need to
be coupled with compressibility and elasticity models. In addition,
linearly varying surge pressure makes the numerical procedure dif-
ficult. To simplify the numerical computation, a robust calculation
algorithm has been established. The algorithm starts by assuming
the fluid velocity in the pipe and determining the surge pressure by
use of the pipe-flow model equations, Eq. A-41 or Eq. A-44. To
initialize the iterative calculation procedure, the effects of com-
pressibility and elasticity must be neglected at the beginning.
Afterward, these effects can be included in the calculation as pre-
sented in Eq. 1a. The surge pressure obtained from the pipe is used
to determine the flow rate in the annulus and subsequently the new
value of the flow rate in the pipe with Eq. 1c. The calculation con-
tinues until the flow rate in pipe converges to a fixed value.
Model Validation
A computer code was developed to implement the numerical
algorithm. The performance of the model is compared with the
1,000
Shear Stress (lbf/100 sq. ft)
100
10
BP
PL
YPL
Data
1 6,400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Shear Rate (1/s)
Fig. 2—Rheological measurements and predictions of different
rheology models.
576
Vp
Region III
H
y2
Region II y2 – y1
y1 Region I
existing model and published field data. Although numerous
articles presented field measurements in the past, only a few of
them show full viscometer data, which are required for accurate
determination of the YPL model parameters. Recently, White
et al. (1997) measured surge pressures in a 12,400-ft-deep Gulf of
Mexico well. Annular temperatures and pressures were measured
at three different locations (measuring stations) in the well. More-
over, they presented complete rheology measurements (Fig. 2)
obtained from a high-temperature/high-pressure viscometer. The
YPL rheology parameters (n ¼ 0.78, k ¼ 0.50 lbf-sec0.78/100 ft2,
and s0 ¼ 8.9 lbf/100 ft2) were determined from these measure-
ments and used to predict surge pressure. The results (Fig. 3)
show significant discrepancies between the measurements and the
predictions of existing models. The new-model predictions are
comparable to the measurements. One possible explanation for
the inaccuracy of the existing models is that the BP and PL rheol-
ogy models fail to accurately represent the rheological property of
the fluid for a wide range of shear rate. Especially, discrepancies
are high at low shear rate (Fig. 4). Because the displacement flow
induced by tripping is often low-velocity flow, the shear rate gen-
erated by the flow could possibly be in the low-shear-rate zone in
which BP and PL fluids poorly predicted the surge pressure. For
this particular case, the annular fluid velocity was 0.42 ft/sec that
can generate a Newtonian equivalent wall shear rate (i.e., 12 ua/
(dh–dpo) of 10 sec1. This indicates the occurrence of low-shear-
rate level in the annulus.
In addition to the swab pressure predictions, the model results
show that fluid in the pipe moves approximately with the same
speed as the drillpipe. To further explore this observation, a pa-
rameter study was carried out by varying yield stress, pipe speed,
and inner pipe diameter while maintaining other field-test parame-
ters. Fig. 4 shows mean fluid velocity in the pipe (i.e., relative to
the stationary formation) as a function of yield stress during trip-
ping out of the hole. At low yield stresses, the fluid begins to slip
but still moves upward together with the pipe. The slippage (i.e.,
the relative velocity between the pipe and the fluid in the pipe) is
higher at greater speeds. In addition to fluid rheological proper-
ties, the annular geometry and pipe inner diameter could play a
7,400
Bottomhole Pressure (psi)
7,200
7,000
6,800
Data
6,600 New Model
Schuh Model
Burkhardt Model
30.60 30.65 30.70 30.75 30.80 30.85 30.90 30.95 31.00
Time (hr)
Fig. 3—Comparison of field swab measurements (White et al.
1997) with predictions of different models.
December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
 3.0 3.0
Vp = 1 ft/s
Vp = 2 ft/s

Mean Fluid Velocity (ft/s)

2.5 2.5

Mean Fluid Velocity (ft/s)

Vp = 3 ft/s

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 Vp = 1 ft/s 0.5

Vp = 2 ft/s
Vp = 3 ft/s
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Yield Stress (lbf/100 sq. ft) Inner Pipe Diameter (inch)

Fig. 4—The effect of yield stress on the mean fluid velocity in Fig. 5—The effect of inner pipe diameter on the mean fluid ve-
the pipe. locity in the pipe.

great role in determining the flow behavior of the fluid in the pipe. where q and L are fluid density and length of the pipe, respectively.
To investigate the effect of geometry, the inner diameter of the Vp and H are trip speed and annular clearance, respectively. The rela-
pipe was varied, and the fluid velocity was determined. As the tionship between the friction factor and Reynolds number (Re) is
pipe’s inner diameter increases, the slip velocity between the pipe established methodically to resemble the pipe-flow equation. Hence,
and the fluid increases. However, for pipes with small inner diam- the friction factor f ¼ 16/Re. The expression for Re is given as
eters, such as collars and heavy pipes, the slippage is minimal. In
this case, the surge pressure can be estimated by assuming the 16Re
Re ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
pipe as closed-ended pipe. For the case shown in Fig. 5, the swab 2:83 þ 3:88ð1  e2:62ø Þ
pressure variation is minimal despite a substantial increase the
pipe diameter (Fig. 6). Therefore, a simple closed-ended-pipe where Re* is the modified Re. The yield stress factor ø is a dimen-
model can provide a reasonably accurate prediction of the surge/ sionless parameter, which is >1 for any fluid with yield stress.
swab pressure when a float or collar with small inner diameter is This parameter is defined as
used. "    #
H H TL s0
Simple Correlation for Closed-Ended-Pipe Case ø¼ þ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
dh Vp k
A computer code developed in the previous section is utilized to
generate numerous numerical results to formulate a simple corre- The modified Re is expressed as
lation for the closed-ended-pipe case. The correlation relates the
surge and swab pressures directly to the tripping velocity. qVp2
The correlation also neglects the compressibility and elasticity Re ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
effects because their contributions were found to be minimal dur- gc ½s0 þ kðA þ B=nÞn ðVp =HÞn 
ing the numerical study. Numerical results showed that the com-
pressibility and elasticity effects become considerable if excessive where A and B are geometric parameters that are functions of di-
acceleration (i.e., Kt values <0.01) is used during tripping opera- ameter ratio (K ¼ dp/dn). The consistency index of the fluid is k.
tion. Kt is defined in Appendix A. The yield stress and fluid behavior index are s0 and n, respec-
The new correlation predicts surge or swab pressure conven- tively. All variables with units should be in SI metric units or con-
iently for YPL fluids without requiring an iterative procedure. The sistent field units (i.e., combinations of field units, which make
surge pressure is determined by use of the friction factor as the Reynolds number dimensionless). The unit conversion con-
stant gc ¼ 32.2 lbm  ft/lbf  sec2 is for consistent field units; and it
2q Vp2 f is unity when SI metric units are used. The geometric parameters
DPs ¼ L; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ are determined as
gc H
A ¼ 0:42  e2:92K þ 0:0024  e9:29K . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
16.0
B ¼ 2:12  e1:7K þ 1:85  105  e14:5K : . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
Swab Pressure (psi/1000 ft)

