Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A simplified surge and swab pressure model for yield power law fluids
Freddy Crespo 1, Ramadan Ahmed n
Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, OK, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Surge and swab pressures can be generated in different stages of well construction including tripping
Received 15 January 2012 operations and reciprocation of drillstring in the wellbore. Significant surge and swab pressures can
Accepted 28 October 2012 lead to a number of costly drilling problems such as lost circulation, formation fracture, fluid influx,
Available online 10 November 2012
kicks, and blowouts. This phenomenon is of economic importance for the oil industry.
Keywords: Theoretical and field studies indicate that pressure surges strongly depend on drillpipe tripping
Surge and swab pressures speeds, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology, and whether the pipe is open or closed.
Drilling Although a large number of studies were conducted in the past to investigate surge and swab pressures,
Tripping experiments under controlled laboratory conditions have never been reported. This paper presents
Fluid displacement
results of an experimental study aimed at investigating the effects of pipe speed (i.e., tripping speed),
Well-bore hydraulics
fluid properties and borehole geometry on surge and swab pressures under laboratory conditions.
Other phenomena such as fluid gelling and pipe eccentricity effects were also examined. Experiments
were performed in a test setup that has the capability of varying the tripping speed and accurately
measure the surge or swab pressures. The setup consists of fully transparent polycarbonate tubing and
inner steel pipe, which moves axially using a speed-controlled hoisting system. Experiments were
conducted using mineral oil and polymeric fluids.
A new regression model has been developed to calculate surge and swab pressures under steady-
state flow conditions. The model is based on the results of approximate numerical solutions obtained
by considering the annulus as a narrow slot. Model predictions were compared with experimental
measurements and predictions of existing models. A satisfactory agreement has been obtained.
Experimental results and model predictions confirm that the trip speed, fluid rheology, annular
clearance and pipe eccentricity significantly affect the surge and swab pressures.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, surge and swab pressure modeling has received
increased attention as deepwater drilling and new technologies
such as slim-hole and casing drilling techniques have emerged in
the industry. As thousands of wells are drilled every year applying
these new techniques, challenges associated with downhole pres-
sure management have become more important. Surge and swab
pressures are usually generated during many phases of well
construction such as tripping, running casing and cementing opera-
tions. Surge pressure becomes more problematic when excessive
tripping speeds and narrow and constricted annular clearance
situations are involved in wells. This condition is more exacerbated
by the fact that most of deepwater wells have very narrow margin
between pore and fracture pressure gradients.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 405 325 0745; fax: þ1 405 325 7477.
E-mail address: r.ahmed@ou.edu (R. Ahmed).
1
Now with Halliburton Energy Services
A number of field studies (Clark, 1956; Moore, 1965; Clark and
Fontenot, 1974; Lal, 1983; Wagner et al., 1993) were undertaken to
investigate the effects of fluid properties and wellbore geometry on
surge and swab pressures. These studies demonstrated that surge
and swab pressures increase with tripping speed and wellbore depth.
In addition, it was reported that surge and swab pressures with
closed-ended pipe are higher than those with open-ended pipe. More
recent studies (Bing et al., 1995; White et al., 1997; Ward and
Andreassen, 1998; Rudolf and Suryanarayana, 1998; Isambourg et al.,
1999; Samuel et al., 2003; Rommetveit et al., 2005) using highly
accurate downhole tools re-affirmed the strong impact of tripping
speeds, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology on the surge
and swab pressures.
Downhole pressure-recording tools are limited by temperature
and capacity to transmit data while making connections. The drilling
industry greatly relies on surge/swab models and simulators. Com-
monly used steady-state models have been developed by Burkhardt
(1961), Schuh (1964), and Fontenot and Clark (1974).
Hydraulic analysis of concentric annular flow with axial motion
of the inner pipe is used to model surge and swab pressures (Lin and
Hsu, 1980; Chukwu and Blick, 1989; Malik and Shenoy, 1991;

0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.10.001
 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20 13

Nomenclature e
x Dimensionless x-coordinate
y y-coordinate
A Geometric parameter e
y Dimensionless y-coordinate
b Constant y1 Lower limit of Region II
B Geometric parameter y2 Upper limit of Region II
dh Hole/casing diameter e1
y Dimensionless lower boundary limit of Region II
dpo Pipe outer diameter e2
y Dimensionless upper boundary limit of Region II
dR Diameter of the guiding rod
f Friction factor Greek Letters
H Slot thickness
k Consistency index p1 Dimensionless pressure
K Diameter ratio p2 Dimensionless plug thickness
L Pipe length in the wellbore r Fluid density
n Fluid behavior index t1 Shear stress profile in Region I
qa Flow rate in the annulus t3 Shear stress profile in Region III
ea
q Dimensionless annular flow rate tw Shear stress acting on the borehole wall
Re Generalized Reynolds number t0 Yield stress
Ren Modified Reynolds number DPS Surge or swab pressure
v Local fluid velocity dv/dy Shear rate
v1 Local fluid velocity in Region I
v3 Local fluid velocity in Region III Acronyms
e1
V Dimensionless velocity profile in Region I
e2
V Dimensionless velocity profile in Region II
e3 PAC Polyanionic cellulose
V Dimensionless velocity profile in Region III
XG Xanthan gum
Vp Pipe velocity (tripping speed)
YPL Yield power law
W Slot width
YS Yield stress
x x-coordinate

