SPE 138938

Surge and Swab Pressure Predictions for Yield-Power-Law Drilling Fluids

Freddy Crespo and Ramadan Ahmed, SPE, University of Oklahoma, and Arild Saasen, SPE, Det norske oljeselskap
ASA and University of Stavanger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 1–3 December 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Surge and swab pressures have been known to cause formation fracture, lost circulation and well control problems. Accurate
prediction of these pressures is of crucial importance in terms of 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 analytical solution, which is casted into a simplified model (dimensionless correlation) to predict
pressure surge in a more convenient way. The steady state laminar flow equation is solved for narrow slot geometry to
approximate the flow in concentric annulus with inner pipe axial movement considering yield-power-law (YPL) fluid. The
YPL rheology model is usually preferred because it provides a better description of the flow behavior of most of drilling
fluids. The analytical solution yields accurate predictions, though not in convenient forms. Thus, a numerical scheme has been
developed to obtain the solutions. After conducting an extensive parametric study, dimensional analysis techniques were
applied primarily to develop a simplified model that does not require a cumbersome numerical procedure. The new model is
expressed in terms of dimensionless parameters.
The performance of the new model has been rigorously tested. Comparisons of the model predictions with previously
published results have shown a satisfactory agreement. In most cases, the model makes better predictions in terms of closeness
to relevant field measurements. That is due to the application of a more realistic rheology model. The presented model is very
useful for slim hole, deepwater and extended reach drilling applications.

1. Introduction
Wellbore hydraulics has received increased attention in the past few years as new technologies such as slim-hole and casing
drilling have emerged in the industry. Moreover, deepwater drilling presents several drilling challenges associated with
downhole pressure management due to the narrow margin between pore and fracture pressures. Quantitative characterization
of the wellbore pressures within the narrow limits is of critical importance in many phases of well construction such as
tripping, running 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 predicting accurately the
pressure losses during drilling operations. Hydraulic models to predict pressure losses while drilling and circulating drilling
fluid have been presented by several investigators (see for example Ahmed et al. 2010). However, models used to predict
downhole pressure surge/swab during tripping in or tripping out of the well have been less accurate. 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 increased drilling cost.
Pressure variation in the wellbore is 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 bottom-hole pressure. High surge pressure can lead
to lost circulation, either by sudden fracturing of the formation, or 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 fluids to enter the wellbore which
may lead to a kick and eventually a blowout. Pressure reduction due to 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 due to reciprocation, such as those made on connections may cause hole
sloughing, or other unstable hole conditions, including solids fill on bottom. Therefore, prediction of accurate surge and swab
2 SPE 138938

pressure is a pre-requisite for efficient drilling operations (Moore 1974).

Generally, pressure surge depends strongly on drillpipe tripping speed, wellbore geometry, flow regime, fluid rheology,
and whether the pipe is open or closed. Numerous studies (Moore 1965; Clark and Fontenot 1974; Lal 1984; Clark 1956) were
undertaken to investigate the effects of fluid properties and drilling parameters. The increase in surge or swab pressure is also
attributed to different flow phenomena including pipe eccentricity, geometric irregularities, acceleration and dynamic effects.
The present study analyzes the bottom-hole pressure variation resulting from the reciprocation of the drillstring using the
narrow slot model. YPL fluid is considered to flow in the slot, which is formed by a stationary wall and moving plate. Using
the conservation equations and applying the flow boundary conditions, analytical solution that constitutes a system of
nonlinear equations (Appendix A) was obtained. First, a numerical procedure (Appendix B) was established and solutions
were obtained by varying the input variables such as fluid properties, wellbore geometry and tripping speed. Second, by
applying dimensional analysis techniques, we have developed a new model (dimensionless correlation) that relates the surge
and swab pressures directly to the tripping velocity. Subsequently, the new model has been validated with existing models and
published measurements.