12.0

Correlation Validation
To evaluate the performance of the correlation, first model predic-
8.0
tions for BP and PL fluids were compared with the predictions of
the existing models (Fig. 7). Different annular geometries and
various non-Newtonian fluids with a wide range of rheological
4.0 properties (Table 1) were considered. For the case of PL fluids
Vp = 1 ft/s
Vp = 2 ft/s (Fig. 7a), predictions of the correlation were compared with those
Vp = 3 ft/s of the existing model (Schuh 1964), which has been validated by
0.0 direct comparison with field measurements (Fontenot and Clark
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1974). The correlation predictions show excellent agreement with
Inner Pipe Diameter (inch) the model. Most of the predictions fall within 610% of the numer-
ical values. Also, the performance of the correlation was compared
Fig. 6—The effect of inner pipe diameter on the swab pressure with the semiempirical model developed by Burkhardt (1961),
at different trip speeds. which was validated with field measurements. As presented in

December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 577

 1,000 1,000

Surge Presure New Model (psi)

Swab Presure New Model (psi)

K = (0.5 to 0.75) +10%
K = (0.5 to 0.79)
800 800
–10%

600 600

400 400 Fluid E1 Fluid E2

Fluid A1 Fluid A2 Fluid E3 Fluid E4
Fluid A3 Fluid A4 Fluid E5 Fluid E6
200 Fluid B1 Fluid B2 200 Fluid F1 Fluid F2
Fluid B3 Fluid B4
Fluid F3 Perfect Fit
Fluid P1 Fluid P2
Fluid P3 Fluid P4 -10% +10%
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Surge Pressure Schuh's Model (psi) Swab Pressure Burkhardt Model (psi)
(a) (b)

Fig. 7—Comparison of the new model with the existing models: (a) PL fluids and (b) BP fluids.

Fig. 7b, predictions of the correlation are predominantly between not taken into account in the present study. Pipe eccentricity and
610% error bars, demonstrating excellent agreement with Bur- tool joints can have substantial influence on the surge and swab
khardt’s method for BP fluids. pressures. Eccentricity is expected to reduce these pressures,
To further assess the performance of the correlation, compari- while tool joints enhance the piston effect of the drillstring and
sons were made between predictions and field measurements ob- tend to increase downhole pressure variations resulting from the
tained from a Mississippi well (Clark and Fontenot 1974). Results axial movement of the string. In addition, accurate prediction
(Fig. 8) show good agreement between predicted and measured from the YPL model can be obtained when the model parameters
data. Discrepancies between compared values could be resulting (sy, K, and n) are determined from full six-speed rotational vis-
from other dynamic effects and geometric irregularities that are cometer measurements. The correlation predictions presented in
Fig. 8 are based on two-speed measurements taken at 300 and 600
rev/min. Therefore, the source of the discrepancies could be the
TABLE 1—RHEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF FLUIDS USED
error in the calculation of the model parameters.
IN THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW MODEL
The new correlation shows (Fig. 9) a satisfactory agreement
with surge pressure measurements reported by White et al.
Fluid Type s0, k, lbf-secn/
(1997). During the measurements, a bit sub with a float was in-
and Test Fluid lbf/100 ft2 100 ft2 n
stalled to protect reverse flow in the pipe; hence, the closed-
Power Law ended-pipe correlation predicts well. The figure also shows simi-
A1 0 4.38 0.38 lar predictions of the existing models, comparing their surge pres-
sure measurements with the predictions of the new correlation
A2 0 1.74 0.53
and existing models. The Burkhardt model overpredicts the surge
A3 0 1.74 0.56
pressure, while the Schuh model underpredicts the surge pressure.
A4 0 1.93 0.52 To validate the correlation, controlled laboratory experiments
B1 0 1.37 0.36 were carried out by using a 2  1.32-in. concentric annular test
B2 0 0.52 0.61 section that has a length of 10 ft. The setup has the capability to
B3 0 0.73 0.59 vary the trip speed and accurately measure the surge or swab pres-
B4 0 0.78 0.59 sures. The test section is clamped to a supporting structure as
P1 0 4.72 0.57 shown in Fig. 10. It is vertically aligned to keep the inner pipe in
P2 0 1.44 0.67 concentric configuration by using a 0.25-in. guiding rod, which is
P3 0 0.35 0.80 bolted to a blind flange at the bottom of the test section. The guide
protects the lateral movement of the pipe during the test.
P4 0 1.62 0.50
A variable-speed motor with a controller lifts the inner pipe
Bingham Plastic
at the desired speed (0.0–0.7 ft/sec), with an accuracy of 6 0.01
E1 34 0.20 1.00
E2 10 0.13 1.00
E3 6 0.10 1.00 600
Measured Surge Pressure (psi)

E4 22 0.16 1.00 Fontenot and Clark, 1974 +15%

E5 4 0.09 1.00 500

E6 20 0.05 1.00
400 –15%
F1 62 0.04 1.00
F2 35 0.02 1.00 300
F3 19 0.02 1.00
Yield Power Law 200
C1 19 8.00 0.35
C2 22 2.03 0.53 100
C3 23 2.18 0.52
0
C4 15 3.56 0.44
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
D1 13 2.84 0.43
D2 10 0.71 0.58 Predicted Surge Pressure (psi)
D3 10 0.82 0.52
Fig. 8—Field measurements (Fontenot and Clark 1974) vs. pre-
D4 6 1.54 0.48 dictions of the correlation.