Haige and Xisheng, 1996; Filip and David, 2003). In order to obtain a
simple analytical solution, a number of previous studies (Schlichting,
1955; Wadhwa, 1966; Flumerfelt et al., 1969; Chukwu and Blick,
1989) applied the narrow slot method. This method approximates
the annular flow as a slot flow between two parallel plates, one
stationary and the other moving at a constant speed.
Although a large number of field and modeling studies were
conducted in the past to investigate surge and swab pressures,
experiments under controlled laboratory conditions have never been
reported. In addition, surge and swab pressure models have been
limited to Newtonian, power law and Bingham plastic fluids. Often
the yield-power-law (Herschel–Bulkley) model best fits the rheolo-
gical properties of most of drilling fluids and aqueous clay slurries
(Fordham et al., 1991; Hemphil et al., 1993; Merlo et al., 1995;
Maglione and Ferrario, 1996; Kelessidis et al., 2005, 2007). This paper
presents a new model, which is applicable for yield-power-law fluid.
The performance of model has been rigorously tested by direct
comparison with experimental data and other existing models.
2. Modeling
applying the narrow-slot approximation technique. As reported by a
number of studies (Guillot and Dennis, 1988; Chukwu and Blick,
1989; Guillot, 1990; Kelessidis et al., 2007; Bourgoyne et al., 1986),
this approach is valid for diameter ratios greater than 0.3.
Based on the narrow-slot approach, a theoretical surge pressure
model presented in Appendix A has been formulated for yield power
law fluids. The model is developed assuming: (i) incompressible
fluid; (ii) laminar, steady state and isothermal flow conditions; (iii)
constant pipe velocity; (iv) close-ended drill pipe; (v) no-slip
conditions at the walls; and (vi) concentric annulus. The theoretical
model requires cumbersome numerical procedure to obtain the
solution. To develop a simple correlation, extensive parametric
study was carried out using the model. Numerical solutions were
obtained varying different fluid and geometric parameters. Subse-
quently, a simple regression model (correlation) has been developed
by analysis the numerical results. The correlation predicts surge or
swab pressure conveniently for yield-power-law fluids without
requiring an iterative procedure. Predictions can be made for New-
tonian (t0 ¼0; n¼1), Power-law (t0 ¼ 0) and Bingham plastic (n¼1)
fluids as well. Accordingly, the surge or swab pressure (DPS) is
determined using friction factor as:

The annular fluid flow induced by axial motion of the inner pipe DPS 2rV 2p f
¼ ð1Þ
can be mathematically modeled to predict surge and swab pressures L H

Fig. 1. Representation of a concentric annulus as a slot.