2. Literature Review
A number of studies (Cannon 1934; Horn 1950; Goins et al. 1951) were carried out to investigate drilling problems associated
with surge and swab pressures. All of these studies demonstrate that wellbore problems such as lost circulation, formation
fracture, fluid influx, kicks, and blowouts are connected to excessive pressure variations in the wellbore due to high tripping
speeds. Early studies (Cardwell 1953; Ormsby 1954) attempted to explain the physical causes, nature and magnitude of surge
and swab pressures. Both studies presented quantitative prediction techniques to determine these pressures for Newtonian
fluids in laminar and turbulent flow regimes. Only the pressure losses arising from the viscous drag of the moving fluid with
stationary pipe wall was taken into consideration. Another study (Clark 1955) introduced the case of a moving inner pipe
through a concentric annulus with Bingham plastic 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 predicting surge and swab
pressures in laminar and turbulent flow regimes were presented.
Burckhardt (1960) presented a semi-empirical method describing quantitatively and theoretically pressure surges for a
Bingham Plastic fluid. Results showed that pressure surges are usually high when running closed-end casing or drillpipe in the
hole. Predictions were in agreement with actual field measurements. Later, an approximate numerical model (Schuh 1964) for
a power law fluid was developed. Both approaches (Burckhardt 1960; 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; Burckhardt 1960; Schuh 1964) were implemented in a computer program to investigate the effects of different
parameters including mud properties, closed and open-ended pipe, well geometries, tool joints, drillpipe rubbers, and bit
nozzles. As reported by Clark and Fontenot (1974), results were in good agreement with field measurements
During the last couple of decades, unsteady-state (transient) models have been developed (Lal 1983; Bing et al. 1995;
Wang and Chukwu 1996) to determine bottom-hole pressure fluctuations while tripping. These models account for pipe
acceleration which is a real-life situation in drilling operations. In addition to the transient 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 (Robello 2003). The model has been extensively validated against field data (Wagner et al.
1993; Robello et al. 2001; Rommetveit et al. 2004). A recently numerical study (Hussain and Sharif 2009) indicated the
reduction of surge pressure with the increase in eccentricity. 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 classified into two categories: i) approximate; and ii) exact
methods. Exact hydraulic analysis of annular flow with axial motion of the inner pipe have 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 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 (Macsporran 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 power-law 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.
SPE 138938 3

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; Guillot 1990;
Bourgoyne et al. 1991; Chukwu and Blick 1989; Kelessidis et al. 2008). Newtonian slot flow between two parallel plates, one
moving at a constant velocity while the other is fixed, was carried out by Schlichting (1955). A complete solution for case of
Ellis fluid flow was presented by Wadhwa (1966). Another study (Flumerfelt et al. 1969) presented both tabular and graphical
solutions for the steady-state laminar flow of power-law fluid and developed dimensionless correlations for general use. After
obtaining an analytical solution for power law fluid, Chukwu and Blick (1989) presented a family of curves to calculate
pressure variations in the wellbore.
The YPL model, which is a non-linear three parameters constitutive equation, best fits the rheological properties of most
of drilling fluids and aqueous clay slurries (Fordham et al. 1996; Hemphil et al. 1993; Merlo et al. 1995; Maglione and
Ferrario 1996; Kelessidis et al. 2005; Kelessidis et al. 2006). A semi-empirical 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.

3. Theoretical Formulation
In order to simplify the mathematical analysis, the concentric annulus is represented by an equivalent narrow slot (Fig. 1). The
top plate is moving with a constant velocity Vp and the lower plate is stationary. The flow is induced by the axial motion of the
drillpipe as it displaces the fluid trapped in the wellbore and deforms it simultaneously. The following assumptions are made
in the formulation of the model:
• The fluid is incompressible (mass and density of the fluid is constant);
• Steady-state, one dimensional flow takes place;
• The flow regime is considered laminar and fully developed;
• The flow is isothermal and rheological properties are constant;
• The moving plate travels with a constant velocity Vp; and
• No slip conditions at the walls.
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 and outer sheared region flows downward.
Some part of the fluid in the inner sheared region (i.e. the region 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. Detailed mathematical derivations of the slot model are presented in the Appendix A. In an
effort to develop a simple and generalized solution, dimensionless parameters are introduced. Exact solutions were obtained by
plotting the dimensionless parameters as a family of curves using the algorithm presented in the Appendix B.