578 December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 7,600
Motor

Bottomhole Pressure (psi)

7,400
Hoisting
Cable
7,200

7,000

6,800 Test Unit

Field Data
New Correlation
6,600
Burkhardt Model
Schuh Model
6,400
9.20 9.25 9.30 9.35 9.40 9.45 9.50
Time (hr)

Fig. 9—Comparison of field measurements (White et al. 1997)

with predictions of different models. Pressure
Transducer

ft/sec. The motor has a pulley with a thin hoisting cable (1.6-mm
steel) to move the pipe upward or downward by switching
the direction of the motor rotation. The experiment begins by fill-
ing the annulus with the test fluid and moving the inner pipe down-
ward at the desired speed while measuring and recording the surge
pressure. Measurements were obtained under steady-state condi-
tions when the surge pressure increases and reaches its maximum
value and then stabilizes (Fig. 11). Every test was repeated three
times. Fig. 12 shows measured surge pressure along with model
predictions. The predicted surge pressures when using the correla-
tion are more accurate than those of the existing models. The test
fluid was highly shear-thinning with rheology (n ¼ 0.52, k ¼ 0.70
lbf-sec0.52/100 ft2, and s0 ¼ 6.74 lbf/100 ft2) that does not fit well
to either the BP or the PL model. As a result, the models show
greater discrepancies, especially in low tripping speeds in which
the low-shear rheology becomes critical. The correlation predicts
the surge pressure accurately regardless of the tripping speed.
Parametric Study With New Correlation
The relationship between pressure surges and pipe velocities
depends on a number of drilling parameters including fluid rheol-
ogy and borehole geometry. After validating the new correlation,
sensitive analysis was carried out to examine the influence of
yield stress and diameter ratio on these pressures under different
conditions. The analysis was performed by considering a set of
field data (White et al. 1997) as the base-case input. Fig. 13
presents predictions of the correlation that concern the effect of
yield stress on pressure surges. As anticipated, at high yield-stress
values, the pressures become high and the influence of pipe veloc-
ity diminishes.
Drainage
Fig. 10—Experimental setup.
The diameter ratio is expected to have a stronger influence on
pressure surges. Predictions shown in Fig. 14 indicate that surge
and swab pressures become higher when the annular clearance
gets smaller. Moreover, at high diameter ratios, these pressures
become more sensitive to the increase in trip velocity and diame-
ter ratio which indicates the severity of the reciprocation of a fully
closed drillstring in wellbores with small annular clearance such
as in the case of casing drilling.
Discussions
Surge and swab pressures are strongly affected by the flow behav-
ior of the drilling fluid. The YPL rheology model describes the
flow properties of most drilling fluids better than other commonly
used models such as PL and BP constitutive equations. Especially,
at low-shear rates (i.e., low trip speeds), the discrepancies between
the predictions of these models would become substantial, and the
use of the YPL model results in relatively accurate calculations. In
addition to fluid flow properties, bottomhole pressure variations
during tripping strongly depend on the borehole geometry,

2.0 0.15
Readings
Average
Unsteady-State 0.12
Surge Pressure (kpa)

1.5 Condition
Surge Pressure (psi/ft)

Steady-State
Condition 0.09

1.0
0.06

Correlation
0.5 0.03 Schuh Model
Burkhardt Model
Data
0.00
0.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
0 20 40 60 80 100
Trip Velocity (ft/s)
Time (s)
Fig. 12—Comparison of laboratory measurements with predic-
Fig. 11—Surge pressure development during the experiments. tions of different models.

December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 579

 1,000 n = 0.73 10,000
Vp = 1.0 ft/sec
k = 0.0057 lbf.secn/ft2
K = 0.42 Vp = 2.0 ft/sec
Surge Pressure (psi) Vp = 3.0 ft/sec

Surge Pressure (psi)

Depth = 12,440 ft
Vp = 4.0 ft/sec
1,000 Vp = 5.0 ft/sec

100

τ0 = 0 lfb/100 ft2
τ0 = 5 lfb/100 ft2 100 n = 0.73
τ0 = 10 lfb/100 ft2 τ0 = 0.0664 lbf/ft2
τ0 = 20 lfb/100 ft2 k = 0.0057 lbf.secn/ft2
K = 0.42
τ0 = 30 lfb/100 ft2
Depth = 12,440 ft
10
1 2 3 4 5 10
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)
Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)
Fig. 13—Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for fluid with differ-
ent yield stresses. Fig. 14—Surge pressure vs. diameter ratio for different tripping
speeds.