14 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20
where r and L are fluid density and pipe length in the wellbore. As
shown in Fig. 1, Vp and H are trip speed and annular clearance,
respectively. The relationship between the friction factor and
generalized Reynolds number is established methodically to resem-
ble the pipe flow equation. Hence, the friction factor is expressed
as: f¼16/Re. The expression for generalized Reynolds number is
given as:
16Ren
Re ¼  
2:83 þ 3:88 1e2:62F
where Ren is the modified Reynolds number. The yield stress factor,
F is a dimensionless parameter, which is greater than one for any
fluid that exhibits yield stress. This parameter is defined as:
  n 
H H t0
F¼ þ1
dh Vp k
The modified Reynolds is expressed as:
n
rV 2p
Re ¼  n  n
t0 þk A þB=n Vp
where A and B are geometric parameters that depend on the
diameter ratio ðK ¼ dpo =dh Þ. The yield stress, consistency index
and fluid behavior index are denoted by t0, k and n, respectively.
The geometric parameters are determined as:
A ¼ 0:42  e2:82K þ 0:0024  e9:29K
B ¼ 2:12  e1:7K þ 1:85  105  e14:5K
3. Experimental study
The laboratory investigation is aimed at studying experimen-
tally the effects of fluid properties and drilling parameters on
surge and swab pressures under controlled conditions. Extensive
laboratory investigation was conducted using Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids. All experiments were carried out under
ambient pressure and temperature conditions.
3.1. Experimental setup
A new experimental setup has been developed and used during
the investigation. It has the capability to vary the tripping speed and
accurately measure the surge or swab pressures. A schematic of the
setup is shown in Fig. 2. The setup consists of: (i) vertical test section;
(ii) guiding rod; (iii) variable speed motor; (iv) pressure transducer;
(v) data acquisition system; and (vi) fluid mixing and collection tanks.
A 3-m vertical test section is formed by a fully transparent poly-
carbonate tubing (50.8 mm ID) acting as the casing or borehole, and
inner steel pipe (33.5 mm OD) representing the drillstring. The test
section is clamped to a supporting structure. The polycarbonate
tubing is vertically aligned to keep the inner pipe in concentric
configuration using a guiding rod (6.4 mm OD) at the bottom and a
cable guide at the top. A blind flange and drain valve are installed at
the bottom of the test section. The guiding rod is bolted at the center
of the flange. The bottom of the pipe was plugged and a 6.8-mm hole
was made for the guide rod. The guiding rod is rigid enough to protect
the lateral movement of the pipe during the test. A variable speed
motor with a speed controller lifts the inner pipe at the desired speed
(0.0 to 0.3 m/s), with accuracy of 70.006 m/s. The motor has a pulley
with a 1.6-mm steel hosting cable to move the pipe upward or
downward by switching the direction of the motor rotation. The test
setup allows a maximum stroke of 1.2 m.
The setup is furnished with the necessary instrumentation.
A pressure differential transducer, with maximum reading of
70 kPa and accuracy of 735 Pa is connected to the test section
Motor
Polymer Water
Cable Guide
Motor
Controller
Mixing Tank
ð2Þ
Pressure
Transducer
ð3Þ Transparent
Polycarbonate ΔP
Tube
30 cm
Drillpipe
ð4Þ
Guiding Rod
ð5Þ
ð6Þ
Collector Tank Computer
Fig. 2. Schematic of the experimental setup.
to measure the surge pressure developed between the pressure
tapings separated by a vertical distance of 30 cm as shown in
Fig. 2. A data acquisition (DAQ) system consists of a personal
computer and DAQ card records test parameters while controlling
the pipe speed. Measurements are displayed and recorded as a
function of time using DAQ software. During the test, first the
tripping speed is set in the program, then, the controller switch is
used to start the motor. As the motor turns, the pipe moves
downward while the pressure transducer readings (i.e., pressure
drop across the annulus) are being recorded by the program at the
rate of 5 samples per second.
3.2. Test procedure
During the investigation, first preliminary tests were conducted
to develop an experientially procedure for accurately measuring
surge pressure. After establishing reliable and accurate method, the
main experiments were carried out. All tests were performed using
the same method that consists of the following steps:
Step 1 fluid preparation: Each experiment begins by preparing the
test fluid with the desirable polymer concentrations. First,
powder polymer and water were mixed in a tank. Adequate
time was allowed for the mixture to fully hydrate.
Step 2 fluid transfer: Fully hydrated homogenous test fluid was
transferred to the test section. The fluid was carefully
poured into the test section to minimize the formation of
air bubbles. The fluid was left for 15 min in the cylinder
while moving the inner pipe very slowly to allow any air
bubbles to escape.
Step 3 rheology measurement: The rheology of fluid sample taken
from the test section was measured using a rotational
viscometer (Fann model 35).
Step 4 surge pressure test: The inner pipe was positioned to the
maximum stroke level by moving the pipe bottom 1.2 m
 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20 15

100
PAC 1.00% PAC 0.75% PAC 0.56% Mix PAC 0.28% + Xantan Gum 0.44% b Xantan Gum 1.00%
Xantan Gum 0.67%

a 120 Xantan Gum 0.44%

100

Shear Stress (Pa)

Shear Stress (Pa)

80
10

60

40

20

0 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1 10 100 1000
Shear Rate (1/s) Shear Rate (1/s)

Fig. 3. Rheology of polymeric fluids: (a) PAC and (b) XG.

away from the blind flange. The movement creates Table 1

pressure fluctuations. As a result, the pipe was held under Rheology of test fluids.
static condition until the pressure reading stabilizes.
Test fluids Fluid Temperature Rheology parameters
Subsequently, the pipe was moved downward at different model (1C)
speed while recording the surge pressure. s0 K n
(Pa sn/ (Pa sn)
m2)