Fig. 1 Slot model representation of a concentric annulus

4. Dimensional Analysis
The procedure that involves graphic techniques, presented in Appendix B, yields exact solutions for the slot model, though not
in convenient forms. The method requires plotting dimensionless parameters for a given problem and determines the solution.
This procedure is time consuming. Hence, instead of this method, solutions were obtained numerically by varying the pressure
gradient until the dimensionless flow rate equation is satisfied. Extensive numerical solutions were obtained varying pipe
velocity, fluid properties, and wellbore geometry. Then, to develop a simple model (correlation), dimensional analysis was
carried out using the numerically obtained results. The new model predicts surge or swab pressure conveniently for YPL fluids
without requiring iterative procedure. The model equation for power-law and Bingham plastic fluids is expressed as:

Φ
=  × Φ  × Φ × (Φ  + ) × Φ  …………………..………………………………………………………. (1)

And for any fluid with yield stress, the model equation is given as:

Φ
=  × Φ  × Φ × Φ × (Φ + ) ……………………………………………………………………..……. (2)

4 SPE 138938

where the dimensionless parameters are defined as:


  ∆
Φ
=      ∆
…...………………………...………………..………….……...…………………..…….……..….... (3)


 !  "#!
Φ = $% 
…...………………………...………………….….……………..…………..………………….…..….... (4)

&
Φ = 
…...………………………...…………………….….………………..……..………..…….……………..…...... (5)


 '(
Φ  =   
…...………………………...………………….…………….…..………………..……..…………..…..... (6)


Φ = ) …...………………………...…………………….……………………….……………….…..…………..…...… (7)

* is the consistency index. +, and ) are the yield stress, and fluid behavior index, respectively. All dimensional variables must
be in SI or consistent field unit. The unit conversion constant -. = 32.2 234 · 67/236 · 9  for consistent field unit; and it is
unity when SI unit is used. The correlation constants (Table 1) were obtained after performing regression analysis using the
data generated from the narrow slot model. Equations (1) and (2) are valid for fluids that are commonly used in the drilling
industry. However, Eqn. (2) cannot be used for power-law fluid. For Bingham plastic fluids, the surge and swab pressures can
be predicted using Eqn. (1) or Eqn. (2). However, Eqn. (1) predicts these pressures more accurately that Eqn. (2). In order to
determine the surge pressure gradient ∆P⁄∆L, first the dimensionless parameters Φ , Φ , Φ and Φ should be determined.
Then, using Eqn. (1) or (2) and Eqn. (3) the values of Φ
and ∆P⁄∆L are determine consecutively.

Table 1 Correlation Constants for Different Rheological Models

Fluid Rheological Model A B C D E F
Power-Law 0.2670 -0.0680 1.497 0.001 -0.032 0.702
Bingham Plastic 0.0405 0.0014 1.842 3.900 0.919 -4.076
Yield-Power-Law 0.3510 0.0960 2.403 0.833 1.806 -4.106

5. Model Validation
To evaluate the performance of the new model, its predictions have been compared with the results (both theoretical and
measured) of previously published studies. Two different annular geometries (Bourgoyne et al. 1983; Chukwu 1989) and
various non-Newtonian fluids with a wide range of rheological properties (Table 2) were considered. For the case of PL fluids,
surge pressures were calculated with an approximate numerical code (Schuh 1964) that was validated by direct comparison
with field data (Fontenot and Clark 1974). The new model predictions show excellent agreement with numerical results. Most
of the predictions (Fig. 2) are between =10% error bars.

300 300
Fluid A1
Surge Pressure New Model (psi)

Schuh, 1964
Fluid A2 New Model
250 250 Slot Flow Model
Fluid A3 10%
Surge Pressure (psi)

Fluid A4
200 Fluid B1 200
Fluid B2 10%
150 Fluid B3 150
Fluid B4
100 100 * = 0.42 236. 9BC  /100 67 
) = 0.77
50 50 EF/EG = 0.56
EF/EG = (0.5 7K 0.75)
BF7G = 10,000 67
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 5
Surge Pressure Schuh’s model (psi) Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

(a) (b)

Fig. 2 Comparison of the new model with Schuh’s model (1964) for: a) Different PL fluids; and b) Various pipe speeds
SPE 138938 5

Additionally, model validations (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) have been carried out for the case of BP and YPL fluids using semi-
empirical models (Burkhardt 1961; Osorio and Steffe 1991). It is important to note that the predictions of the semi-empirical
model were verified using field and laboratory measurements. Most of the predictions (Fig. 3a) of the new model are between
=10% error bars, demonstrating excellent agreement with Burkhardt’s method for BP fluids. The model also show good
agreement (Fig. 4) with Osorio and Steffe solution (1991), which is based on measurements, obtained from the back extrusion
experiment that has a similar flow condition as the current problem with YPL fluids.