particularly the diameter ratio or annular clearance. High diameter k ¼ consistency index
ratios (i.e., low annular clearances) make the pressure variations å ¼ wellbore diameter ratio
sensitive to the change in tripping speed. Besides this, for horizon- L ¼ length of the pipe
tal and inclined wells, the eccentricity of the drillpipe and the Lc ¼ length of cased section of the wellbore
thickness of the cuttings bed need to be considered in the analysis Lst ¼ length of a pipe stand
to optimize the trip speed. Unnecessarily low tripping speeds result n ¼ fluid-behavior index
in excessive nonproductive time and increased drilling cost. N ¼ generalized flow-behavior index
The model presented in this article is based on steady-state qa ¼ flow rate in the annulus
flow assumption; hence, the predictions are valid only when the qe ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by pipe elasticity
tripping speed remains constant. During the unsteady period, tran- qf ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by fluid compressibility
sient models should be used to estimate pressure spikes resulting qnet ¼ net displacement flow rate
from drillstring acceleration. qp ¼ flow rate in the pipe
qw ¼ equivalent flow rate caused by wellbore expansion
Conclusions q~a ¼ dimensionless annular flow rate
Re ¼ Reynolds number for closed-end-pipe case
This article presents a numerical model to calculate steady-state
Re* ¼ modified Reynolds number
surge/swab pressure in the wellbore with YPL fluid. For the closed-
end case, the numerical solutions of the model are presented in the Rea ¼ annular-flow Reynolds number
Rec ¼ critical Reynolds number
form of a dimensionless correlation. The predictions of the correla-
Rep ¼ pipe flow Reynolds number
tion have been analyzed and validated by means of previously
up ¼ mean fluid velocity in the pipe
published theoretical models along with field and laboratory meas-
ua ¼ mean fluid velocity in the annulus
urements. On the basis of our analysis, the following conclusions
v ¼ local fluid velocity
can be made:
v1 ¼ local fluid velocity in Region I
• A new model predicts the surge/swab pressure more accurately
v3 ¼ local fluid velocity in Region III
than the existing models that are developed for PL and BP rhe-
Vp ¼ average-trip velocity of the drillstring
ology models.
Vp;max ¼ maximum trip velocity observed at the surface
• Yield stress, diameter ratio, and pipe velocity have substantial
Vp;min ¼ minimum trip velocity at the bottomhole
effects on surge and swab pressures.
VW ¼ wellbore fluid volume
• For fluids with high-yield stress, the influence of trip speed
diminishes considerably. V~1 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region I
• The model is based on the narrow-slot approximation; there- V~2 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region II
fore, it is expected to give reasonable predictions when the di- V~3 ¼ dimensionless velocity profile in Region III
ameter ratio is >0.4. W ¼ slot width
WW ¼ wellbore fluid volume
x ¼ x-coordinate
Nomenclature x~ ¼ dimensionless x-coordinate
A ¼ geometric parameter y ¼ y-coordinate
Ap ¼ cross-sectional area of the pipe y~ ¼ dimensionless y-coordinate
Api ¼ flow cross-sectional area of the pipe y1 ¼ lower limit of Region II
b ¼ constant y2 ¼ upper limit of Region II
B ¼ geometric parameter y~1 ¼ dimensionless lower boundary limit of Region II
cf ¼ fluid compressibility y~2 ¼ dimensionless upper boundary limit of Region II
dc;i ¼ inner diameter of the casing a ¼ dimensional parameter
dc;o ¼ outer diameter of the casing b ¼ dimensional parameter
dh ¼ hole diameter Drs ¼ change in axial stress in the drillstring
dp;i ¼ inner diameter of the pipe Drt ¼ change in tangential stress in the casing
dp;o ¼ outer diameter of the pipe DLe ¼ change in length of the pipe caused by elasticity
E ¼ modulus of elasticity DPs ¼ surge/swab pressure in the pipe and annulus
f ¼ friction factor DRwc ¼ increase in casing radius caused by expansion
fa ¼ fractional flow in the annulus DRww ¼ increase in wellbore radius caused by expansion
h ¼ arbitrary pipe length measured from the bottom of the DVwc ¼ increase in casing volume caused by expansion
hole DVww ¼ increase in wellbore volume caused by expansion
H ¼ slot thickness DVp ¼ reduction in trip velocity caused by elasticity