3.3. Test materials Heavy mineral oil Newtonian 19 0.000 0.204 1.00
Light mineral oil Newtonian 20 0.000 0.024 1.00
Experiments were performed using Newtonian fluids (high and 1.00% PAC Power law 20 0.000 2.260 0.57
low viscosity mineral oils) and non-Newtonian polymeric fluids, 0.75% PAC Power-law 20 0.000 0.670 0.67
0.56% PAC Power-law 20 0.000 0.170 0.80
which are aqueous suspensions of polyanionic cellulose (PAC) and 0.28% PACþ 0.22% Power-law 20 0.000 0.774 0.50
xanthan gum (XG). Fig. 3 presents flow behavior of the polymeric xanthan gum
fluids. Rheological parameters of all the test fluids are presented in 1.0% xanthan gum YPL 20 18.6 0.767 0.50
Table 1. Polymer based fluids show considerable shear thinning. 0.67% xanthan gum YPL 20 7.80 0.553 0.50
0.44% xanthan gum YPL 20 3.44 0.359 0.52
Three different concentrations of PAC (1.00%, 0.75% and 0.56% by
weight) and xanthan gum fluids (1.00%, 0.67% and 0.44% by weight)
were tested. In addition, a polymer mix of 0.28% PAC and 0.22% XG
by weight was considered in the study. The solid lines in Fig. 3a which is represented by the straight line (f¼16/Re). The strong
represent power-law model rheology curves obtained using the agreement between the regression model line and experimental
fluid rheological parameters ‘‘n’’ and ‘‘K’’ calculated from viscometric data points verify the accuracy of the model. In addition, the
measurements. agreement indicates that the prevalence of laminar flow condi-
tions during the experiments. Because turbulent flow data points
3.4. Data processing are expected to deviate from the regression model (i.e., laminar
flow) line as regularly observed during the onset of turbulent in
Fig. 4 shows measured surge pressure as a function of time when pipe flow or annular flows.
the pipe moved downward. As the pipe begins to move downward, For horizontal and inclined wells, eccentricity of the drillpipe
first the fluid particles accelerate and the pressure loss abruptly and thickness of the cuttings bed need to be considered in the
increases with time for a short period. Then, the pressure stabilizes analysis to optimize the trip speed. Eccentricity has been recog-
becoming approximately constant. Average pressure reading under nized to have significant effect on annular pressure losses (Singh
steady state condition was determined for each tripping speed. High and Samuel, 2009; Sorgun and Ozbayoglu, 2010). During the
speed experiments require a longer stroke length to reach steady experimental investigation, it was observed that when the inner
state flow conditions. As a result, the maximum trip speed during pipe was eccentric, surge pressures measurements were reduced
the investigation was limited to 0.21 m/s. For tripping speed ranging as much as 42% percent compared with a fully concentric test
from 0.03 m/s to 0.21 m/s, stabilized steady-state pressure reading (Fig. 6). Adequate modeling of eccentricity effects on the surge
were obtained (Fig. 4a). Stead state condition needs enough time to and swab pressures enable higher trip speed, which can reduce
establish. When the trip speed increases a constant stroke length, non-productive time and drilling cost.
the trip time reduces. As a result, at high tripping speeds (i.e., greater The effect of gelling (static time) on surge pressure were also
than 0.21 m/s), it was not possible to reach the state flow conditions examined. The 1.0% XG based fluid exhibited very high yield
(Fig. 4b). stress. This fluid was chosen for the gelling investigation. Two
identical tests were conducted at 0.015 m/s trip speed after
3.5. Experimental results allowing the fluid to stay under quiescent condition for different
time durations (15 s and 6 min). Approximately same surge
Experimentally measurements obtained from all the tests are pressure values were measured in both cases (Fig. 7) indicating
presented in Fig. 5 as the friction versus generalized Reynolds minimal gelling effect on surge pressure with XG based fluids. In
number. Results are highly correlated with the regression model, general, a highly gelled drilling fluid can create significant swab
16 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20

2.0 2.5
Readings Readings
Average Average
2.0
1.5 Unsteady-State
Surge Pressure (kPa)

Surge Pressure (kPa)

Condition
Steady- State
Condition
1.5

1.0

1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 4. Measured surge pressure vs. time: (a) 1% PAC (k¼2.26 Pa sn and n¼ 0.57) and VP ¼ 0.061 m/s and (b) Mineral Oil (m ¼204 cp) and VP ¼ 0.21 m/s.

100.00 7.0
Test After 15 s
6.0

Surge Pressure (kPa)

10.00 5.0 Test After 6 min
Friction Factor (f )

4.0
1.00 Light Mineral Oil
Mineral Oil 3.0
1.0% PAC
0.75% PAC
0.56% PAC
2.0
0.10 Mix 0.56% PAC + 0.44% XG
1.0% Xantan Gum 1.0
0.64% Xantan Gum Yield Stress Effect
0.22 Xantan Gum
f = 16 / Re 0.0
0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
Generalized Reynolds Number (Re)
Fig. 7. Effect of static time on surge pressure measurements (1.0% Xanthan Gum,
Fig. 5. Friction factor vs. generalized Reynolds number. t0 ¼ 18.6 Pa, k¼0.767 Pa sn, n¼ 0.5, VP ¼ 0.015 m/s).