600 800
Swab Pressure New Model (psi)

Fluid E1 Burkhardt, 1961

500 Fluid E2 10% 700 Slot Flow
New Model
Model
Fluid E3

Swab Pressure (psi)

400 Fluid E4 600
Fluid E5 10%
300 Fluid E6 500

200 400 MN = 60 CF
OM = 10 236/100 67 
100 300 EF/EG = (0.57 P 0.79)
EF/EG = (0.5 7K 0.79) BF7G = 15,000 67
0 200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1 2 3 4 5
Swab Pressure Burkhardt's Model (psi) Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 Comparison the new model Burkhardt’s model (1961) for different: a) BP fluids, and b) Pipe speeds

2.4
Osorio and Steffe, 1991
New Model
2.0
Pressure Drop (psi)

1.6

1.2
) = 0.5
0.8 * = 56.4 236. 9BC  /100 67 
EF/EG = 0.703
0.4
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)

Fig. 4 Comparison of the new model with Back Extrusion Model (Osorio and Steffe, 1991) for YPL Fluids

To further asses the performance of the new model, 600

comparisons were made between model predictions and field Fontenot and Clark, 1974 +15%
Measured Surge Pressure (psi)

500
measurements (Clark and Fontenot 1974) for the case of PL
fluids. Results (Fig. 5) show good agreement between both 400
predicted and measured data. Discrepancies between -15%
compared values could be due to other dynamic effects and 300
geometric irregularities that are not taken into account in the
present study. Pipe eccentricity and tool-joints can have 200
substantial influence on the surge and swab pressures.
Eccentricity is expected to reduce these pressures while tool- 100
joints enhance the piston effect of the drillstring and tends to 0
increase downhole pressure variations resulting from the
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
axial movement of the string.
Predicted Surge Pressure (psi)
6. Parametric Study
The relationship between pressure surges and pipe velocities Fig. 5 Comparison of predictions of the new model with field
depends on a number of drilling parameters including fluid measurements (Fontenot and Clark, 1974)
6 SPE 138938

rheology and borehole geometry. After validating the model, 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 considering a set of
field data (White and Zamora 2007) as the base case input. Figure 6 presents predictions of the new model showing the effect
of yield stress on pressure surges. As anticipated, at high yield stress values, the pressures become very high and the influence
of pipe velocity diminishes.

The diameter ratio dp/dh is expected to have a stronger 1000

) = 0.73
influence on pressure surges. Predictions shown in Fig. 7 * = 0.0057 236. 9BC  /67 
EF/EG = 0.42
indicate that surge and swab pressures become higher when BF7G = 12,440 67

Surge Pressure (psi)

the annular clearance gets smaller. Moreover, at high
diameter ratios these pressures become more sensitive to the
increase of both pipe velocity and diameter ratio indicating 100
the severity of the reciprocation of the drilling string with
small annular clearance such as in the case of casing drilling. τ₀= 0 lfb/100 ft²
τ₀= 5 lfb/100 ft²
τ₀= 10 lfb/100 ft²
7. Discussions
τ₀= 20 lfb/100 ft²
Surge and swab pressures are strongly affected by the flow τ₀= 30 lfb/100 ft²
behavior of the drilling fluid. The YPL rheology model 10
describes the flow properties of most of drilling fluid better 1 2 3 4 5
than other commonly used models such as power-law and Pipe Velocity (ft/sec)
Bingham plastic constitutive equations. Especially, at low
shear rates (i.e. low trip speeds), the discrepancies between Fig. 6 Surge pressures vs. tripping speed for fluid with
the predictions of these models would become substantial different yield stresses
and the use of YPL model results in relatively accurate
predictions. In addition to fluid flow properties, bottom-hole 1000
Vp = 1.0 ft/sec
pressure variations during tripping strongly depend on the
Vp = 2.0 ft/sec
borehole geometry, particularly the diameter ratio or annular Vp = 3.0 ft/sec
Surge Pressure (psi)

clearance. High diameter ratios (i.e. low annular clearances) Vp = 4.0 ft/sec
make the pressure variations very sensitive to the change in
tripping speed. Beside this, for horizontal and inclined wells, 100
eccentricity of the drillpipe and thickness of the cuttings bed
need to be considered in the analysis to optimize the trip ) = 0.73
+, = 0.0664 236/67 
speed. Unnecessarily low tripping speeds result in high non- * = 0.0057 236. 9BC  /67 
productive time and drilling cost. EF/EG = 0.42
BF7G = 12,440 67
This analysis is based on steady state flow assumption;
hence, the surge and swab pressure predictions are only valid 10
when the tripping speed remains constant. During the starting 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
and ending periods of the trip, transient flow (dynamic) Diameter Ratio (dp/dh)
models should be used to estimate pressure spikes resulting
from drillstring acceleration. A complete dynamic modeling Fig. 7 Surge pressure vs. diameter ratio for different
should include drillstring elongation caused by axial loading, tripping speeds
drilling fluid and formation compressibilities, and other
mechanisms such as wellbore ballooning that may have some influence on the bottom-hole pressure response of the wellbore
during tripping operations.