580 December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 U ¼ yield stress factor
p1 ¼ dimensionless pressure
p2 ¼ dimensionless plug thickness
q ¼ density of the fluid
s ¼ shear stress
s1 ¼ shear-stress profile in Region I
s3 ¼ shear-stress profile in Region III
sa ¼ average wall shear stress in the annulus
s0 ¼ yield stress
ssi ¼ shear stress acting on the inner wall of the pipe
sso ¼ shear stress acting on the outer wall of the pipe
sW ¼ shear stress acting on the borehole wall
dv
¼ shear rate
dy
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the University of
Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Geological Survey Core and Cuttings
Research Center, and Det norske oljeselskap for their support.
References
Ahmed, R., Enfis, M., Miftah-El-Kheir, H. et al. 2010. The Effect of Drill-
string Rotation on Equivalent Circulation Density: Modeling and
Analysis of Field Measurements. Paper SPE 135587 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy,
19–22 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135587-MS.
Ahmed, R., Miska, S.Z., and Miska, W.Z. 2006. Friction Pressure Loss
Determination of Yield-Power-Law Fluid in Eccentric Annular Lami-
nar Flow. Wiertnictwo Nafta Gaz. 23 (1): 47–53. http://journals.bg.
agh.edu.pl/WIERTNICTWO/2006-01/W_2006_1_01.pdf.
Ahmed, R.M. and Miska, S.Z. 2009. Advanced Drilling and Well Technol-
ogy, ed. B. Aadnoy, I. Cooper, S. Miska, R.F. Mitchell, and M.L.
Payne, Chap. 4.1, 191–220. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Bing, Z., Kaiji, Z., and Qiji, Y. 1995. Equations Help Calculate Surge and
Swab Pressures in Inclined Well. Oil & Gas J. 93: 74–77.
Bourgoyne, A.T., Chenevert, M.E., and Millhein, K.K. 1986. Applied
Drilling Engineering, Vol. 2, 167–171. Richardson, Texas: Textbook
Series, SPE.
Burkhardt, J.A. 1961. Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Move-
ment. J. Pet. Technol. 13: 595–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1546-G.
Cannon, G.E. 1934. Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure Due to Withdrawing
Drill Pipe from the Hole. In API Drilling and Production Practices,
pp. 42–47. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Cardwell Jr, W.T. 1953. Pressure Changes in Drilling Wells Caused by
Pipe Movement. In API Drilling and Production Practices, pp.
97–112. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Chukwu, G.A. and Blick, E.F. 1989. Couette Flow of Non-Newtonian
Power-Law Fluids. In Applied Simulation & Modeling. Anaheim, Cali-
fornia: Acta Press.
Clark Jr., E.H. 1955. Bottom-Hole Pressure Surges While Running Pipe.
Presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Pet.
Mech. Eng. Conf., Los Angeles, CA. AMSE 54-PET-22.
Clark Jr., E.H. 1956. A Graphic View of Pressure Surges and Lost Circula-
tion. In API Drilling and Production Practices, p. 424–438. Washing-
ton, DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Clark, R.K. and Fontenot, J.E. 1974. Field Measurements of the Effects of
Drillstring Velocity, Pump Speed, and Lost Circulation Material on
Downhole Pressures, Paper SPE 4970 presented at the Annual Fall
Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Houston,
Texas, 6–9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4970-MS.
Dodge, D.W. and Metzner, A.B. 1959. Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian
Systems. AIChE J 5 (2): 189–203.
Filip, P. and David, J. 2003. Axial Couette-Poiseuille Flow of Power-Law
Viscoplastic Fluids in Concentric Annuli. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 40 (3–4):
111–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(03)00107-4.
Flumerfelt, R.W., Pierick, M.W., Cooper, S.L. et al. 1969. Generalized
Plane Couette Flow of a Non-Newtonian Fluid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fun-
damen. 8 (2): 354–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i160030a028.
Fontenot, J.E. and Clark, R.K. 1974. An Improved Method for Calculating
Swab and Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures in a Drilling
Well. SPE J 14 (5): 451–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4521-PA.
December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
Fordham, E.J., Bittleston, S.H., and Tehrani, M.A. 1991. Viscoplastic
Flow in Centered Annuli, Pipes and Slots. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 30
(3): 517–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie00051a012.
Goins, W.C., Weichhert, J.P., Burba, J.L. et al. 1951. Down-the-Hole Pressure
Surges and Their Effect on Loss of Circulation. In Drilling and Production
Practices, p. 125–132. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Guillot, D. 1990. Rheology of Well Cementing Slurries. In Well Cement-
ing, ed. E.B. Nelson, p. 4.01–4.37. Houston, Texas: Schlumberger
Educational Services.
Guillot, D. and Dennis, J.D. 1988. Prediction of Laminar and Turbulent
Friction Pressures of Cement Slurries in Pipes and Centered Annuli.
SPE Paper 18377 presented at the European Petroleum Conference,
London, 18–19 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18377-MS.
Haige, W. and Xisheng, L. 1996. Study on Surge Pressure for Yield-Pseu-
doplastic Fluid in a Concentric Annulus. Appl. Math. Mech. 17 (1):
15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00131290.
Hemphill, T., Campos, W., and Pilehvari, A. 1993. Yield-Power-Law
Model More Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology. Oil & Gas J 91 (34):
45–50.
Horn, A.J. 1950. Well Blowouts in California Drilling Operations Causes
and Suggestions for Prevention. In Drilling and Production Practice,
pp. 112–128. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.
Hussain, Q.E. and Sharif, M.A.R. 1997. Viscoplastic Fluid Flow in Irregular
Eccentric Annuli due to Axial Motion of the Inner Pipe. Cdn. J. Chem.
Eng. 75 (6): 1038–1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450750606.
Kelessidis, V.C., Christidis, G., Makri, P. et al. 2007. Gelation of Water-
Bentonite Suspensions at High Temperatures and Rheological Control
with Lignite Addition. Appl Clay Sci 36 (4): 221–231. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2006.09.010.
Kelessidis, V.C., Mihalakis, A., and Tsamantaki, C. 2005. Rheology and
Rheological Parameter Determination of Bentonite-Water and Benton-
ite-Lignite-Water Mixtures at Low and High Temperatures. In Pro-
ceedings of the 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, 10–14
July 2005, Glasgow, Scotland. London, UK: Institution of Chemical
Engineers.
Lal, M. 1983. Surge and Swab Modeling for Dynamic Pressures and Safe
Trip Velocities. SPE Paper 11412 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 20–23 February. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/11412-MS.
Lin, S.H., and Hsu, C.C. 1980. Generalized Couette Flow of a Non-New-
tonian Fluid in Annuli. Ind. Chem. Eng. Fundamen. 19 (4): 421–424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i160076a017.
Lin, S.H., and Hsu, C.C. 1982. Generalized Couette Flow of a Non-
Newtonian Fluid in Annuli. Ind. Chem. Eng. Fundamen. 21 (1): 98–99.
Lubinski, A., Hsu, F.H., and Nolte, K.G. 1977. Transient Pressure Surges
Due to Pipe Movement in an Oil Well. Oil & Gas Sci. Tech. 32 (3):
307–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2516/ogst:1977019.
Macsporran, W.C. 1982. Comments on: Generalized Couette Flow of a
Non-Newtonian Fluid in Annuli. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 21: 98-99.
Maglione, R., and Ferrario, G. 1996. Equations Determine Flow States for
Yield-Pseudoplastic Drilling Fluids. Oil & Gas J. 94: 63–66.
Malik, R. and Shenoy, U.V. 1991. Generalized Annular Couette Flow of a
Power-Law Fluid. Ind & Eng Chem Res 30 (8): 1950–1954. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie00056a043.
Melrose, J.C., Savins, J.G., Foster, W.R. et al. 1958. A Practical Utiliza-
tion of the Theory of Bingham Plastic Flow in Stationary Pipes and
Annuli. Trans AIME 213: 316–324.
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., and Piatti, C. 1995. An Innovative Model for
Drilling Fluid Hydraulics. Paper SPE 29259 presented at Asia Pacific
Oil & Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–22 March. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/29259-MS.
Mitchell, R.F. 1988. Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions. SPE Drill
Eng 3 (3): 325–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16156-PA.
Moore, P.L. 1965. Pressure Surges and Their Effect on Hole Conditions.
Oil & Gas J. 63: 90.
Moore, P.L. 1974. Drilling Practices Manual, p. 241–252. Tulsa, Okla-
homa: Petroleum Publishing Co.
Ormsby, G.S. 1954. Calculation and Control of Mud Pressures in Drilling
and Completion Operations. In Drilling and Production Practice, pp.
44–55. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.
581
Osorio, F.A. and Steffe, J.F. 1991. Evaluating Herschel-Bulkley Fluids dv
with Back Extrusion (Annular Pumping) Technique. Rheol Acta 30 Region I : ¼ 0 at y ¼ y1 ; and v1 ¼ 0 at y ¼ 0; and
dy
(6): 549–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00444373. ð
Rommetveit, R., Bjorkevoll, K.S., Gravdal, J.E. et al. 2005. Ultradeep- dv
Region III : ¼ 0 at y ¼ y2 ; and v3 ¼ Vp at y ¼ H
water Hydraulics and Well-Control Tests with Extensive Instrumenta- dy
tion: Field Tests and Data Analysis. SPE Drill & Compl 20 (4):
251–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84316-PA. The dimensionless velocity profile in Region I is expressed as
Samuel, G.R., Sunthankar, A., McColpin, G. et al. 2003. Field Validation a function of the dimensionless distance from the borehole wall y~.
of Transient Swab-Surge Response with Real-Time Downhole Pres-
sure Data. SPE Drill & Compl 18 (4): 280–283. http://dx.doi.org/ V~1 ð~ y 1  y~Þb  ð~
y Þ ¼ p1 ½ð~ y 1 Þb ; 0  y~  y~1 : . . . . . . . ðA–5Þ
10.2118/85109-PA.
Schlichting, H. and Gersten, K. 1955. Boundary Layer Theory, New York: Similarly, for Region III, the dimensionless velocity profile is
McGraw-Hill, pp. 60–62. given by:
Schuh, F.J. 1964. Computer Makes Surge-Pressure Calculations Useful.
Oil & Gas J 62 (31): 96–104.
y Þ ¼ 1  p1 ½ð1  y~2 Þb  ð~
V3 ð~ y  y~2 Þb ; y~2  y~  1;
Wadhwa, Y.D. 1966. Generalized Couette Flow of an Ellis Fluid. AIChE                    ðA-6Þ
J. 12 (5): 890–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690120511.
Wagner, R.R., Halal, A.S., and Goodman, M.A. 1993. Surge Field Tests where p1 is the dimensionless pressure defined as
Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response. SPE Paper 25771 presented at the
   1
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 23–25 Feb- n H DPs H n
ruary. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25771-MS. p1 ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–7Þ
n þ 1 Vp Lk
White, W.W., Zamora, M., and Svodoba, C.F. 1997. Downhole Measure-
ments of Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluid in an Offshore Well Quantify and b is a constant expressed as
Dynamic Pressure and Temperature Distributions. SPE Drill & Compl
12 (3): 149–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35057-PA. nþ1
b¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–8Þ
Yuan, W. and Chukwu, G.A. 1996. Unsteady Axial Laminar Couette Flow n
of Power-Law Fluids in a Concentric Annulus. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
The dimensionless velocity profiles in Region I and Region III
35: 2039–2047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie950598x.
are defined as
Zhou, D. and Wojtanowicz, A.K. 2002. Analysis of Leak-off Tests in
Shallow Marine Sediments, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 124 (4): v1 v3
231–239.
V~1 ¼ and V~3 ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–9Þ
vp vp