2.0
the testing of fluids without yield stress. Due to the yield stress,
Concentric Annulus after the pipe movement, the XG based fluids showed pressure
1.5 difference even under static condition.
Surge Pressure (kPa)

1.0 4. Model validation

Eccentric Annulus

The new model presented in Section 2 is valid for close-ended

0.5
0.0
0 20
Fig. 6. Measured surge pressures at different annular eccentricities (1.0% PAC,
k¼ 2.26 Pa sn, n¼ 0.57, VP ¼0.06 m/s).
and surge pressures even if pipe movement is maintained low
(Ward and Beique, 2000). This situation is commonly observed
during operations were pressure peaks are observed due to the
energy required to break the gel structure once it has been formed
(Bjørkevoll et al., 2003; Zoellner et al., 2011). Therefore, rheolo-
gical properties of the fluid must be monitored during drilling
operation to avoid excessive surge and swab pressures. It was also
observed that when the pipe was brought to rest the surge
pressure reading did not come down to zero as shown during
pipe case. This means that fluid displacement rate is estimated as:
2
q ¼ 0:25pdp V p . The presence of the guiding rod reduces this rate
2
by 0:25p dR V p ,
which is approximately 3.6%. Hence, model pre-
40 60 80 100 dictions were slightly adjusted using the theoretical model to
Time (s) account for the presence of the guide rod. For highly shear
thinning fluids, the rod effect is negligible (less than 1% difference
in the predicted surge pressure).
In order to validate the model for Newtonian fluids, test
measurements obtained from mineral oil experiments are compared
(Fig. 8) with predictions. Measurements show a satisfactory agree-
ment with model predictions. Discrepancies slightly increase as the
trip speed increases. Beside this, predictions of the new model are in
agreement with those of the theoretical and existing models.
Flow behavior of PAC containing test fluids best fit the power
law rheology model. The performance of the regression with
power-law fluids is validated (Figs. 9 and 10) using experimental
obtained from PAC based fluids. Model predictions are in agree-
ment with measurements. Also, model performance is compared
 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20 17

8 1.00
Measurements
Measurements

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

Regression Model
Theoretical Model Regression Model
Bourgoyne et al, 1986 Theoretical Model
6 0.75 Bourgoyne et al, 1986

4 0.50

2 0.25

0 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Pipe Velocity (m/s) Pipe Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 8. Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed: (a) high-viscosity mineral oil (m ¼204 cp); and (b) low-viscosity mineral oil (m ¼24 cp).

12 8.0

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

6.0
8

4.0

Measurements 2.0 Measurements

Regression Model Regression Model
Theoretical Model Theoretical Model
Schuh, 1964 Schuh, 1964
0 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24
Pipe Velocity (m/s) Pipe Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 9. Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed: (a) 1.0% PAC (k¼ 2.26 Pa s , n¼ 0.57) and (b) 0.75% PAC (k¼0.670 Pa sn, n ¼0.67). n

3 lowest yield stress (0.44% xanthan gum suspension), a satisfactory

Measurements
agreement between measurements and predictions has been
Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

Regression Model
Theoretical Model observed (Fig. 11a). However, for fluids with higher yield stresses
Schuh, 1964
(1.00% and 0.67% xanthan gum suspensions) predictions are slightly
2 higher (10% to 13%) than measurements (Fig. 11b). One possible
explanation for the discrepancies could be overestimation of the
yield stress resulting from the regression technique that uses very
limited data points at very low shear rates. More accurate visco-
1 metric data is necessary to reduce these discrepancies.

0
0.00
Fig. 10. Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed for polymer mix (0.28% PAC and
0.22% XG, k¼0.774 Pa sn, n¼ 0.5).
with the theoretical model and existing surge calculation techni-
que developed for power law fluids (Schuh, 1964). Discrepancies
between model predictions are minimal.
To evaluate the performance the new model with YPL fluids,
experimental measurements obtained using XG based fluids are
compared with model predictions (Fig. 11). For test fluid with the
5. Parametric study
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
The relationship between surge pressure and pipe velocities
Pipe Velocity (m/s)
depends on a number of drilling parameters including fluid rheology
and borehole geometry. Using the new correlation, the sensitivity of
the surge pressure to the variations of fluid yield stress and diameter
ratio has been investigated. Base case input parameters for this
analysis were: n¼0.5, k¼0.6 Pa sn, t0 ¼9 Pa, r ¼1000 kg/m3, dP ¼
0.127 m, and dh ¼0.272 m. Fig. 12 presents predictions of the new
model showing the effect of yield stress on the surge pressure at
different pipe speeds. As anticipated, at high yield stress values, the
surge pressure becomes less sensitive to the increase in pipe velocity
as the fluid becomes more shear thinning.
18 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20

3 5

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

4

2
3

2
1

Measurements Measurements
1
Regression Model Regression Model
Theoretical Model Theoretical Model
0 0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Pipe Velocity (m/s) Pipe Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 11. Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed: (a) 0.44% XG (t0 ¼3.44 Pa, k¼ 0.359 Pa sn, n¼ 0.52) and (b) 0.67% XG (t0 ¼ 7.8 Pa, k¼ 0.553 Pa sn, n ¼0.5).