8. Conclusions
This article presents a new model to calculate surge/swab pressure in the wellbore with YPL fluid. The analytical solution of
the model is presented in form of a dimensionless correlation. The predictions of the new model have been analyzed and
validated using previously published models, and field and lab measurements. Based on our analysis, we can conclude that:

• A new model predicts the surge/swab pressure more accurate than the existing models that are developed for power-
law and Bingham Plastic rheology models;
• Yield stress, diameter ratio and pipe velocity have substantial effects on surge & swab pressures;
• For fluids with high yield stress the influence of trip speed diminishes considerably;
• The model is based on the narrow slot approximation; therefore, it is expected to give reasonable predictions when
the diameter ratio is greater than 0.3.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the University of Oklahoma, the OGS Core and Cuttings Research Center
and Det norske oljeselskap ASA for their support.
SPE 138938 7

Nomenclature Greek Letters

A, B, C, D = Model parameters α = Dimensional parameter
b = Constant β = Dimensional parameter
dW = Pipe diameter Φ = Dimensioless group
dX = Hole/Casing diameter π = Pi
H = Slot Thickness π
= Dimensionless pressure
k = Consistency Index π = Dimensionless plug thickness
L = length of the wellbore τ = Shear stress
n = Behavior index τp = Shear stress at the wall
q = Flow rate τ, = Yield stress
qr
qf = Total flow rate = Shear rate
qs
V
= Fluid velocity in region I
∆L = Slot length
V = Fluid velocity in region II
∆Pt = Surge/Swab pressure
V = Fluid velocity in region III
VW = Pipe velocity
Subscripts
h

V = Dimensionless velocity of I h = Hole
h
V = Dimensionless velocity of II p = Pipe
h
V = Dimensionless velocity of III 1, 2, 3 = Flow Regions
W = Slot width t = Total
y
= Lower limit of region II
y = Upper limit of region II
yk
= Dimensionless lower limit of II
yk = Dimensionless upper limit of II