The dimensionless boundary limits of Region II are given by

Appendix A—Model Formulation
y1 y2
Modeling Annular Flow y~1 ¼ and y~2 ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–10Þ
H H
The annular velocity profile (Fig. 1) in the wellbore during trip-
ping operations has three distinct regions: (1) outer sheared region Similarly, dimensionless coordinates x~ and y~ of any point are
(Region I) within the boundary limits 0  y  y1; (2) plug zone expressed as
(Region II) within the boundary limits y1  y  y2; and (3) inner x y
x~ ¼ and y~ ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–11Þ
sheared region (Region III) within the boundary limits y2  y  w H
H. For the sheared Regions I and III, the momentum balance is
expressed as where H and w are the slot clearance and width, respectively. By
Region I: applying momentum balance in Region II, one can obtain the
dimensionless plug thickness:
DPs
s1 ðyÞ ¼  y þ sw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–1Þ 2s0 =H
L p2 ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–12aÞ
DPs =L
Region III: Geometric analysis shows that the dimensionless plug thick-
ness is simply the difference between the dimensionless boundary
DPs DPs
s3 ðyÞ ¼ y y2 þ s0 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–2Þ limits. Hence,
L L
p2 ¼ y~2  y~1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–12bÞ
where s1 and s3 are shear-stress profiles in Regions I and III,
respectively and sw is wall shear stress at the borehole wall. For In the plug zone (Region II), the velocity distribution is uni-
laminar flow of YPL (Herschel–Bulkley) fluids, the local shear- form (i.e., plug velocity is constant) and expressed in a dimen-
stress profiles in Regions I and III are related to the local shear sionless form as
rates with the constitutive equations as
  y Þ ¼ 1  p1 ð1  y~2 Þb ; y~1  y~  y~2 : . . . . . . . . . ðA–13Þ
V~2 ð~
dv1 n
s1 ðyÞ ¼ s0 þ k  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–3Þ
dy The shear rate is negative in Region I and positive in Region III.
At the edges of the plug zone ( y~ ¼ y~1 and y~ ¼ y~20 ), the local-veloc-
and ity equations (Eqs. A-5 and A-6) should give the same value. Thus,
  1
dv3 n ð1  y~1  p2 Þb  ð~
y 1 Þb  ¼ 0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–14Þ
s3 ðyÞ ¼ s0 þ k  ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–4Þ p1
dy
The total annular dimensionless flow rate is the sum of the
respectively. The stress distribution is the function of fluid consis- flow rate in each region; hence,
tency index k, behavior index n, and yield stress s0. By combining !
Eqs. A-1 through Eq. A-4 and applying the following boundary ð 1 ð y~1 ð y~2 ð1
conditions, one can obtain dimensionless velocity distributions q~a ¼ V~1 d~
y þ V~2 d~
y þ V~3 d~ ~ . . . . ðA–15Þ
y dX:
0 0 y~1 y~2
shown in Eq. A-5 and Eq. A-6:

582 December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 The wall shear acting on the outer pipe wall sso can be deter-
DPs
mined from Eq. A-2 as sso ¼ s3 ðHÞ ¼ Hð1  y~2 Þ þ s0 . The
L
inner shear stress is obtained from the pipe flow equation. Hence,
displacement volume reduction caused by the elastic nature of the
pipe is DLe Ap . To account for the elasticity effect, the length and
volume changes must be converted to equivalent velocity and
Vp flow rate, respectively. If one assumes a constant tripping velocity
and steady-state condition at the end of the trip (i.e., when the
tripping pipe stand begins to decelerate), the total time required to
complete the trip (tt) can be estimated as tt ¼ Lst/Vp, where Lst is
the length of a pipe stand. The time needed to reach steady-state
τso τsi dh conditions or the acceleration time (ta) can be difficult to predict,
but field and laboratory results suggest that it is a small fraction of
the total-trip time. Therefore, the total-trip time needs to be cor-
ΔPs rected by a given factor to estimate the acceleration time as
ta ¼ Kttt ¼ KtLst/VP. Published field measurements indicated Kt
Fig. A1—Shear and pressure forces acting on the drillstring. values in the range of 0.05 to 0.1. Then, the equivalent flow rate
caused by elasticity can be estimated as
After substituting Eqs. A-5, A-6, and A-13 into Eq. A-15, the DLe Ap
dimensionless fluid flow rate is expressed as qe ¼ Vp : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA–23Þ
Kt Lst
  