1.00 (i.e., varying pipe diameter while maintaining a constant hole

diameter) at different pipe speeds. The results show the severity
of reciprocation of a fully closed drillstring in wellbores with small
Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)

annular clearance such as in the case of casing drilling. The surge

pressure becomes more severe when the annular clearance gets
smaller. The substantial increase in surge pressure occurs because
for a close-ended pipe, the increase in the pipe diameter has dual
0.10 effects on the flow. First, it increases the volume of mud displaced
by the pipe per unit time (displacement flow rate); hence, the surge
pressure increases due to the increase in flow rate. Simultaneously,
it reduces the annular clearance resulting in increased hydraulic
YS = 9 Pa
resistance that causes higher surge pressure.
YS = 6 Pa
YS = 3 Pa
YS = 0.3 Pa
0.01
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 6. Conclusions
Pipe Velocity (m/s)
A new regression models have been developed to predict surge
Fig. 12. Surge pressure gradient vs. trip speed for fluid with different yield stress and swab pressure for yield-power law fluids. The model is
(n¼ 0.5, k¼ 0.6 Pa sn, K ¼ 0:5). developed by analyzing numerical results obtained from a theo-
retical model, which is based on the narrow-slot approximation
10.0
technique. To validate the model, experimental investigation was
conducted using different test fluids. Based on the investigation,
the following conclusions can be made:
Surge Pressure Gradient (kPa)

 The new correlation provides better prediction of surge and

swab pressures in comparison with the existing models;
 The diameter ratio, tripping speed and fluid yield stress can
increases surge pressure as high as one order of magnitude;
1.0  Increasing yield stress tends to diminish the impact of trip
velocity on the surge pressure;
 In horizontal, inclined and even vertical wells, pipe eccentri-
city can reduce significantly (up to 45%) the surge and swab
Vp = 0.1 m/s pressures; and
Vp = 0.5 m/s  The effect of gelling on surge pressure is negligible with
Vp = 0.9 m/s xanthan gum based fluids.
0.1
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Diameter Ratio

Fig. 13. Surge pressure gradient as a function of diameter ratio (n ¼0.5,

Acknowledgements
k¼ 0.6 Pa sn, t0 ¼9 Pa).
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the
In addition to the yield stress and trip speed, the diameter ratio is University of Oklahoma for support this project. Also, authors
expected to have a strong influence on downhole pressure surge. would like to thank Mr. Joe Flenniken for providing the necessary
Fig. 13 shows how the surge pressure varies with the diameter ratio technical support during the experimental investigation.
 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20 19

Appendix A. Narrow slot model formulation in dimensionless form as:

   
e2 y
V e ¼ 1p1 1y e2 b for y
e1 r yr y
e2 ðA  9Þ
The annular velocity profile (Fig. 1) in the wellbore during tripping
operations has three distinct regions: (i) outer sheared region (Region The velocity gradient is negative in Region I and it becomes
I) within the boundary limits 0ryry1 (ii); plug zone (Region II) e¼y
positive in Region III. At the edges of the plug zone (y e1 and
within the boundary limits y1 ryry2; and (iii) inner sheared region e ¼ y2 ), the local velocity Eqs. (A-5) and (A-6) should give the
y
(Region III) within the boundary limits y2 ryrH. For the sheared same value. Thus:
regions (Regions I and III), the momentum balance is expressed as    b 1
(Crespo et al., 2010; Crespo, 2011): e1 p2 b  y
1y e1  ¼0 ðA  10Þ
p1
Region I. The total annular dimensionless flow rate is the sum of the
DP
t1 ðyÞ ¼  s y þ tw ðA  1Þ flow rate in each region. Hence:
L
Z 1 Z e Z e Z 1 !
y1 y2
ea ¼
q e 1 dy
V eþ e 2 dy
V eþ e 3 dy
V e dex ðA  11Þ
0 0 e
y1 e
y2
Region III.
DP DP By substituting Eqs. (A-5, A-6, A-9) into Eq. (A-11), the
t3 ðyÞ ¼ s y s y2 þ to ðA  2Þ
L L dimensionless fluid flow rate is expressed as:
   h i
b  
e a ¼ p1
q e1 b þ 1  p1 1y
y e1 p2 b 1 1y
e1 p2
bþ1
where t1 and t3 are shear stress profiles in Regions I and III,  
1    b
respectively. tw is wall shear stress at the borehole wall. For þ p1 1p2 y e1 b þ 1 p1 ye1 p2 ðA  12Þ
bþ1
laminar flow of YPL (Herschel–Bulkley) fluids, the local shear
stress profiles in Regions I and III are related to the local shear where the dimensionless annular flow rate is defined as:
rates using the constitutive equations as: qa
 n ea ¼
q ðA  13Þ
dv WHV p
t1 ðyÞ ¼ to þk  1 ðA  3Þ
dy The annular geometry is represented by the slot geometry to
and analyze the flow problem. Slot geometric parameters W and H are
 n obtained from annular dimensions dh and dpo as follows:
dv3  
t3 ðyÞ ¼ to þk ðA  4Þ p dh dpo
dy H¼ ðA  14Þ
2
respectively. The stress distribution is function of fluid consis-  
tency index k, behavior index n and yield stress to. p dh þdpo
W¼ ðA  15Þ
The following boundary conditions are applied to obtain the 2
solutions for the model equations: (i) Region I: dv/dy¼0 at y¼y1
and v1 ¼0 at y¼ 0; and (ii) Region III: dv/dy¼0 at y¼y2 and v3 ¼vp at
References
y¼H. Combining Eq. (A-1) through Eq. (A-4) and applying the
boundary conditions, dimensionless velocity distributions in Region
Bing, Z., Kaiji, Z., Qiji, Y., 1995. Equations help calculate surge and swab pressures
I is expressed as a function of dimensionless distance from the in inclined well. Oil Gas J. 93, 74–77.
borehole wall y e. Bjørkevoll, K., Rommetveit, R., Aas, B., Gjeraldstveit, H., Merlo, A., 2003. Transient
  j   b k gel breaking model for critical wells applications with field data verification.
e1 y
V e ¼ p1 y e b y
e1 y e1 for 0 r yery e1 ðA  5Þ SPE/IADC Paper 79843 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, 19–21
February, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E. and Young, F.S. 1986. Applied
Similarly, for Region III, the dimensionless velocity profile is drilling engineering, SPE Textbook Series, vol. 2, Richardson, Texas, pp. 167-
given by: 171.
  j    k Burkhardt, J.A., 1961. Wellbore pressure surges produced by pipe movement. J.
e3 y
V e ¼ 1p1 1y e2 b  y
ey e2 b f or y
e2 r y
e r1 ðA  6Þ Pet. Technol., 595–605, June.
Chukwu, G.A. Blick, E.F., 1989. Couette flow of non-Newtonian power-law fluids,
where p1 is the dimensionless pressure defined as: In: Applied Simulation and Modeling, Anaheim, CA: Acta Press.
Clark, E., 1956. A graphic view of pressure surges and lost circulation. API Drill.
   1 Prod. Pract., 424–438.
n H DPs H n
p1 ¼ ðA  7Þ Clark, R.K. Fontenot, J.E., 1974. Field measurements of the effects of drillstring
n þ1 Vp Lk velocity, pump speed, and lost circulation material on downhole pressures,
Paper SPE-4970 presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of
The constant b is expressed as: b ¼(n þ1)/n. The dimensionless Petroleum Engineers of AIME, 6–9 October, Houston, TX.
velocity profiles in Regions I and III are defined as: V e 1 ¼ v1 =V p and Crespo, F., Ahmed, R., Saasen, A., 2010. Surge and swab pressure predictions for
e 3 ¼ v3 =V p , respectively. Dimensionless boundary limits of Region II
V yield-power-law drilling fluids, paper SPE-138938, Presented at the SPE Latin
American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 1–3 December,
e1 ¼ y1 =H and y
are: y e2 ¼ y2 =H. Similarly, dimensionless coordinates Lima, Peru.
of any point (e e) are expressed as: e
x and y e ¼ y=H, where
x ¼ x=w and y Crespo, F., 2011. Experimental Study and Modeling of Surge and Swab Pressures
H and W are the slot clearance and width, respectively. Applying for Yield-Power-Law Drilling Fluids, M.S. Thesis, The University of Oklahoma,
OK.
momentum balance in Region II, the dimensionless plug thickness Filip, P., David, J., 2003. Axial couette-poiseuille flow of power-law viscoplastic
can be obtained. fluids in concentric annuli. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 40, 111–119.
Flumerfelt, R., Pierick, M., Cooper, S., Bird, R., 1969. Generalized plane couette flow
2t0 =H of a non-Newtonian fluid. Ind. Chem. Eng. Fundam. 8 (2), 354–357. (May).