References
Ahmed, R., Enfis, M., Miftah-El-Kheir, H., Laget, M, and Saasen, A., 2010, The Effect of Drillstring Rotation on Equivalent Circulation
Density: Modeling and Analysis of Field Measurements”, paper SPE 135587 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September.
Bing, Z., Kaiji, Z., and Qiji, Y. 1995. Equations Help Calculate Surge and Swab Pressures in Inclined Well, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 93, pp
74-77 (18 September).
Bourgoyne, A. T. 1986. Applied Drilling Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2, Richardson, Texas, pp. 167-171.
Burkhardt, J. A. 1961. Wellbore Pressure Surges Produced by Pipe Movement, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp 595-605 (June).
Cannon, G. E. 1934. Changes in Hydrostatic Pressure due to Withdrawing Drillpipe from the Hole, API Drilling and Production Practices,
pp 42-47.
Cardwell, W. T. 1953. Pressure Changes in Drilling Wells Caused by Pipe Movement, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 97-112.
Chukwu, G. A. and Blick, E. F. 1989. Couette Flow of Non-Newtonian Power-Law Fluids, Applied Simulation & Modeling, Acta Press,
Anaheim, California (13-15 November).
Clark, E. H. 1955. Bottom-Hole Pressure Surges while Running Pipes, Petroleum Engineer International, pp 68-96.
Clark, E. H. 1956. A Graphic View of Pressure Surges and Lost Circulation, API Drilling & Production Practices, pp 424-438.
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, SPE Paper 4970 presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Houston, Texas (6-9 October).
Filip, P. and David, J. 2003. Axial Couette-Poiseuille flow of Power-Law Viscoplastic Fluids in Concentric Annuli, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, Vol. 40, pp. 111 – 119.
Flumerfelt, R. W., Pierick, M. W., Cooper, S. L. and Bird, R. B. 1969. Generalized Plane Couette Flow of a non-Newtonian Fluid, Industrial
and Chemical Engineering Fundamentals, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 354-357 (May).
Goins, W. C., Weichhert, J. P., Burba, J. L., Dawson, D. D., and Teplitz, A. J. 1951. Down-the-Hole Pressure Surges and their Effect on
Loss of Circulation, API Drilling and Production Practices, pp 125-132.
Haige, W. and Xisheng, L. 1996. Study on Surge Pressure for Yield-Pseudoplastic Fluid in a Concentric Annulus, Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp 15-23 (January).
Hemphil, T., Campos, W. and Tehrani, M. A. 1993. Yield-Power-Law Model Accurately Predicts Mud Rheology, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol.
91, pp 45–50.
Horn, A. J. 1950. Well Blowouts in California Drilling Operations, Causes and Suggestions for Prevention, API Drilling and Production
Practices, pp 112-128.
Hussain, Q. E. and Sharif M. A. R. 2009. Viscoplastic fluid flow in irregular eccentric annuli due to axial motion of the inner pipe, The
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 75, issue 6, pp. 1038–1045.
Fontenot, J. E., and Clark, R. K. 1974. An Improved Method for Calculating Swab and Surge Pressures and Circulating Pressures in a
Drilling Well. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, pp 451-462 (October).
Fordham, E. J., Bittleston, S. H., and Tehrani, M. A. 1991. Viscoplastic Flow in Centered Annuli, Pipes and Slots, IEC Research, Vol. 29, pp
517-524.
Kelessidis, V. C., Christidis, G., Makri, P., Hadjistamou, V., Tsamantaki, C., Mihalakis, A., Papanikolaou, C., and Foscolos, A. 2007.
Gelation of Water-Bentonite Suspensions at High Temperatures and Rheological Control with Lignite Addition, Applied Clay Science,
Vol. 36, pp 221–231.
8 SPE 138938

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, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering,
Glasgow.
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).
Lal, M. 1984. Analysis of Factors Affecting Surge and Swab Pressures, SPE Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas.
Lin, S. H., and Hsu, C. C. 1980. Generalized Couette Flow of a Non-Newtonian Fluid in Annuli, Industrial & Chemical Engineering
Fundamentals, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp 421-424.Lubinski, A., Hsu, F. H., and Nolte, K. G. 1977. Transient Pressure Surges Due to Pipe
Movement in an Oil Well, Fevue de l’Institut Francais du Petrole, (May-June).
Maglione, R., and Ferrario, G. 1996. Equations Determine Flow States for Yield-Pseudoplastic Drilling Fluids, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 94,
pp 63–66.
Malik, R., and Shenoy, U. V. 1991. Generalized Annular Couette Flow of a Power-Law Fluid, Industrial and Engineering Chemical
Research, Vol. 30, pp 1950-1954.
Mitchell, R. F. 1988. Dynamic Surge/Swab Pressure Predictions, SPE Drilling Engineering Journal, pp 325-333 (September).
Moore, P. L. 1965. Pressure Surges and their Effect on Hole Conditions, Oil and Gas Journal, pp 90 (13 December).
Moore, P. L. 1974. Drilling Practices Manual, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, pp 241-252.
Ormsby, G. S. 1954. Calculation and Control of Mud Pressures in Drilling and Completion Operations, API Drilling and Production
Practices, pp 44-55.
Osorio, F. A. and Steffe, J. F. 1991. Evaluating Herschel-Bulkley Fluids with Back Extrusion (Annular Pumping) Technique, Rheological
Acta, Vol. 30, pp 549-558.
Robello, G., Sunthankar, A., McColping, G., Bern, P., and Flynn, T. 2003. Field Validation of Transient Swab-Surge Response with Real-
Time Downhole Pressure Data, SPE Drilling & Completion, pp 280-283 (December).
Rommetveit, R., Bjorkevoll, K. S., Gravdal, J. E., Goncalves, C. J. C., Lage, A. C., Campos, J., Aragao, A., Arcelloni, A., and Ohara, S.
2005. Ultradeepwater Hydraulics and Well-Control Tests with Extensive Instrumentation: Field Tests and Data Analysis, SPE Drilling
and Completion, pp 251-257 (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 Journal, Vol. 62, No. 31, pp 96-104.
Wadhwa, Y. D. 1966. Generalized Couette Flow of an Ellis Fluid, A.ICh.E. Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp 890-893.
Wagner R. R., Halal, A. S., and Goodman, M. A. 1993. Surge Field Tests Highlight Dynamic Fluid Response, SPE Paper 25771 presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam (23-25 February).
Yuan, W. and Chukwu, G. A. 1996. Unsteady Axial Laminar Couette Flow of Power-Law Fluids in a Concentric Annulus, Industrial &
Engineering Chemical Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp 2039-2047.