b Similarly, the reduction in trip velocity at the bottom of the pipe
q~a ¼ p1 y~bþ1  ½p1 ð1  y~1  p2 Þb  1
bþ1 1 is determined from the length reduction and acceleration time
  ;
1 DLc
ð1  y~1  p2 Þ þ p1 ð1  p2  y~1 Þbþ1  p1 ð~
y 1 Þb p2 DVp ¼ Vp : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–24Þ
bþ1 Kt Lst
                   ðA-16Þ
Since the change in trip speed varies linearly with wellbore
where the dimensionless annular flow rate is length, the average speed is the arithmetic average of the trip
qa velocities observed at the surface and bottomhole; thus,
q~a ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–17Þ
WHVp Vp;max þ Vp;min DVp
Vp ¼ ¼ Vp;max  ; . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–25Þ
The annular geometry is represented by the slot geometry to 2 2
analyze the flow problem. Slot-geometric parameters W and H are where Vp,max is the trip speed measured at the surface.
converted to annular dimensions dh and dpo as follows:
ðdh  dpo Þ Modeling Fluid and Formation Compressibility Effects. In
H¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA–18Þ addition to the pipe elasticity, the displacement flow rate can be
2
affected by fluid and wellbore compressibility. Typical values of
pðdh þ dpo Þ water, oil, and formation compressibility are 3.0  10–6 1/psi,
W¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA–19Þ
2 5.0  10–6 1/psi, and 0.2  10–6 1/psi, respectively. The volume
reduction caused by fluid compression is estimated from the com-
pressibility equation with average surge pressure:
Modeling Pipe Elasticity Effects. Fig. A-1 shows additional
shear and pressure forces acting on the drillstring that result from cf Vw DPs
the displacement flow. Because of the pipe elasticity, the axial ve- DVf ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–26Þ
2
locity of the pipe varies with depth. The maximum velocity is the
trip speed (Vp,max) measured at the surface, and the minimum where Vw and cf are wellbore fluid volume and compressibility,
(Vp,min) is pipe velocity at the bottom of the hole. During the trip- respectively.
ping operation, the surge pressure developed at the bottom of the Furthermore, the wellbore expands as the surge pressure devel-
pipe, and the shear stress acting on the inner and outer pipe walls ops. The level of expansion varies between the cased and uncased
generates additional axial forces that compress the drillstring. For sections of the wellbore. For the cased section, modeling is more
a drillstring with a cross-sectional area, the stress change resulting complicated because the expansion is affected by the properties of
from these forces is the casing, rock formation, and well cement. Neglecting the effects
of cement and formation, for the cased section, one can estimate
DPs Ap þ pðdpo sso þ dpi ssi Þdh the increase in wellbore radius DRwc as
Drs ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–20Þ
Ap
ðdco þ dci Þ DPs dci ðdco þ dci Þ
DRwc ¼ Drt ¼ ;
where Ap is the cross-sectional area of the pipe. The change in 2E ðdco  dci Þ 2E
drillstring length at any point, resulting from the surge pressure,                    ðA-27Þ
can be obtained by applying Hook’s law:
where Drt is the increase in tangential stress in the casing because
Drs
dL ¼ dh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–21Þ of pressure surge. By considering the expansion ring as a narrow
E slot, one can determine the expansion volume from the perimeter
Combining Eqs. A-20 and A-21 and integrating yields the fol- of the wellbore and length of the cased section (Lc):
lowing expression for the total change in the length of the drill-
DPs ðdco þ dci Þ 2
string that results from the developed surge pressure: DVwc ¼ pd Lc : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–28Þ
  2Eðdco  dci Þ ci
L2 DPs pðdpo sso þ dpi ssi Þ
DLe ¼ þ : . . . . . . . . . . ðA–22Þ The expansion of the uncased section is caused by both elastic
E L 2Ap and plastic wellbore deformations. A recent study (Zhou and

December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 583

Wojtanowicz 2002) indicated that the effect of plastic deforma- qðua þ Vp =2Þ2
tion on wellbore expansion is insignificant. On the basis of the DPs ¼ 2f L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–37Þ
gc ðdh  dp0 Þ
results of theoretical studies and numerical analysis, the following
equation was developed by Zhou and Wojtanowicz (2002) to pre-
dict the wellbore-radius change from a wellbore-pressure increase:
Pipe Flow Analysis
3DPs dh The fluid velocity profile inside the drillpipe caused by axial
DRww ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–29Þ movement of the drillstring is similar to the velocity profile
4Ef
caused by pumping fluid down the inner pipe at the same flow
rate (Bourgoyne et al. 1986). However, because of the pipe move-
where Ef is Young’s modulus of the formation. The uncased well- ment, the flow boundary conditions are different. To calculate the
bore-volume increase is then determined from the radius change: surge pressure in the pipe, the ordinary pipe flow equation for
YPL fluids (Ahmed and Miska 2009) needs to be modified by
3DPs 2
DLww ¼ pdh ðMd  Lc Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–30Þ expressing the mean fluid velocity relative to the pipe wall. There-
4E fore, for YPL fluid, the relationship between the wall shear stress
and trip velocity under laminar- flow conditions is expressed as
Adding the volumes calculated from Eqs. A-26, A-28, and
A-30 can determine the total wellbore expansion volume. Then,  
8ðup þ Vp Þ ðssi  s0 Þð1þ1=nÞ 4n
the expansion volume is converted to an equivalent flow rate by ¼
the use of the acceleration time: D k1=n s3si 3n þ 1
 2