p2 ¼ ðA  8Þ
DP s =L Fontenot, J.E., Clark, R.K., 1974. An improved method for calculating swab and
surge pressures and circulating pressures in a drilling well. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
Geometric analysis shows that the dimensionless plug thickness 451–462, October.
is simply the difference between the dimensionless boundary limits. Fordham, E.J., Bittleston, S.H., Tehrani, M.A., 1991. Viscoplastic flow in centered
annuli, pipes and slots. IEC Res. 29, 517–524.
Hence: p2 ¼ y e2 y
e1 . In the plug zone (Region II), the velocity Guillot, D., 1990. Rheology of well cementing slurries. (Ed.) In: Nelson, E.B. (Ed.),
distribution is uniform (i.e., plug velocity is constant) and expressed Well Cementing, 01–37. Houston, TX, Schlumberger, pp. 4.
20 F. Crespo, R. Ahmed / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 101 (2013) 12–20
Guillot, D., Dennis, J. 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, 18–19 October, London.
Haige, W., Xisheng, L., 1996. Study on surge pressure for yield-pseudoplastic fluid
in a concentric annulus. Appl. Math. Mech. 17 (1), 15–23. (January).
Hemphil, T., Campos, W., Tehrani, M.A., 1993. Yield-power-law model accurately
predicts mud rheology. Oil Gas J. 91, 45–50.
Isambourg, P., Bertin, D., Brangetto, M., 1999. Hydraulic tests improve HPHT
drilling safety and performance. SPE Drill. Eng. J. 14 (4), 219–227.
Kelessidis, V.C., Christidis, G., Makri, P., Hadjistamou, V., Tsamantaki, C., Mihalakis,
A., Papanikolaou, C., Foscolos, A., 2007. Gelation of water-bentonite suspen-
sions at high temperatures and rheological control with lignite addition. Appl.
Clay Sci. 36, 221–231.
Kelessidis, V.C., Mihalakis, A., and Tsamantaki, C. 2005. Rheology and rheological
parameter determination of bentonite-water and bentonite-lignite-water
mixtures at low and high temperatures, In: Proceedings of the 7th World
Congress of Chem. Engg., Glasgow.
Lal, M. 1983. Surge and swab modeling for dynamic pressures and safe trip
velocities, paper SPE-11412, presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
20–23 February, New Orleans, LA.
Lin, S.H., Hsu, C.C., 1980. Generalized couette flow of a non-Newtonian fluid in
annuli. Ind. Chem. Eng. Fundam. 19 (4), 421–424.
Maglione, R., Ferrario, G., 1996. Equations determine flow states for yield-
pseudoplastic drilling dluids. Oil Gas J. 94, 63–66.
Malik, R., Shenoy, U.V., 1991. Generalized annular couette flow of a power-law
fluid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 30, 1950–1954.
Merlo, A., Maglione, R., and Piatti, C. 1995. An innovative model for drilling fluid
hydraulics, Paper SPE-29259 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conf.,
Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia.
Moore, P.L., 1965. Pressure surges and their effect on hole conditions. Oil Gas J., 90.
(13 December).
Rommetveit, R., Bjorkevoll, K., Gravdal, J., Goncalves, C., Lage, A., Campos, J.,
Aragao, A., Arcelloni, A., Ohara, S., 2005. Ultradeepwater hydraulics and well-
control tests with extensive instrumentation: field tests and data analysis. SPE
Drill. Completion, 251–257, December.
Rudolf, R., and Suryanarayana, P. 1998. Field validation of swab effects while
tripping-in the hole on deep, high temperature wells, paper SPE-39395
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas (3–6 March).
Samuel, R., Sunthankar, A., McColping, G., Bern, P., Flynn, T., 2003. Field validation
of transient swab-surge response with real-time downhole pressure data. SPE
Drill. Completion, 280–283, December.
Schlichting, H., 1955. Boundary Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 60-62.
Schuh, F.J., 1964. Computer makes surge-pressure calculations useful. Oil Gas J. 62
(31), 96–104.
Singh, A., and Samuel, R. 2009. Effect of eccentricity and rotation on annular
frictional pressure losses with standoff devices, Paper SPE-124190, presented
at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4–7 October, New Orleans,
LA.
Sorgun, M., Ozbayoglu, M., 2010. Predicting frictional pressure loss during
horizontal drilling for non-Newtonian fluids,. Energy Sources Part A 33 (7),
631–640. (December).
Wadhwa, Y.D., 1966. Generalized couette flow of an ellis fluid. AlChE J. 12 (5),
890–893.
Wagner, R.R., Halal, A.S., and Goodman, M.A. 1993. Surge field tests highlight
dynamic fluid response, Paper SPE 25771 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, 23–25 February, Amsterdam.
Ward, C., Andreassen, E., 1998. Pressure-while-drilling data improve reservoir
drilling performance. SPE Drill. Completion 13 (1), 19–24. (March).
Ward, C., Beique, M., 2000. Pore and fracture pressure information from PWD data.
AADE Drill. Technol. Forum. (February 9–12).
White, Z., Zamora, M., Svodoba, C., 1997. Downhole measurements of synthetic-
based drilling fluid in an offshore well quantify dynamic pressure and
temperature distributions. SPE Drill. Completion, 149–157, September.
Zoellner, P., Thonhauser, G., Lueftenegger, M., and Spoerker, H. 2011. Automated
real-time hydraulics monitoring. Paper SPE 140298 presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, 1–3 March, Amsterdam.