Tables
Table 2 Rheological of parameters fluids used in the evaluation of the new model
Fluid Type Test Fluid vw , lbf/ft2 x, lbfsn /100 ft2 y
Power Law A1 0.00 4.38 0.38
Power Law A2 0.00 1.74 0.53
Power Law A3 0.00 1.74 0.56
Power Law A4 0.00 1.93 0.52
Power Law B1 0.00 1.37 0.36
Power Law B2 0.00 0.52 0.61
Power Law B3 0.00 0.73 0.59
Power Law B4 0.00 0.78 0.59
Bingham Plastic E1 0.34 0.20 1.00
Bingham Plastic E2 0.10 0.13 1.00
Bingham Plastic E3 0.06 0.10 1.00
Bingham Plastic E4 0.22 0.16 1.00
Bingham Plastic E5 0.04 0.09 1.00
Bingham Plastic E6 0.20 0.05 1.00
Yield Power Law C1 0.19 8.00 0.35
Yield Power Law C2 0.22 2.03 0.53
Yield Power Law C3 0.23 2.18 0.52
Yield Power Law C4 0.15 3.56 0.44
Yield Power Law D1 0.13 2.84 0.43
Yield Power Law D2 0.10 0.71 0.58
Yield Power Law D3 0.10 0.82 0.52
Yield Power Law D4 0.06 1.54 0.48
SPE 138938 9

Appendix A. Slot Flow Model Formulation

The annular velocity profile (Fig. 1) in the wellbore during tripping operations has three distinct regions. i) outer sheared
region (Region I) within the boundary limits 0 ≤ y ≤ y
; ii) plug zone (Region II) within the boundary limits y
≤ y ≤ y and,
iii) inner sheared region (Region III) within the boundary limits y ≤ y ≤ H. For the sheared regions I and III, the momentum
balance is expressed as:

Region I:

∆
+
= P | + +} ……………….………………………………...………….……………….……...………............… (A-1)
∆

Region III:

∆ ∆
+ = |P | + +, …………….……………………………………....………………………...………....……… (A-2)
∆ ∆

where +} is wall shear stress, which is the average of the wall shear stresses acting on the inner and outer walls. For the YPL
(Herschel-Bulkley) fluid, the local shear stresses in Regions I and III are related to the local shear rates using the constitutive
equation as:

~ 
+
= +, + * P ~€  ….…………………………...…………………………...……………………….………..…… (A-3)

and

~ 
+ = +, + *   ….…………………………..……………………………...………………………...…...………... (A-4)
~€

respectively, where k and n are consistency index and fluid behavior index. Combining Eqn. (A-1) through Eqn. (A-4), the
following dimensionless velocity distributions can be obtained.

For Region I:

N
= ‚
ƒ(|k
P |k)„ P (|k
)„ … ; 0 ≤ |k ≤ |k
….………………………………...………………………...…...… (A-5)

For Region III:

N = 1 P ‚
ƒ(1 P |k )„ P (|k P |k )„ … ; |k ≤ |k ≤ 1 …….……………………...…...……………...……...…...… (A-6)

where
‡
  ∆  !
π
= †
   ∆  …...…………………………...………………….………………………..…………..…...… (A-7)


and
†
  €‡ €"
3= 
; N
= ‡ ; N = " ; |k
= 
; |k = 
…….………………………...………………...… (A-8)
 

The width of the slot is expressed in dimensionless form as:

‰
ˆ = .………………………...……………………………………...……….....................................................… (A-9)
&

The following boundary conditions have been applied:

~
=0 Š7 | = |
…….……………...………..……………………………………….………...………..…...… (A-10)
~€

N = N‹ Š7 | = Œ …….………..…..…………...…………………………………..….…………...……..…...… (A-11)
10 SPE 138938

For the Region II, the dimensionless thickness of the plug is given using the dimensionless distance from the wall as:

'( /
|k P |k
= π = ∆/
…….………………...……….…..………………….………………………..……………..… (A-12)