 2 2n 2n 2
DPs ðdco þ dci Þ 2 3DPs 2 ssi þ s0 ssi þ s :         ðA-38Þ
qw ¼ pd Lc þ pdh ðMd  Lc Þ 2n þ 1 ðnþ1Þð2nþ1Þ 0
2Eðdco  dci Þ ci 4Ef
 The mean fluid velocity in the pipe up is determined from the
cf Vw DPs Vp
þ :                  ðA-31Þ fraction flow and net flow rate as
2 Kt Lst
qp
up ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–39Þ
Api
Flow Regime in the Annulus. The annular surge pressure model Eq. A-38 requires an iterative calculation procedure to obtain
developed in the preceding is based on laminar-flow condition in the wall shear stress. This can be avoided by use of the following
the annulus; therefore, it is essential to verify this assumption. approximate solution:
The generalized Re for YPL fluid in annular geometry (Ahmed    
and Miska 2009) can be adopted for surge-induced flow by the 0:302 n 8ðup þ Vp Þ n
ssi ¼ s0 þ k 0:693 þ : . . . . . ðA–40Þ
use of the effective annular velocity (Bourgoyne et al. 1986): n dpi

8qðua þ Vp =2Þ2 By applying the momentum balance, one can relate the surge
Rea ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–32Þ pressure under laminar- flow condition to the wall shear stress:
gc sa
4ssi
The mean annular fluid velocity relative to the formation is DPs ¼ L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–41Þ
dpi
calculated as ua ¼ qa/Aa. The average annular wall shear stress sa
is calculated by adopting the annular flow equation with the effec-
tive mean annular velocity:
Flow Regime in the Pipe. The generalized Re for the flow of
nþ1    YPL fluid in a pipe (Ahmed and Miska 2009) can be adopted for
12ðua þ Vp =2Þ ðsa  so Þ n 3n n surge-induced flow with the relative velocity of the fluid:
¼ sa þ s0 :
dh  dpo k1=n s2a 1 þ 2n nþ1
8qðup þ Vp Þ2
                   ðA-33Þ Rep ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–42Þ
gc ssi
Eq. A-33 requires iterative procedure to obtain the wall shear
stress. The following approximate equation can be used to deter- The critical Re for pipe flow is estimated by use of Eq. A-35.
mine wall shear stress from the mean annular velocity: The value of N should be calculated from the wall shear stress
with the constitutive equation:
 n  
9:326  5:325å 2ðua þ Vp =2Þ n 1 ssi  s0 1=n dp;i
sa ¼ s0 þ k ; ¼  3: . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–43Þ
n0:8 dh  dpo N k 2ðup þ vp Þ
                   ðA-34Þ
For turbulent flow (Rep > Rec), the surge pressure is obtained
where å is the wellbore diameter ratio, å ¼ dpo/dh. The critical from the Fanning friction factor:
Re for pipe and annular flows can be estimated from the general-
ized flow behavior index N as qðup þ Vp Þ2
DPs ¼ 2f L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ðA–44Þ
gc dp;i
Rec ¼ 3; 470  1; 370N: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–35Þ

The value of N in the annulus can be obtained from the wall
shear stress by use of the constitutive equation:
1 sa  s0 1=n dh  dpo
¼  2: . . . . . . . . . . . ðA–36Þ
N k 4ðua þ Vp =2Þ
For turbulent flow (Rep > Rec), the surge pressure should be
estimated from the Fanning friction factor (Dodge and Metzner
1959) with the use of Rea and N, which are determined from Eqs.
A-32 and A-36:
Freddy Crespo is an applications engineer for the Research
and Development Group at the Halliburton Technology Cen-
ter in Houston. His main areas of interest include laboratory
characterization and field implementation of conformance
gel systems and hydraulic fracturing fluids. Crespo holds a BS
degree in petroleum engineering from Universidad Industrial
de Santander and an MS degree in petroleum engineering
from the University of Oklahoma.
Ramadan Ahmed is an assistant professor of petroleum engi-
neering at the University of Oklahoma, where he teaches

584 December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

drilling engineering and related courses. Previously, Ahmed
worked for 5 years as a senior research associate and adjunct
professor at the University of Tulsa. He holds a BSc degree in
chemical engineering; and he earned MSc and PhD degrees
in petroleum engineering from the Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology. Ahmed worked for more than 7 years
in the industry. He conducts research in the areas of drilling flu-
ids, wellbore hydraulics, hole cleaning, downhole measure-
ments, and corrosion of cement and tubulars. Ahmed’s
experiences with wellbore-hydraulics- and cuttings-transport-
related research projects include studies on underbalanced
and managed-pressure drilling. He has authored or coau-
thored more than 50 research and technical articles and has
given presentations at national and international conferences.
Majed Enfis is a graduate student at the University of Okla-
homa. He is working toward his PhD degree in petroleum engi-
neering. Currently, he is investigating degradation behavior of
well cement exposed to harsh wellbore conditions containing
sour gases. Majed earned an MS degree in petroleum engi-
neering at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests
include wellbore hydraulics and well cementing.
Arild Saasen works as an advisor in Det norske oljeselskap and
holds a position as adjunct professor at the department of pe-
troleum engineering at the University of Stavanger. He has pre-
viously worked as specialist in fluid technology with Statoil.
Saasen holds a degree in fluid mechanics from the University
December 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
of Oslo, Norway, and a PhD degree in rheology from the Tech-
nical University of Denmark, Lyngby.
Mahmood Amani is an associate professor in the Petroleum
Engineering Program of Texas A&M University at Qatar. He
holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from Wichita
State University, an MS degree in natural gas engineering from
Texas A&M University-Kingsville, and a PhD degree in petro-
leum engineering from Texas A&M University. Amani has broad
experience in both academia and the industry. After com-
pleting his PhD degree, he worked for a few years in the Explo-
ration and Production Technology Department of Texaco in
Houston, before moving back into academia. Amani joined
the faculty of the Petroleum Engineering Department of Texas
A&M University in 2003. He was sent to Qatar in 2005 to start
the new Petroleum Engineering Program of Texas A&M Univer-
sity in the Middle East. Amani was the founding faculty mem-
ber and the first Coordinator of the Petroleum Engineering
Program of Texas A&M University in Qatar. He considers this as
one of his most important achievements: He had the honor of
starting a new petroleum engineering program from scratch,
and now it has become a fully functional department that, up
to now, has graduated five classes of petroleum engineers.
Amani is active in teaching, research, and teaching industry
short courses. He has published numerous articles in various
journals and conference proceedings, and he holds two US
patents.
585