In the plug zone (Region II), the velocity distribution is uniform (i.e. plug velocity is constant) and expressed in dimensionless
form as:

N = 1 P ‚
(1 P |k )„ ; |k
≤ |k ≤ |k …....…………………....……………………………………………… (A-13)

The shear rate is negative in the Region I and positive in the Region III. At the edges of the plug zone (|k = |k
and |k = |k ), the
local velocity Eqns. (A-5) and (A-6) should give the same value. Thus:


(1 P |k
P ‚ )„ P (|k
)„ P = 0 …….…………………...…..…………………….………………..……..……..… (A-14)
‡

The total dimensionless flow rate is the sum of the flow rate in each region. Hence:

€k €k

Žk = , , ‡ N
E|k + €k " N E|k + €k N E|k Eˆ …….……..…………………………………...……..……..… (A-15)
‡ "

By substituting Eqns. (A-5), (A-6) and (A-13) into Eq. (A-15), the dimensionless fluid flow rate is expressed as:

„

Žk = P‚
‘„†
 |k
„†
’ P ƒ‚
(1 P |k
P ‚ )„ P 1… ƒ1 P |k
P ‚ … + ‚
„†
 (1 P ‚ P |k
)„†
P ‚
(|k
)„ ‚ ....... (A-16)

where the dimensionless fluid flow rate is:

“”
Žk = …………………………...………………...………...……....………………….…………..…………..… (A-17)
&

Annular geometry is assumed to be represented by the slot geometry to represent this wellbore problem. Slot geometry
parameters • and Œ are converted to annular geometry dimensions E– and E‹ as follows:

—~˜“~ ™
Œ= …………………………...……………...……...….……………...…………….……………...……..… (A-18)



• = —E– + E‹ ™ ………………………..….………...…...………………...…………….………………..……...… (A-19)


For a closed-pipe condition, the actual fluid flow rate in annular geometry is equal to the rate at which fluid is being displaced
by running the drillpipe into the wellbore. Hence, the flow is expressed as:

Ž = (‚/4)E‹  N‹ ………………………...…………………...………………...………………….…………….....… (A-20)

Subsequently, substituting Eqns. (A-18), (A-19) and (A-20) into Eqn. (A-17), the dimensionless flow rate is calculated as:


Žk = š "
………..………………...……………….………………...………………….………………..……...… (A-21)
 ˜  “

š

Appendix B. Exact Solution Algorithm

A simplified computational procedure has been developed to obtain the exact solution to the analytical model. The procedure
requires the mud rheology, wellbore geometry and pipe velocity as input parameters. To apply the procedure, first Eqn. (A-14)
is expressed in this form:

' „

1 P |k
P ∆/
(
 P (|k
)„ P ! œ ∆ž œ ‡/!
= 0 …...………….………...………………………...………...……… (B-1)
   
!›‡  Ÿ 

Grouping the constants

¡ = 2+, ...………….………...………………………...………..………………………...…………...………..……… (B-2)

SPE 138938 11

 
/
¢=  (Œ)   ..………………………...……….…………...………………………………..………..……… (B-3)
†


Then, Eqn. (B-1) can be expressed as:

£ „

1 P |k
P  P (|k
)„ P ¤ ∆ž ‡/!
= 0 ...…………….…….………...………………………...………...……… (B-4)
∆/∆
 
 ∆Ÿ

The following procedure is followed to determine the surge and swab pressures:

1. The parameters ¡ and ¢ are calculated for a specific geometry and fluid rheology.
2. The value of |k
is determined by solving Eqn. (B-4) by iteration or by using the modified Newton-Raphson numerical
technique for all combinations of ∆M/∆¥ and N‹ .
3. Substituting the obtained values of |k
into Eq. (A-16), the dimensionless fluid flow rates Žk are obtained for different
values of N‹ .
4. A characteristic curve plot of ∆M/∆¥ versus Žk is prepared for different values of N‹ .
5. From Eqn. (A-21), the total dimensionless fluid flow rate Žk is obtained.
6. Using the value of Žk from the Step 5 as an input parameter, and from the plot of ∆M/∆¥, the corresponding value of
∆M/∆¥ at a given N‹ is obtained.
7. Then, the following Eq. is used to calculate the surge or swab pressure as:

∆M¦ = (∆M/∆¥) ∗ ¥ ……………...…….………...…….…….……..…………………………...………...……… (B-5)